BHsigh Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Thanks for the lesson in what love "means" for psychologists, but I think your definition falls short on something. If we go with the 3 ingredients theory, then we have to take what some have done with that idea, for example Robert Sternberg, and we have to imagine that these three ingredients may or may not exist in any one person may or may not exist in equal quantities/qualities may exist in different quantities/qualities over the span of a relationship may or may not be required by the other, at the same time they are being offered, of the same quality required by the other etc. etc. Imagine a truly loving Spouse. She has been "depositing" (for arguments sake) equal and high "quality" amounts of intimacy, passion, and committment in here relationship with her husband. He is a happy man. 17 years later, intimacy is more or less a given, commitment is never better, and passion, well, when it happens, its great. She starts to get attracted to a co-worker who suddenly sees her as interesting because of some not so important thing that goes on there and suddenly she is having lunches and coffees and talking with a guy who is feeding her with doses of his intimacy... So she begins to withdraw ever so slightly her "daily deposits" of intimacy that she saved exclusively for her husband. Push comes to shove, they land in a full blown affair, and she no longer shows she is capable of meeting your 3 requisites for love. She has placed it outside the marriage and is only doing the minimum necessary to keep things at home appear like the marriage still has commitment, some passion, and a little intimacy on the side. I think we can see that just naming three ingredients of love doesn't help us to understand the dynamics, the changing ratios, the shifting desires and needs in a marriage for EACH and between and among the 2. There are just too many variables and some of them can be switched on and off like a light switch, making it impossible to say IF someone WAS in LOVE, still IS in love but unable to show or express it, or has SHIFTED their LOVE, or has DIVIDED their love across two relationships. You are correct of course, I never argued that all three parts of love were the same for everyone, and were in constant vaules. I should have expanded on the last part where I said that in OP's husbands mind he may still be commited, so we are in agreement. And while I do respect your side in this, and you make a lot of sense, my whole point was to show why some people will say that a WS does not love their BS, at least during the affair. Because to me personally, without the commitment, there is no true love. And that has nothing to do with being a BS as you stated, that has always been how I felt. 1
BHsigh Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 She starts to get attracted to a co-worker who suddenly sees her as interesting because of some not so important thing that goes on there and suddenly she is having lunches and coffees and talking with a guy who is feeding her with doses of his intimacy... So she begins to withdraw ever so slightly her "daily deposits" of intimacy that she saved exclusively for her husband. Push comes to shove, they land in a full blown affair, and she no longer shows she is capable of meeting your 3 requisites for love. She has placed it outside the marriage and is only doing the minimum necessary to keep things at home appear like the marriage still has commitment, some passion, and a little intimacy on the side. Oh, and I don't know if you meant this, but your description here proves my entire point.
gettingstronger Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 Because to me personally, without the commitment, there is no true love. And that has nothing to do with being a BS as you stated, that has always been how I felt. Me too- I do not need to think or be convinced that my husband loved me while he was having an affair- as a matter of fact, I hate when he says that because I think, well, thats a warped sense of love and I want no part of that-it is possible to love no one but yourself for a period of time- reconciliation is not about proving who he loved during the affair-its about us loving each other enough now to work on our marriage and give it a fair shot- 3
fellini Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) It's because, trying to keep this short, I think there are at least three issues that I feel are silent in this discussion of "true love" 1) "True love" whatever that is, seems to me to be something even bigger than the triangle of ingredients of love. As though there is a 100% love and we could measure this. I do not think we can, and I think for example, that someone can be massively in love with someone (at least have the sensation) in the early stages of a relationship, or be massively in love with someone across the ocean (as was my case 18 years ago with my present wife) and let's face it, commitment is not necessarily high in the ingredient there - we were both equally exploring the possibilities ... Im not into measuring love gigabytes but I think you get my point. 2) What is missing from the clinical definition of love. For me, for one, an absolute must: MEMORY/MEMORIES. I think the contribution of these can be extremely important in cementing the other three. Without memory of our partner, we have nothing. But more than just "having" memories, Im talking about the kinds and the ways these memories are associated with other ingredients so as to form stronger feelings of authenticity. 