Defining Love

[MT_Pitcher]

Originally posted by midwestyankee One can love more than one person at a time. Chances are, the loves will be different because the people in each pair and the circumstances through which they are living out their love are different. Nevertheless, loving two people at a time is not just a theoretical possibility. It is not only possible but probable.

Now let's turn to the description that GG gave us and that DLL has hinted at: when two people meet who are immensely attracted to each other. It's as if a beneficent bolt of lightning struck them both and they are forever linked by this attraction. If both of them are also in a long-term relationship with another, they will probably continue to love their significant others even while their love for each other evolves. Will the love these two people have for their spouses change or diminish? Who knows? The fact remains, though, that they will - at least for a time - love two people simultaneously. [/B]

Wonderful thoughts as usual Yank.
I agree completely...
Too many people have been talking specifics and there is no way to cover all the different ways it can happen. Love is different each and every time.

 

[~Dream~]

Worms don't frighten me either, Dream, but I choose not to swim with them.

I agree with you here. When you are in an exclusive relationship and you then give a part of your heart to another, it's cheating regardless of the venue. Online romances are cheating just as R/L romances are. I think you're making the point that an online romance is as real as one in R/L and I agree with you. Some people may participate in activities that are part of an online romance, such as cybering, without being romantically involved but that sort of anonymous behavior is another thing altogether. I think that's where some people get off track and start thinking that cybering is not cheating. The cheating happens with your heart, not with your fingers.

Ecactly! and that WAS the point I was trying to make indeed ,THANKS Yank!

 

[midwestyankee]

Wonderful thoughts as usual Yank.
I agree completely...
Too many people have been talking specifics and there is no way to cover all the different ways it can happen. Love is different each and every time.

You're quite right, MT. Often people get caught up in the specifics of a situation they know and then generalize those specifics to try to answer a larger question. This does not advance a discussion. In fact, for this very reason it is a tactic used frequently by talk radio hosts to hijack a discussion so their own opinion can appear to have general application.

 

[midwestyankee]

Ecactly! and that WAS the point I was trying to make indeed ,THANKS Yank!

Thanks, Dream. It's always good to get a compliment.

 

[luvnhim]

Many, many thoughts on all that's been written here. I wish I could gather my thoughtsand reply, but today I'm so exhausted I wouldn't make any sense.
I believe you can only be "in love" with one but love two. just differently.
I also believe there are different types of affairs. Morally, it's not right, but there are some instances where it's needed.

 

[midwestyankee]

Many, many thoughts on all that's been written here. I wish I could gather my thoughtsand reply, but today I'm so exhausted I wouldn't make any sense.
I believe you can only be "in love" with one but love two. just differently.
I also believe there are different types of affairs. Morally, it's not right, but there are some instances where it's needed.

Luvnhim, thanks for chiming in even when you don't feel 100%. At some point soon I hope you'll come back and tell more about what you see as the difference between loving and being in love. I'm also interested in seeing your thoughts on instances where an affair "is needed."

 

[dirtywhiteboy]

ok i understand that...but heres something to think about..does "cybering" with married people online make one a better person??? isnt that sort of thing wrong too?? its interferring in relationships too???whats so different about being involved in an affair...both wouldnt seem to make anyone a better person??? just wondering..I am going through this and any advise is helpful....i dont mean to imply you cyber with married men its a general question...

I happen to believe cybering or "anything" is ok with married people if you are not married. However, if you are the married one then it is only ok if you can "indeed" see it as total fantasy and not reality. If, in reality, you become emotionally intimate with someone else (cyber or otherwise) while you are married then you have violated your love/committmet to them.....assuming you do not have their blessing to do this.

If I EVER get married again I will probably make it clear that I occasionally enjoy cybering with other women......that I see such friendships as a way to enhance who I am. I would also share" what I learn from my internet friendships with my partner (if they were interested) because I don't believe "secret frienships" are healthy for a monagamous relationship built on trust.



Hey, this defining love thread is pretty "thought provoking" for a dirtywhiteboy.....

 

[GiveawayGirl]

I happen to believe cybering or "anything" is ok with married people if you are not married. However, if you are the married one then it is only ok if you can "indeed" see it as total fantasy and not reality. If, in reality, you become emotionally intimate with someone else (cyber or otherwise) while you are married then you have violated your love/committmet to them.....assuming you do not have their blessing to do this.

If I EVER get married again I will probably make it clear that I occasionally enjoy cybering with other women......that I see such friendships as a way to enhance who I am. I would also share" what I learn from my internet friendships with my partner (if they were interested) because I don't believe "secret frienships" are healthy for a monagamous relationship built on trust.



