The truth about love.....

Not trying to start anything here, but just add my 2 cents worth!ha!
I read a book a few months ago by a woman named Pat Love. I believe her most famous book was called Hot Monogamy. Anyway, I had never heard of her. Was attending a woman's support group and we were often talking about relationships and that co-dependency stuff on what made a bad relationship. I was wondering, well, what makes a good one and how do you know it's 'love.' That night before going to my support group, I dropped in to my favorite goodwill store and there on the shelf was a book, The Truth About Love.
Love those little 'coincidences.' !
Well, bottom line: it doesn't sound romantic, but .... Love's definition of love is:
the feeling you get when someone meets your needs.
I know it sounds pretty selfish and dull and not romantic, but....upon much reflection, I believe it's a pretty darn good explanation. Her book talks alot about the chemistry of couples' attractions. And several studies I've come across verify what she says, too, that.... the first zap of chemistry, the infatuation, the honeymoon, the great sex.....that period lasts about 18 months to 2 years and AFTER that, if you're still together, then it might indeed be about love (i.e. compatible adults meeting each others needs) and you've got something solid to build a long term relationship on.
Sometimes after a person becomes abusive or hurts you or is no longer meeting your needs, and yet you still say "but I still love you" -- I think what we probably really mean, whether we realize it or not, is : I love the memories of when you met my needs.......
In Jungian psychology, it's believed that we often search for someone to mirror our 'opposite sex' side. Robert Johnson wrote several great books, small but powerful little books with little titles, about romance and relationships. The book titles are He, She and We. He also wrote The Joy Of Ecstasy, Balancing Heaven and Earth (superb read!), and others. But in the WE book I think (my reading runs together!! and I sometimes can't remember where I read what), he addresses this issue of maintaining a relationship after the initial 'romantic' period and speaks in terms of our partner being a mirror of our masculine side (if we are female) or of our female side (if you're a guy) and basically, when you meet and fall in love, you're really falling in love with yourself, that part of your inner self you see reflected in that other person. When love is no longer blinded by all that romance and chemicals, etc., THEN, you can start seeing the person for who they really are, for themselves, and fall in love all over again with eyes wide open and build your relationship.
OK, it's not even 7 a.m. yet :eek: , so that's enough heavy thinking on my part for the day. back to my morning coffee! :p

Thanks for the great bibliography! I'll have to check both of those authors out.

Your brain certainly kicks in a lot earlier in the AM than mine does! I think there is a lot of truth to what your recollections of these authors say. But I also think that the notion of "romantic love" is relatively new in the grand scale of "man's" existance on the planet. Of course we don't know, but probably much of human beings existence before several centuries ago was merely survival, and romantic love wasn't of much importance. I look at third world countries and the notion of love and marriage is more economical than anything...a dowry is necessary for marriage, female oppression is rampant, etc.

I agree that in relationships, at least in the beginning, you see what you want to see. Only once in my life have I made a decision to go in, eyes wide open, feeling the rush of all those chemicals and feeling completely infatuated, and yet also seeing the persons negative qualities for what they were, accepting everything despite knowing some of them were unacceptable to me, and chose to go forward anyway. It was a very CONSCIOUS relationship. It was an interesting ride!!

Wow! Thanks for this post French - very insightful. Two points you make really resonate with me:

…Love's definition of love is: the feeling you get when someone meets your needs.

I think there's a lot of truth to this statement. Whether one looks at this issue from a psychological perspective or a theological one (as I have), I think we can all agree that the most basic human need is the need for connection and companionship. We all, whatever our backgrounds or philosophies of life, want and need to have one person in our lives who is willingly invested in us and our well-being. Whatsmore we need to provide this connection just as much as we need to receive it. When we think of our relationships as our attempts to satisfy this "heart need" if you will, than this definition really is no more more "selfish" than some of the other ways we define "love," especially in Western culture.