3) The enormously powerful capacity of the human brain to shut down certain pain/pleasure receptors in moments of crises. I believe that many a WS does this at least in the early stages of an EA/PA that catches them completely off guard. Some people like to call it compartmentalizing, but I think there is more to it than that. I would entertain that the brain and the emotional center of the person is capable of completely avoiding engagement with previous emotional sensations of a primary partner while fully engaging the AP. We know that people who are suffering PTSD or a massive loss in their lives of a really important loved one (loss of a child, for example) can temporarily (and permanently) block all of these ingredients you call love. To say that they do not "love" at this point is a little unfair. More fair would be to say they are not ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE their love. Before the BS police hit this thread, I am not saying these are excuses the WS has in order to justify an A. I am saying that I find it reasonable to imagine: a) a WS can still be in love with his/her primary partner (although does not show it, will not show it, fakes showing it) because post DDay reveals there was still something there, intact. b) that it is possible to love more than one person at the same time. c) that although for the BS love is a huge issue, esp. the WS's love for the BS, it's possible to imagine that love is NOT the reason for the affair. d) I pray that there is more to love than just those 3 clinical points, that each of us has the freedom to negotiate our love for/with others in ways don't always satisfy psychologists who are fond of measurables and empirical evidence. e) that none of us needs to feel compelled to live up to a scientific definition of "true love" because it's incredibly limited considering the enormous capacities of humans to engage in complex lives with significant others. Oh, and I don't know if you meant this, but your description here proves my entire point. Edited April 10, 2014 by fellini
BHsigh Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 It's because, trying to keep this short, I think there are at least three issues that I feel are silent in this discussion of "true love" 1) "True love" whatever that is, seems to me to be something even bigger than the triangle of ingredients of love. As though there is a 100% love and we could measure this. I do not think we can, and I think for example, that someone can be massively in love with someone (at least have the sensation) in the early stages of a relationship, or be massively in love with someone across the ocean (as was my case 18 years ago with my present wife) and let's face it, commitment is not necessarily high in the ingredient there - we were both equally exploring the possibilities ... Im not into measuring love gigabytes but I think you get my point. 2) What is missing from the clinical definition of love. For me, for one, an absolute must: MEMORY/MEMORIES. I think the contribution of these can be extremely important in cementing the other three. Without memory of our partner, we have nothing. But more than just "having" memories, Im talking about the kinds and the ways these memories are associated with other ingredients so as to form stronger feelings of authenticity. 3) The enormously powerful capacity of the human brain to shut down certain pain/pleasure receptors in moments of crises. I believe that many a WS does this at least in the early stages of an EA/PA that catches them completely off guard. Some people like to call it compartmentalizing, but I think there is more to it than that. I would entertain that the brain and the emotional center of the person is capable of completely avoiding engagement with previous emotional sensations of a primary partner while fully engaging the AP. We know that people who are suffering PTSD or a massive loss in their lives of a really important loved one (loss of a child, for example) can temporarily (and permanently) block all of these ingredients you call love. To say that they do not "love" at this point is a little unfair. More fair would be to say they are not ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE their love. Before the BS police hit this thread, I am not saying these are excuses the WS has in order to justify an A. I am saying that I find it reasonable to imagine: a) a WS can still be in love with his/her primary partner (although does not show it, will not show it, fakes showing it) because post DDay reveals there was still something there, intact. b) that it is possible to love more than one person at the same time. c) that although for the BS love is a huge issue, esp. the WS's love for the BS, it's possible to imagine that love is NOT the reason for the affair. d) I pray that there is more to love than just those 3 clinical points, that each of us has the freedom to negotiate our love for/with others in ways don't always satisfy psychologists who are fond of measurables and empirical evidence. e) that none of us needs to feel compelled to live up to a scientific definition of "true love" because it's incredibly limited considering the enormous capacities of humans to engage in complex lives with significant others. I think that you're reading far too much into the three aspects of love that I listed, they are not all emcompassing, they are merely definitions of the different aspects and can cover a wide variety of situations. For instance, the commitment aspect (I chose this one because it is generally the center point in this forum). For most people, commitment is short an sweet, one partner throughout the marriage, and that's it. For others, such as people that are in an open marriage, commitment can be considered being open and honest, and any of the other boundaries that they have in place to protect their feelings. Once those boundaries are crossed, even though they may allow sex with another person, commitment is broken. All that I was pointing out, was that without commitment (which is an actionable love), that there is no true marital love. This is generally true for most people. Some people may feel differently of course. But I'm repeating myself, I do not think that you are wrong, but apparently you think that I am, just because I'm a BS. But I'll agree to disagree and just drop it right here, we're getting no where, and I feel that it's becoming a semantics war. Thanks for your opinions though. OP, Some think that your husband can still love you fully while cheating, while others think that there is no true love without commitment, your choice on which one you feel. 1