Hey, this defining love thread is pretty "thought provoking" for a dirtywhiteboy.....

I commend you dwb....you are the only person I've come across that is quicker with the edit button than I am

 

[luvnhim]

Ok, now that I've had some sleep, maybe I can go into this a little deeper. Morally, no affair is "ok" however I don't judge anyone who has had or may have an affair. I'll try to explain this the best I can. Some affairs are needed if the other spouse shuts down emotionally and physically. To me, thats the cruelest thing a spouse can do (other than physical abuse). If the spouse has no sexual desire for the other or will not be there for the other emotionally ,what is one to do? Granted, it would seem a divorce would be the best answer and thats easy for some. For example, lets say I am all my spouse has other then the children we had between us. No other family, but what he's been with for years. What if I left him and he commited suicide. Could I live with that..NO, could his children, NO. Would those children blame me? YES.
Another instance would be: if I would get ill to where I was sick for the rest of my living days and could not be there for my spouse sexually, I would be very willing to allow him to seek sexual gratification elsewhere as long as it werent kept from me. Very few women would agree with that, but that's me.

 

[luvnhim]

The difference between loving and being in love...this one is much harder to explain.
When in love, you would stand beside the one you are in love with under any circumstance. You would do whatever you could to please him/her and feel in love at all times, even when you get angry. You would never feel like walking out the door and never looking back.
When you just love someone, you want the best for them and dont want to hurt them but when you are angry with them, you want to walk out the door and never look back or you just give up trying. ...you just get through each day, you exist.
You respect and care in both instances but when you are in love, it's MUCH more powerful. You wish for them to come home. You want to spend time with them even if it's watching them work on a car, sleep, you want to hear about their day and listen to every word or even watch them pick their nose....(kidding).
Am I making any sense here at all?

 

[midwestyankee]

Ok, now that I've had some sleep, maybe I can go into this a little deeper. Morally, no affair is "ok" however I don't judge anyone who has had or may have an affair. I'll try to explain this the best I can. Some affairs are needed if the other spouse shuts down emotionally and physically. To me, thats the cruelest thing a spouse can do (other than physical abuse). If the spouse has no sexual desire for the other or will not be there for the other emotionally ,what is one to do? Granted, it would seem a divorce would be the best answer and thats easy for some. For example, lets say I am all my spouse has other then the children we had between us. No other family, but what he's been with for years. What if I left him and he commited suicide. Could I live with that..NO, could his children, NO. Would those children blame me? YES.
Another instance would be: if I would get ill to where I was sick for the rest of my living days and could not be there for my spouse sexually, I would be very willing to allow him to seek sexual gratification elsewhere as long as it werent kept from me. Very few women would agree with that, but that's me.

I'm sure many would agree with you that some circumstances seem to be understandable grounds for having an affair, though of course many would not. Thanks for clarifying this.

 

[midwestyankee]

The difference between loving and being in love...this one is much harder to explain.
When in love, you would stand beside the one you are in love with under any circumstance. You would do whatever you could to please him/her and feel in love at all times, even when you get angry. You would never feel like walking out the door and never looking back.
When you just love someone, you want the best for them and dont want to hurt them but when you are angry with them, you want to walk out the door and never look back or you just give up trying. ...you just get through each day, you exist.
You respect and care in both instances but when you are in love, it's MUCH more powerful. You wish for them to come home. You want to spend time with them even if it's watching them work on a car, sleep, you want to hear about their day and listen to every word or even watch them pick their nose....(kidding).
Am I making any sense here at all?

What I see here is that by "being in love" you mean a state that is common in the early stages of love. In this state, you feel as if your beloved is the center of the universe and you wish you could spend every waking moment together (as well as those when you're asleep, I suppose ). That's different from the emotional place you're in later on in that same relationship when the lust has died down a bit and you have begun to grow together into a true couple. In this later stage, you still have powerful feelings for your beloved but you have placed each other in perspective within your lives and can both see and accept each other's warts and faults. Do I have this right?

 

[MT_Pitcher]

I happen to believe cybering or "anything" is ok with married people if you are not married. However, if you are the married one then it is only ok if you can "indeed" see it as total fantasy and not reality. If, in reality, you become emotionally intimate with someone else (cyber or otherwise) while you are married then you have violated your love/committmet to them.....assuming you do not have their blessing to do this.

If I EVER get married again I will probably make it clear that I occasionally enjoy cybering with other women......that I see such friendships as a way to enhance who I am. I would also share" what I learn from my internet friendships with my partner (if they were interested) because I don't believe "secret frienships" are healthy for a monagamous relationship built on trust.
Hey, this defining love thread is pretty "thought provoking" for a dirtywhiteboy.....