…Sometimes after a person becomes abusive or hurts you or is no longer meeting your needs, and yet you still say "but I still love you" -- I think what we probably really mean, whether we realize it or not, is : I love the memories of when you met my needs…

I know this to be true from experience. Several years ago I went through an extremely painful break up that I felt I just couldn't get past because I "still loved" the person, despite his dishonesty and lack of respect for me. It took me several months, lots of prayer, and some good counseling before I realized that what I "still loved" and missed was the memory of the relationship I thought we had. But since the relationship itself was little more than an illusion, there was really nothing to hang on to, and this made the letting go significantly easier.

It's hard to remain hopeful sometimes. The jading affects of life can make it difficult to keep believing in love, even as we continue to long for it. But if we allow our experiences to aid us in distinguishing lust (as fun as that might be) from love, and chemistry from connection, I think we'll definitely improve our chances of finding that person to love and having our heart needs met.

When we grow up in a home where our needs are not met, and we do not feel loved by our parents... we translate that "yearning for love" as "real love".

But real love comes from a glass that is more than half full. For me it is a mirror of my love's face reflecting back to me, that he KNOWS who I am (at my core being), and I also know who he is. By making love, we celebrate each other.

Isn't it funny how the Bible talks of intercourse as " and he knew her"? Very beautiful in my thinking. :)

Isn't it funny how the Bible talks of intercourse as " and he knew her"? Very beautiful in my thinking. :)


Interesting that you should bring that up Yellowrose. The Hebrew word that's translated "know" in describing the sex act carries the idea of knowledge by virtue of experience, not just intellect. In other words the sex act becomes the physical manifestation of experiencing our lovers on the deepest possible level. It's that knowing another human being by experiencing them to their core, and allowing them to experience us in the same way that constitutes that real love we all want.

The lovely thing about being forty is that you can appreciate twenty-five-year-old men more.”
—Colleen McCullough


Nice...True...

.... Love's definition of love is:
the feeling you get when someone meets your needs.

I believe this to be VERY true. For years, my definition of love has been when one person's neuroses fulfill another person's neuroses.

Same thing, no? :p

...she says, too, that.... the first zap of chemistry, the infatuation, the honeymoon, the great sex.....that period lasts about 18 months to 2 years and AFTER that, if you're still together, then it might indeed be about love (i.e. compatible adults meeting each others needs) and you've got something solid to build a long term relationship on.

I don't know, I've had LT relationships that lasted much longer than 2 years, and the chemistry, the great sex and the true excitement of seeing each other lasted much longer than that. I think that in these relationships, we were both conscious (to some degree) of the importance of cherishing each other - respect, fun, appreciation...including appreciation of the physical love being expressed and the appreciation for the little things that made each other special to each of us.

Sometimes after a person becomes abusive or hurts you or is no longer meeting your needs, and yet you still say "but I still love you" -- I think what we probably really mean, whether we realize it or not, is : I love the memories of when you met my needs.......


This seems to be true. I'd like to expand on this idea. Abusive is one thing and abuse carried its own set of implications for the psyche. But being hurt by the one you love or not having your needs met by your SO...these latter two conditions can be temporary and/or rare in a LT relationship. Additionally, it's virtually impossible that in a LT relationship that two people are not going to at least unintentionally hurt each other in some way (small as it may be), or temporarily not be meeting each other's needs. Therefore, this memory function could be a good thing...a bridge of sorts over troubled or just slightly turbulent waters.

Perhaps this memory function is one of the mechanisms that helps people pass that 2 year mark and stay in love, together.


frenchkissed, I've not read the books that you mentioned in your original post but they sound interesting, and worth a read.

SG

i've thought more about this concept today, and here's what i think so far:

our original caregivers met our primal needs for food, safety, shelter, warmth and affection, hence we associate that with LOVE. that is the very definition of being loved as an infant and child.

but i'm not so sure that i agree with that definition anymore when we become adults. we have a DESIRE for sex, but not necessarily a NEED......we can and do live without sex...a partner can fulfill this desire...we have a DESIRE to relate as an adult with another adult to stimulate our senses, intellectual and emotional, but is it really a NEED?