Spectre Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) This is EXACTLY what is going on though, and you continue to talk like you do not know what is actually happening. It might work for you that you have this ideal vision of what love and marriage are, and we all know about the "happily ever after" and "until death do us part" promise made at the alter. Surely we can see that what people say and what people are prepared to actually DO are equally important? Think about for a moment what infidelity means in the US vs other places, most notably Europe. What meaning people ascribe to how they live their lives is fundamental to understanding what is going on in our LTR's. Think of your neighbour on the left who is a devout catholic and on the other side an authentic mormon who believes in their polygamous rights. What has your (or mine) singular concept of love got to do with any of this? Pretty much nothing more than an exaggerated sense of self in a dreamworld where we rely on the strength of some words spoken in ritual in a ceremony itself full of material nonsense: white wedding, bachelor party, gifts from Tiffany, father giving away the bride like he owns her, the ministry pretending he has the authority to declare "man and wife" (oh, true in some places they accepted the change to "husband and wife"), when it is ACTUALLY the state that is the sole authority. All of this pomp and circumstance so that we what? Hold a blind trust belief that our chosen partner will love us and stay with us and not cheat on us until death do us part. Nice gig: now I dont have to do anything in my marriage because my wife has made her vows. Period. Meanwhile the culture is telling us about the importance of family, and at the same time destroying it. It celebrates movies about being invited to BBQ's and others where we are invited to BE the BBQ. It shows brotherly love, and a brother slicing up his sibling for profit. It shows us a perfect disney family and at the same time a desparate suburban housewife and a Wall street Wolf with their 2 year affairs on the side. We get Barney and Mr. Dressup and we get serial child killers and movies like Prisoners, pedophiles, rapists, husband abuse, wife abuse, incest, it goes on and on. One cannot live in this world and not see the incredible schizophrenia of N.American culture in terms of its ideas about "true love". So, its no wonder our world looks more like this: Percent of marriages where one or both spouses admit to infidelity, either physical or emotional 41 % Percent of men who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had 57 % Percentage of women who admit to committing infidelity in any relationship they’ve had 54 % Percentage of men and women who admit to having an affair with a co-worker 36 % Percentage of men and women who admit to infidelity on business trips 35% Average length of an affair 2 years Percentage of women who say they would have an affair if they knew they would never get caught 68 % Were is the "love" Spectre? I don't see it. What I see is a social problem bigger than any of us wants to admit. I see that instead of living in a naive dreamworld "happily ever after" that its time to wake up and smell the coffee because a rose is just a rose and this problem is not going to go away if we blindly trust our vows at the alter. Nor our concept of love as some kind of defense system. We need radar from the day we commit. We need to know that any of the above can happen at any time. This does not mean we must EXPECT IT, it means simply not being so silly as to NOT ANTICIPATE the POSSIBILITY that our dearly beloved S might make a move. The thing is there is a difference between recognizing that yes your spouse could certainly cheat on you if they wanted and expecting to be betrayed. That is all I am saying. The bottom line always come down to this: if you truly love someone you will not cheat on them, simple as that. If the only thing stopping a person from cheating is that they would get caught and if they knew they could have an affair with 100% guarantee they would never get caught and would go through with it? There is a problem. If you love someone, the mere idea of getting caught will not be the only thing that prevents you from screwing other people. There will be no "I wish I could totally have an affair and get away with it scott free!" or anything because that is not the mentality of someone who loves their partner. That is the mentality of a deceitful, selfish person. That is like me saying the only reason I have not killed someone is because of the consequences like jail time, etc. When I just plain shouldn't want to hurt another human being, jail or no jail. Edited April 10, 2014 by Spectre 3
fellini Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 And if you would listen to the people here in LS, or listen to the statistics, or listen to authors like Glass, you would understand that the bottom line is that if you truly love someone you SHOULDNT cheat on them. But people do, in spite of the should. Your bottom line is a theory of love based on wishful thinking. You can say it, but we can see that the world doesnt work like that. Of course another possibility is that no one truly loves anyone, except those who never cheat, and honour "until death do us part". Which means what, that only 22% of marriages are based on true love? Pretty naive theory you have there. The thing is there is a difference between recognizing that yes your spouse could certainly cheat on you if they wanted and expecting to be betrayed. That is all I am saying. The bottom line always come down to this: if you truly love someone you will not cheat on them, simple as that. If the only thing stopping a person from cheating is that they would get caught and if they knew they could have an affair with 100% guarantee they would never get caught and would go through with it? There is a problem. If you love someone, the mere idea of getting caught will not be the only thing that prevents you from screwing other people. There will be no "I wish I could totally have an affair and get away with it scott free!" or anything because that is not the mentality of someone who loves their partner. That is the mentality of a deceitful, selfish person. That is like me saying the only reason I have not killed someone is because of the consequences like jail time, etc. When I just plain shouldn't want to hurt another human being, jail or no jail.