I may have different thoughts on cybering.
I think it's perfectly harmless to share fantasies. And that's what most cybering is. Just mutual masturbation!! Just a game.
It becomes more when you develop a real relationship with the other. Cheating to me is a matter of the heart. If your heart is somewhere else, then you're cheating! Those are my rules, doesn't have to be anyone elses.
And yes, by my rules, I have cheated. Not physically, but emotionally and I guess electronically.

 

[luvnhim]

MW- But why does that state have to die down? Why can't the lust still be there many years later? Is it because we allow it to die down? I think so. Naturally, you can't keep that up day in and day out but I do know someone who could.

MT- That makes sense. I would guess that happens in most cases, the two get close and the hearts get involved. I have tried to cyber before with someone when my heart wasn't involved and I couldn't enjoy it at all. For me, my heart HAS to be with that person unless it's erotica. Maybe it's the gender differences. How about all the other ladies here. Do you enjoy cybering when there isn't love or am I the only one??

 

[MT_Pitcher]

MW- But why does that state have to die down? Why can't the lust still be there many years later? Is it because we allow it to die down? I think so. Naturally, you can't keep that up day in and day out but I do know someone who could.

MT- That makes sense. I would guess that happens in most cases, the two get close and the hearts get involved. I have tried to cyber before with someone when my heart wasn't involved and I couldn't enjoy it at all. For me, my heart HAS to be with that person unless it's erotica. Maybe it's the gender differences. How about all the other ladies here. Do you enjoy cybering when there isn't love or am I the only one??

Ok, I obviously can't speak for the ladies (I just checked, yup, still there), I'll talk for me instead. Cybering without any real feeling behind it isn't worth the time of day. I'd rather read a story and dream up a person. Now you can tease and flirt and generally get a little worked up with someone you don't really know, but I personally couldn't make love to them, even cyber.
But you can probably have fun with a friend that you know. There doesn't have to be that degree of love involved. A little lust can go a long way too.

 

[midwestyankee]

MW- But why does that state have to die down? Why can't the lust still be there many years later? Is it because we allow it to die down? I think so. Naturally, you can't keep that up day in and day out but I do know someone who could.

That initial state dies down for more than one reason. First off, it diminishes because it's simply far too intense for anyone to maintain for more than a few months. Second, that initial state is really quite self-centered. It's really all about how we feel and not much about our beloved at all. It's all about how we feel when we think about or are with our beloved. That sort of self-centered state does not provide the strength that a person needs to maintain a full and growing relationship. It is a sort of genetic trick that our bodies play on us to make sure we mate.

Once we are established in a relationship, that self-centered and very lust-oriented state evolves into one where we care much about making life better for our beloved and less about how much our beloved makes life better for us. Am I making the difference clear?

Now, this is not to say that two people who love each other for years don't or can't maintain a healthy desire for each other. That can and does happen (some would argue it happens too infrequently and I won't disagree with that). But it's a more well-rounded desire than the one we feel when we are first attracted to each other. It really is a different state altogether.

 

[Cathleen]

I'm going to begin this with two caveats. First, I am not going to dip into the 55-gallon drum of worms that is the discussion of affairs. Second, I've been suffering from a nasty head cold all week and I'm not sure my brain is working normally just yet. That said...

It is a mistake to say that one cannot love two people at the same time simply because one of the two will get the short end of the stick. That is false reasoning because it presumes that love is a perfect state of 100% devotion. It's not. Love is a flexible state; it waxes and wanes from time to time and it definitely grows over longer periods of time. We all know this but we tend to forget it or confuse it with other issues.

Consider two couples. Ann and Bob have just met. They found an immediate connection one night when they each bought a single ticket to a local production of Brigadoon and they were seated next to each other. During the intermission they exchanged pleasantries and began talking about the show and its portrayal of impossible love. They have talked or seen each other every day since. Now, six months later, they both feel they are head-over-heels in love. Carol and Dave have been married for 32 years and they are both just settling into retirement. Their children are all well situated as adults and their biggest challenge right now is adjusting to being with each other all day every day. They finish each day with a little TV or some reading and nearly every day remind each other that their love just keeps getting a little better with each passing year.

Which of these couples has the greater love? I suggest that each couple loves as well and as much as they can. Love is intense at first, and then becomes more profound than intense. But it's still love. Yet, it seems to me that the longer-term relationship probably holds the stronger love. But that does not mean that Ann and Bob do not love each other. Comparisons like this show that love is not an all-or-nothing thing.