i suppose what i'm getting at here is that we all have a need to be loved relating to our primal need to be loved...but i don't really consider an adult partner as a person whose function it is to fulfill my NEEDS. i take care of myself....i house myself, i feed myself, i provide myself safety, i love myself, i can even have sex with myself.

i know for me, i look for a partner who has certain abilities in life....not related necessarily to my needs at all. someone socially conscious, kind, intellectual, spiritual, friendly, and sexy to boot. i hope that by finding similar qualities in me that he will be stimulated and have the DESIRE to be with me, not the need. i have never loved anyone in my life because they met my NEEDS. and i've never really wanted anyone to be with me because they felt they needed me, but rather hoped that they enjoyed me/loved me enough to be with me.

when someone has hurt me in my life, i can honestly say that i still have loved them, not because i love the memory of when they met my needs, but because i've had an unconditional love for that person, not necessarily related to how they are or behave in relationship to me at all.

does this make sense to anyone? or am i a freak? i think "meeting needs" is too simplistic of an explanation for why i've loved people. frankly, i don't think anyone has EVER met my needs to any level of completeness...when i was married i got a lot of intellectual stimulation outside of the marriage, but we had sexual compatibility and my need for safety and shelter were met. i had a long term b/f once who met my need for fun, creativity and social companionship, but i got sexual fulfillment outside the relationship. my last b/f, mr. YM, i got intellectual, creativity and sexual fulfillment, but not social or safety needs met.

see what i mean? all relationships are compromises. i've always gone with whatever felt right at the time.

I agree with you Kat. Maybe it is because we are older (more mature and experienced in love) that we both feel that way?

I still love my soul mate and he is not in my life. I admire who he is, as a human being. I could have lunch with him today and just enjoy him. I would need nothing from him, to love him... just the experience of his company.

I still think that there are levels of romantic love. Some are very needy like when we are teens. As we mature and "self-actualize", our ability to just love for love's sake, and not for gain, is strengthened.

Sometimes I think I have self-actualized myself right into spinsterhood. :p I just don't have those codependent tenancies anymore that used to bond me to guys. I can chose who to love and who NOT to love (very important). I am going to venture out a lot more in 2006 to see if there is someone who can approach love, with a woman like me. ;)

Kat ~

I hear what you're saying, and my brain went in that direction, too - in regard to meeting needs vs. looking for "a partner who has certain abilities".

Then I thought about the fact that really, the 'certain abilities' that we look for ARE needs. Perhaps it's not the term "meeting needs" that is simplistic but rather the definition of 'needs'. (Now, am I being a freak? Maybe...) At first, I was defining it as your post does, then I tried to apply it on a more subconscious level.

Our 'needs', collectively, on all levels, are endless, most subconscious and many are probably even undetectable! (Okay, now I'm being a freak.) So really what we see as 'certain abilities' may be fulfilling some psychological need we have.

YR, I think that there are many levels of love, and some are romantic love. Some are like Kat said, Unconditional.

As far as self-actualizing one's Self into spinsterhood, I feel the same way sometimes. I also feel sometimes that so many people are afraid of being dependent and co-dependent and all of that, that we grasp onto our independence with a vengence. Two people that love each other are supposed to be dependent on each other for some things, in some ways. It's difficult, I think, for us strong independent women to allow ourselves to be...and even more importantly...to feel vulnerable, to feel dependent.

I'm yammering....

yammer away........i love ya!

naw, i still see it my way......lol. i agree with you on this point:

We ALL need to feel loved and accepted in this world. EVERYONE. that is a basic human NEED. we all want to feel like we're doing the right thing, that we have value, etc.

I would never argue that fact, cuz it's just THE TRUTH.

I think that what you are saying is that certain QUALITIES (rather than "abilities") could be defined as fulfilling our needs. Yeah, that's probably true, absolutely, but does it mean that those qualities satisfy some need and that's why we love a person? i don't think so necessarily. I would argue that we just LOVE those qualities in another person, but that we could live without it and be fine.