BHsigh Posted April 10, 2014 Posted April 10, 2014 (edited) Sorry op, I almost took part in it again. Edited April 10, 2014 by BHsigh
fellini Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 At no time has the discussion of love / loving a BS been off topic. It speaks to the very questions that the OP asked... and oh, by the way, OP checked out halfway through page one, in case you didn't notice. Sorry op, I almost took part in it again.
BHsigh Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 At no time has the discussion of love / loving a BS been off topic. It speaks to the very questions that the OP asked... and oh, by the way, OP checked out halfway through page one, in case you didn't notice. The OP's question was whether her WH was using the AP for sex or whether he loved her, it had nothing to do with the BS. Reread the first post. Arguing the definition of love doesn't have a single thing to do with the OP's question. I am trying to follow the rules here, this topic may indeed have benefit to someone, so if you so decide to open a thread regarding this, I will more than gladly talk to you about it some more.
fellini Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 The OP asked MANY questions, one of which was if it was possible her WH was having recreational sex or must he love her as well. But surely you also read: "He says he cares for her but he loves me..." "I feel like I am dealing with a stranger". Was our entire marriage a sham?" "One minute I want him at home, the next ...." I think its fair to say the OP is questioning the love her WS has for her in any and all of those statements. She is CLEARLY struggling with the thought that a man cannot have JUST recreational SEX with a woman and NOT fall in love, that this contradicts what he said to her: he cares for her but he loves me. I'm frankly surprised that you should even question this. Like people are saying, you hear what you want to hear. The OP's question was whether her WH was using the AP for sex or whether he loved her, it had nothing to do with the BS. Reread the first post. Arguing the definition of love doesn't have a single thing to do with the OP's question. I am trying to follow the rules here, this topic may indeed have benefit to someone, so if you so decide to open a thread regarding this, I will more than gladly talk to you about it some more.
BHsigh Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 The OP asked MANY questions, one of which was if it was possible her WH was having recreational sex or must he love her as well. But surely you also read: "He says he cares for her but he loves me..." "I feel like I am dealing with a stranger". Was our entire marriage a sham?" "One minute I want him at home, the next ...." I think its fair to say the OP is questioning the love her WS has for her in any and all of those statements. She is CLEARLY struggling with the thought that a man cannot have JUST recreational SEX with a woman and NOT fall in love, that this contradicts what he said to her: he cares for her but he loves me. I'm frankly surprised that you should even question this. Like people are saying, you hear what you want to hear. Ok Fellini, post what you want, I'm not judging you or calling you out, I just feel that it's off topic according to the thread title and I will not continue when I feel that it is derailing the thread. Conversely, it's very funny that I have to defend myself on this as well. Just because I don't feel that the prior discussion had anything to do with the OP. We are also supposed to avoid cross chatter in someone elses thread, particularly when they are seeking help and we're ignoring that issue for one of our own making. The topic that we were discussing is large enough to merit its own thread in any case, if you have an interest in my opinion on this matter, feel free to start that thread or PM me. And now I'm done and gone from this thread, unless the OP returns and needs more assistance.
Recommended Posts