One can love more than one person at a time. Chances are, the loves will be different because the people in each pair and the circumstances through which they are living out their love are different. Nevertheless, loving two people at a time is not just a theoretical possibility. It is not only possible but probable.

Now let's turn to the description that GG gave us and that DLL has hinted at: when two people meet who are immensely attracted to each other. It's as if a beneficent bolt of lightning struck them both and they are forever linked by this attraction. If both of them are also in a long-term relationship with another, they will probably continue to love their significant others even while their love for each other evolves. Will the love these two people have for their spouses change or diminish? Who knows? The fact remains, though, that they will - at least for a time - love two people simultaneously.

I have to disagree. I don't think it is false reasoning. I don't think you can love two people at the same time and give them all your love.

I do think you can love two people at the same time but they cannot be the same love. I don't think you can give all you have to two people. I think you will always favor one over the other and this could go back and forth. This doesn't mean it's wrong, or right for that matter, but the love can't be the same.

I know we love our children differently etc. But devotional love is far different. How can one be devoted to two? How can you give two of something of which you only have one? (I know, poor grammer but humor me tonight - it's been a long day.)

If you give your heart/soul/spirit to one, then there isn't another to give.

I am not understanding your example of the two couples. If in your example Carol and Dave, the married couple of 32 years, Dave meets another, would be be able to love that new person while at the same time still loving Carol? Sure, he could love the new person, but it cannot be the love he shares with Carol. You can't divide yourself totally - there will be one who gets something the other doesn't.

I think perhaps I am thinking of it in terms of measurement - which isn't correct. I'm analytical - I suppose if I tried to think of this in terms of "best friends". I have two best friends, do they both get everything from me? No, it isn't possible. I only have one whole - where am I not getting this??

I want to understand more. I agree we can love two but those loves can never be equal at the same time, I do think one will suffer at the expense of the other. (And suffer isn't the right word but again please humor me.) If you only have one right arm then you cannot give it twice.

I guess I can't let go of my number crunching mind here.

 

[GiveawayGirl]

I have to disagree. I don't think it is false reasoning. I don't think you can love two people at the same time and give them all your love.

I do think you can love two people at the same time but they cannot be the same love. I don't think you can give all you have to two people. I think you will always favor one over the other and this could go back and forth. This doesn't mean it's wrong, or right for that matter, but the love can't be the same.

I know we love our children differently etc. But devotional love is far different. How can one be devoted to two? How can you give two of something of which you only have one? (I know, poor grammer but humor me tonight - it's been a long day.)

If you give your heart/soul/spirit to one, then there isn't another to give.

I am not understanding your example of the two couples. If in your example Carol and Dave, the married couple of 32 years, Dave meets another, would be be able to love that new person while at the same time still loving Carol? Sure, he could love the new person, but it cannot be the love he shares with Carol. You can't divide yourself totally - there will be one who gets something the other doesn't.

I think perhaps I am thinking of it in terms of measurement - which isn't correct. I'm analytical - I suppose if I tried to think of this in terms of "best friends". I have two best friends, do they both get everything from me? No, it isn't possible. I only have one whole - where am I not getting this??

I want to understand more. I agree we can love two but those loves can never be equal at the same time, I do think one will suffer at the expense of the other. (And suffer isn't the right word but again please humor me.) If you only have one right arm then you cannot give it twice.

I guess I can't let go of my number crunching mind here.

Hi Cathleen

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree with you. Maybe I'll figure it out by the end of this post!

I don't think I can personally fit myself into your theory of giving someone "all" my love. I see love as an every changing, growing thing. I don't think it can be measured, so how can I ever give anyone all of it? It is constantly changing and growing all time. I guess what I am saying is that I don't see love in concrete, measurable terms.

I don't think I understand your use of the term "devotional" love. I think devotion is a component to any type of love. I am absolutely devoted to my children, to their happiness, to their safety and securty, to their everything. On a different level I am devoted to my friends. I am devoted in a totally different way to someone I love intimately (for lack of a better word). In another way I am devoted to making a good life because I love myself. Yet these are all forms of devotion because of the love I feel.

Although I think that loving someone well means striving to give them everything you can, I can't help but wonder if we as a society are convinced that that love has to be exclusive because we've been brought up to think that way. Or if it has something to do with the fact that we all are seeking to be special in some way so we seek love that is singular to reinforce our "specialness"

Although love itself defies logic or reason, I am trying to apply some logical principles as I consider this.

I have two children. Each are individuals with their own unique talents and gifts. I love both of my children equally, yet differently. I am absolutely devoted to them. I am passionate about them. I give them everything I have to give every day. I embrace each of their talents, and I mourn each of their struggles. If I had to actually define the love I feel for each of them it would be different, yet I love them each equally with equal amounts of devotion and passion.