Example:

I'm totally, madly love with a physician with whom I have a working relationship. I have been for 15 years. I spend two hours a week with him now and feel so lucky just to be in his presence for that period of time. I look forward to it every week like it's a date. Why? Because he's a brilliant man and the most interesting and compassionate man I know, hands down. He's not classically handsome, but I have a huge, huge crush on him and always have. I learn so much every week from him. I feel honored to be in his presence. He loves me too, I know he does. We have a defined relationship, but we have a strong connection without question.

If he was gone tomorrow, I wouldn't stop loving him; in fact, I didn't get to see him for almost two years a while back. I never forgot him, and the minute I saw him again, it was like we never missed a beat...so did he quit meeting my "needs" because I didn't see him for two years? No, of course not. I just didn't see him. My well being and happiness aren't based on any one particular person being in or out of my life.

But whether I get some sleep is.....night!

I have enjoyed reading everyone's responses. I believe it's obvious that my comments via Pat Love's take on love have indeed stirred up some deep thinking and hence, created some new dendrites (isn't that what those brain synapsis pathway thingamigs are called??!!ha!). So ya'll owe me for all those new brain thingies!ha!
I love watching how folks respond to one another; how semantics gets in the way and/or clarifies. In my 'next' life, I wanna be a psychologist.....
And of course, I owe y'all too, cause I've been thinking about your replies. But...all said and done, I still "love" Pat's definition.
I just discovered another book out by Pat Love which she wrote with 2-3 other authors, about dealing with our inner critical voices. I ordered a copy this a.m. -- cant' wait to get it and read it. The next time I'm feeling too chubby, too old, too whatever, with my YM, I'll apply what I read. If it works, I'll pass the 'secret' on!ha!
Anyway, thanks again so much, Ladies. It's wonderful to hear the strong, independent voices!

french,

yes, let us know how that book is...i'm a voracious reader myself. right now i'm reading "the instinct to heal"....it's about curing depression/anxiety without drugs and talk therapy. it's an interesting take. although i don't suffer from those things (very often) i have a lot of people in my life (and patients) who do.

you know, i agree with pat love on many levels, but i also think that what she is saying is completely fundamental, and as yellowrose said, when you start self-actualizing, you perhaps grow beyond those basic needs in your life. it's not that they go away (i.e. we still want basic love/recognition,) but one can grow to a perhaps more sophistocated place, if one so desires.

and then life shoots you in the foot and you end up back in the bassinet!!! LOL

I think that what you are saying is that certain QUALITIES (rather than "abilities") could be defined as fulfilling our needs. Yeah, that's probably true, absolutely, but does it mean that those qualities satisfy some need and that's why we love a person? i don't think so necessarily. I would argue that we just LOVE those qualities in another person, but that we could live without it and be fine.



Within the context of this topic, I see abilities as qualities. And yes, I think that on some minute psychological level, the fact that we admire certain qualities/abilities in someone means that this facet/these facets of this person's being meets some need on our part.

And while this fulfillment may not be the big 'why' of why we love this person, it may be a small piece of it (or a big piece of it).

Now, with your doctor friend, no, he did not quite meeting your needs because of his absense...because his constant presence was not part of the relationship (friendship) in the first place. His 'role' in your life does not require him to be omnipresent in order to fulfill your needs.

I think that there can be numerous minute invisible reasons that we become attached to the people in our lives. When I meet someone that I feel a connection to, I admit, I begin to look for the "why's".

Now, with your doctor friend, no, he did not quit meeting your needs because of his absense...because his constant presence was not part of the relationship (friendship) in the first place. His 'role' in your life does not require him to be omnipresent in order to fulfill your needs.

Which begs the question: Do we need a companion/lover/partner to be omnipresent to fulfill our needs? I say, no, because we shouldn't look to one person to fulfill our needs to begin with. That's what gets so many of us into trouble to begin with.

If we grow our own garden, and people come and go (as they are apt to do,) and the garden remains flourishing with or without the presence or absence of one particular element (person) than you've got it made....

Which begs the question: Do we need a companion/lover/partner to be omnipresent to fulfill our needs? I say, no, because we shouldn't look to one person to fulfill our needs to begin with. That's what gets so many of us into trouble to begin with.

Everyone is different so I believe that the answer to this question has the potential to be widely varied. For me personally – as independent as I am - I’m happier when my companion/lover is in my life every day, if possible. This is just my nature, and I’ve had to learn to be okay with it. I've had to learn that it doesn't mean that I am needy. And really, I guess it fulfulls a 'need' of mine. I grew up with virtually absent parents and was not close to any of my siblings (and I'm still not really close to any of them). I bounced between 3 households as a child and bonded to no one.

And I agree that “we shouldn't look to one person to fulfill our needs” but we also get into trouble when we allow too many other people to fill the gaps that our SO would like to fill (learn to fill, strive to fill, whatever). I have an ex who did this and it was painful and detrimental to our ‘bonding’.

If we grow our own garden, and people come and go (as they are apt to do,) and the garden remains flourishing with or without the presence or absence of one particular element (person) than you've got it made....

I love this analogy, Kat. And it’s also nice when someone special helps us tend our garden, and we help them tend theirs.

[BTW: Thanks for the convo. :) ]

I grew up not bonding to anyone in particular either...narcissistic, emotionally absent parents, so my whole schpiel is probably rationalizing a coping mechanism!

personally, i don't do well with someone in my space 24/7. i need time for self-reflection and alone time so that i don't feel i'm giving myself away in some sacrificial manner....don't want to fall back into some kind of martyr syndrome, where i was for 12 years with my husband....

and yr welcome for the convo....you know i highly respect yr opinion and viewpoint sista!

I grew up not bonding to anyone in particular either...narcissistic, emotionally absent parents, so my whole schpiel is probably rationalizing a coping mechanism!

personally, i don't do well with someone in my space 24/7. i need time for self-reflection and alone time so that i don't feel i'm giving myself away in some sacrificial manner....don't want to fall back into some kind of martyr syndrome, where i was for 12 years with my husband....

You make a good point. I definitely do need my space, too. I tend to take it in chunks, in a relationship. I spend entire weekends holed up in bed with books, tv, and extra pillows - alone. When I was younger, I also tended to take long weekends and week-long trips away - alone. I'd take my journal, books, etc. and rent a place and sit on the deck for the entire weekend in the peace and quiet. Heaven.


and yr welcome for the convo....you know i highly respect yr opinion and viewpoint sista!

Me, too. Huggs!

Thanks for posting re: the books frenchkissed! In my new relationship, I (and my partner) are acutely aware of the mistakes we've both made in the past and are trying to stay conscious and communicative in our relationship - trying to do this one right! Just today we were talking about maybe reading some books on relationships together (ie. a Sunday morning in bed sort of thing). I'll definately look into these!

I think I'm finding that true love occurs when two people DO meet each others needs, in the sense that two people are striving for the same things in a relationship. In my case, we are both devoted to cherishing each other. We want to do whatever we can to make the other happy - and this is what each of us need (or want may be a better word) in a relationship. And there's all the other needs, whether this be personality type, hobbies in common etc etc - all the little things. I read somewhere a while ago about writing a list of all the things that you MUST have in a partner, things you would like, and things that you cannot have. I thought it was a bit corny and impossible to do - since chemistry can make up for a lot! Anyhow, now I'm babbling....

I read somewhere a while ago about writing a list of all the things that you MUST have in a partner, things you would like, and things that you cannot have. I thought it was a bit corny and impossible to do - since chemistry can make up for a lot! Anyhow, now I'm babbling....

I know a woman who developed a list like this with her therapist or something. It was a looong list, broken up into categories like work, looks, etc. Personally, I thought it was crazy but she turned out to be whacked, too, so... :rolleyes: Then again, maybe it works for some people. But she tried and tried to get me to create a list like this...and I wouldn't...I couldn't!

Not only can chemistry make up for a lot but the balances between different qualities can make up for a lot. Maybe he doesn't have a college degree but he's super smart and you can converse on an endless array of topics. Maybe he can't cook but he will help prep anytime. Maybe he makes less money than you would like but he's a fantastic lover. ;)

You get the idea. And I don't understand why you would need to write down what you absolutely would not put up with or what you absolutely have to have. If you 'forget', they can't really be absolutes, can they?