I have a few close friends. I love them all. Each fits into my life in a different way, each brings to my life a different gift. Yet I cannot say that I love any one of them more or less than the others.

So if you apply the same logic, why couldn't I love more than one man? And why couldn't I do it well? Theoretically, each could bring different gifts to my life, each could inspire passion in me in different ways, and each could hold a place in my heart. Why could I not love them equally, yet differently?

All of this being said, I will point out that I am not equipped to be doing such deep thinking so early on a Saturday morning....so take it for what it is worth

 

[Cathleen]

GG I get it now, thanks. I do think I was too far into measurement, love isn't about measurement at all. I also think I was using an old worn out belief of mine. Sometimes I find I need to push the old belief to the forefront for a last challenge in order to let it go.

Thank you GG, that was well thought out despite your protest of early morning brain power.

 

[DLL]

ok the subject of love ..

I think what comes to mind is "i'm Norah Jonesing"
Definition: The yearning to be in love-intense,sweet,sappy-love-song love.
You thinking , when oh when will someone take my hand and say, "Come away with me?" type love.
Norah Jonesing- The kind of love where you want to lose yourself in the pure, unsynthesized pleasure of true love, to feel that the sweetest songs in the world- are finally about you. The desire to feel truly,goopily, cozily in love.The kind of love that has you humming I've got to see you again....This is what all people want..and desire and derserve... and it comes around in different ways for some...no right ..no wrong...

 

[Ammo44]

ok the subject of love ..

I think what comes to mind is "i'm Norah Jonesing"
Definition: The yearning to be in love-intense,sweet,sappy-love-song love.
You thinking , when oh when will someone take my hand and say, "Come away with me?" type love.
Norah Jonesing- The kind of love where you want to lose yourself in the pure, unsynthesized pleasure of true love, to feel that the sweetest songs in the world- are finally about you. The desire to feel truly,goopily, cozily in love.The kind of love that has you humming I've got to see you again....This is what all people want..and desire and derserve... and it comes around in different ways for some...no right ..no wrong...

Extremely hard to achieve.....but doable with enough work.........relationships are not the birds chirping and babbling brook kind of thing 24/7....but the complete and total package.......quirks, neuroses, romance, good AND bad. If you can tolerate the total package.....you are off and running....if not...you are running...in the other direction

 

[~Dream~]

Extremely hard to achieve.....but doable with enough work.........relationships are not the birds chirping and babbling brook kind of thing 24/7....but the complete and total package.......quirks, neuroses, romance, good AND bad. If you can tolerate the total package.....you are off and running....if not...you are running...in the other direction

oh yes ,ya gotta accept the Good ,the bad ,and the Ugly,or to me ,its more Lust than it is really Love

 

[DLL]

Originally posted by Ammo44
Extremely hard to achieve.....but doable with enough work.........relationships are not the birds chirping and babbling brook kind of thing 24/7....but the complete and total package.......quirks, neuroses, romance, good AND bad. If you can tolerate the total package.....you are off and running....if not...you are running...in the other direction

runners take your mark

 

[Ammo44]

runners take your mark

LOLLLL......dig in for a good start....

 

[MT_Pitcher]

I have two children. Each are individuals with their own unique talents and gifts. I love both of my children equally, yet differently. I am absolutely devoted to them. I am passionate about them. I give them everything I have to give every day. I embrace each of their talents, and I mourn each of their struggles. If I had to actually define the love I feel for each of them it would be different, yet I love them each equally with equal amounts of devotion and passion.

I have a few close friends. I love them all. Each fits into my life in a different way, each brings to my life a different gift. Yet I cannot say that I love any one of them more or less than the others.

So if you apply the same logic, why couldn't I love more than one man? And why couldn't I do it well? Theoretically, each could bring different gifts to my life, each could inspire passion in me in different ways, and each could hold a place in my heart. Why could I not love them equally, yet differently? [/B]

For an early morning post, this was well thought out, and you beat me to it!
Our hearts grow to accomdate the amount of love we feel. It's hard for us to think of anything that is infinite except in really abstract terms. But that's what love is, can't be measured, and can't run out of it.
So it's not love that you can run out of.
But there are two other factors to be considered which can be measured, time and energy.
If we are speaking of affairs or second loves, you have to be able to devote an amount of each it. Sometimes we can run out of those, if we're not careful.
The affair would take people who are good at time management and being able to focus on one thing at a time to work.

I know this sounds so cold, but that doesn't make it false.