Hmmm..... I am so enjoying this! Isn't it marvelous how when we express ourselves, it helps cement our ideas and figure out just exactly what we do think?!ha!
OK< Kat, I've been thinking about your post in particular. I think I envy your self assuredness! :D
But OK, here's another 2 cents worth......
I've decided Like Science Goddess that I'm going to use needs/wants interchangeably.
So this is the picture I get -- with some real generalizations here!ha!.
Love is the feeling we get when someone satifies our needs/wants.
When we're little babies, our need is survival.
When we're teens and 20s, our need is .... all kinds of neediness!ha!
By the time we grow up and we're not a half looking for a whole, but we're a whole being (like us women in our 40s and 50s), our need is.... to GIVE.
I just can't get away from the idea that we have needs. Unless you are an island unto yourself.......you've got needs. I don't think humans can be fully satisfied alone. I love my down town, I enjoy being alone, but not all the time! Leave me on an island with a lifetime of chocolate and books and diet Pepsi and one of those new glass dildos..... :D ....I'm not gonna be happy!
Maybe our need isn't anything like having a partner or sex or whatever, maybe it's giving back to the community, whatever, but to feel ALIVE and feel HUMAN, I think we need other people and when we interact with those other people on a positive level, the feeling we get is love, whether it be agape, philia, eros, etc. I think that warm fuzzy feeling is what we call love.
I think that by reducing the meaning of love to that simple of an equation, it helps us to see when we are in an unhealthy relationship not meeting our needs to quit saying 'but I love him' and wake up and realize, nah, I don't. I love the memories of when he did meet my needs. Or, instead of becoming vindicative and hateful (we've all seen "love" act like that), we can be responsible and say, You know what, he's a great guy in his own right but he just doesn't meet my needs now cause my needs changed (or, I just woke up and realize what my true needs were or what needs I've been supressing).
OK, enough new brainc cells created to think that much. :eek:

But she tried and tried to get me to create a list like this...and I wouldn't...I couldn't!

Not only can chemistry make up for a lot but the balances between different qualities can make up for a lot. Maybe he doesn't have a college degree but he's super smart and you can converse on an endless array of topics. Maybe he can't cook but he will help prep anytime. Maybe he makes less money than you would like but he's a fantastic lover. ;)

You get the idea. And I don't understand why you would need to write down what you absolutely would not put up with or what you absolutely have to have. If you 'forget', they can't really be absolutes, can they?

I totally agree with you SG. I couldn't write the list either - it's impossible to predict because people are not quite that simple - the list of qualities are interlinked, not seperate entities.

But, I do see the point of it - and maybe it works to an extent for some people. I could see how it could be valuable to me actually to write a list of things that I absolutely will not have. I tend to get swayed pretty easily when I fall for someone, so I could end up accepting something that I know inside is not good for me. Having a list to check once in a while might not be such a bad thing, when my head is clouded by emotions.

hey ms. frenchkissed.....

how about when we wake up and realize he doesn't meet the needs that we were HOPING he'd meet! hahahahahha....how often does THAT happen???

i totally agree with you....we all need and want to be loved, and feel needed and appreciated...that's fundamental. and i agree with you that when we are in our 40's and 50's it's time to start giving back to the community, etc. that is, in fact, a life stage that middle age presents to us...the opportunity to start replenishing the supply from which we were nourished.

honestly though, i'll freely admit that i am at the stage in a romantic relationship where i don't want to GIVE so much as RECEIVE. having been with a fairly selfish YM for over 4 years, i'm at a point where i'd like to feel on the receiving end. i'm giving back tremendously in my profession and my personal life, so in my romantic life i'd like the tide to swing the other way.

as an aside, read my newly posted thread "my mysterious ageless paramour". this is meeting some kind of bizarre need in me...i'm trying to figure that one out, but moreso, just enjoying it!

p.s. i love this thread! good one frenchkissed!!

Yes the statement about love is meeting your partner's needs is very true. Because by doing this it shows our love for our partner. You show love for your partner by doing things that your partner needs/wants you to do whether you want to or not. That is an expression of love. This is how marriages succeed or fail. I am a product of failure because neither I nor my ex could do this for each other.

It is so hard in a world where we are bombarded with life that we become selfish and self contained. It is so easy to forget your partner.

i take care of myself....i house myself, i feed myself, i provide myself safety, i love myself, i can even have sex with myself.

I kinda see things the way you do, Kat, but I have noted an interesting correlation. The more I am able to fulfill my own needs, the less often I fall in love. And the longer it takes me to feel like I'm in love. So maybe there is something to the theory after all.

I kinda see things the way you do, Kat, but I have noted an interesting correlation. The more I am able to fulfill my own needs, the less often I fall in love. And the longer it takes me to feel like I'm in love. So maybe there is something to the theory after all.

Well, exactly.....when you can take care of your own needs, and do it well, who needs to put up with a bunch of crap just to have sex? Because unless you have an amazing, kind, intelligent, and loving person to hang around with, that's pretty much what it boils down to, doesn't it?

I heard someone speak on a similar topic once about how we get into the "all about me" mode or syndrome. Someone will ask us why we love our partner and if you answer I love him because he makes me feel special. I love him because he is so attentive to my needs. I love him because of the way he makes me feel.

Does anyone see the common thread? It's all about me. It's all about how he makes ME feel. This person suggested that if we enter into a marriage with all of these "me" reasons then it will most likely fail. It was suggested that when we speak of the reasons we love someone then it should be because of their traits and characterisitcs, not what s/he does for us or how they make us feel.

For example: I love him because he is brilliant. I love him because he's considerate. I love him because he has a wonderful sense of humor.

S/he should have qualities that stand alone and not just because of what those qualities do for us. It individualizes them, it makes us appreciate them and not what they can do for us.

Hope that made sense. :p I just found it very interesting.

Man... we need some testosterone in here. Everyone is so agreeable!

may i be the substitute male???

hey sdoah, i think you said succinctly what i was trying to say at the beginning of this discussion...i was making the argument that it wasn't all about me...that when i love someone, it's usually about WHO THEY ARE....not how they make me feel necessarily. i think it's about seeing someone very clearly and their faults, warts, ugliness, darkness, and STILL loving them. that's unconditional, and also my definition of adult love. if you only love to be around someone because of how they make you feel, well, that's pretty shakey ground in the love department. but many, many people operate out of that premise...understandably so...

may i be the substitute male???

hey sdoah, i think you said succinctly what i was trying to say at the beginning of this discussion...i was making the argument that it wasn't all about me...that when i love someone, it's usually about WHO THEY ARE....not how they make me feel necessarily. i think it's about seeing someone very clearly and their faults, warts, ugliness, darkness, and STILL loving them. that's unconditional, and also my definition of adult love. if you only love to be around someone because of how they make you feel, well, that's pretty shakey ground in the love department. but many, many people operate out of that premise...understandably so...


I thought so, which is why it struck a cord in me and made me remember that bit of information. It's really true.

I feel so honored that everyone is enjoying this discussion...and it's so invigorating mentally.
I like what you posted, Sdoah. Interestingly, when someone talks to me about my sweetheart, usually the first thing I say is "he's so GOOD." you know, just plain old 'goodness.'ha! Considerate, kind, thoughtful......GOOD.
But lemme tell ya, he sure satisfies a bunch of my needs, too! Besides being a great cook, he's passionate and affectionate. We still hold hands when we drive around in the car. I LOVE that! And when I take my hand away to change the ipod or whatever, he often grabs at me and holds it again, as if to say "how dare you take your hand away." I love it!!!! :p I was in a relationship that ended after 22 years....my ex was not affectionate. He's a great man and father (he's been working on my Texas rental property for me, using some of his own money till I get it rented) but I had to always ask him to give me a kiss. :( see why I'm so hung up about kisses. ESPECIALLY frenchkisses!ha!
(I'm on a work break; on deadline....Kat, I'll have to comment about that mystery guy later :D )