abaya

Something I have been puzzling out lately is whether "love" boils down to a willingness to work, to sacrifice, to take turns caring for each other even when you don't feel like doing that at times. Is it just making a habit of tenderness, of good communication, of willingness to keep trying and changing until you "fall in love" again... going through the cycles of this process together, without being scared of what happens in the interim periods? (And I don't mean to minimize the process by saying it's "just" making a habit... good habits are *damn* hard to keep up, when you're human.)

This idea of love seems somehow more realistic and down-to-earth than what most Hallmark cards and other Western romantic stuff make it out to be... and my theory is that most of us would say that this is what a long-term relationship/marriage is about. Not that the gushy feelings (lust) aren't there anymore, but that one can allow those feelings to come and go while still enjoying the companionship of the other person. Of course, that sounds a bit like basically being best friends with benefits... but I do hope it can be more intimate than that, even over a long period of time.

At least, these thoughts are one way for me to make sense of my ups and downs in a relationship... and not to freak out so much over the downs. But then some people get so stuck in the downs that they head for a breakup/divorce... how does that happen? Does one person, or both people, just stop choosing to "love?" Or is it really about the "inevitable" loss of those lustful, passionate feelings over a long period of time that causes separation? My theory is that we have more control over "love" than we might think, because it comes down to conscious decisions over time... making it a habit, but one that we enter into willingly and refuse to take for granted.

What do you all think?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

MikeSty

Interesting way of labeling it as a habit. I'm a bit tired now, but this openss some great discussioN!!!!

ASU2003

I just watched this movie, http://www.whatthebleep.com/synopsis/, so I might be a little biased. It is a weird movie. But what they say in the movie is "[people] are only in love with anticipation of the emotions they are addicted to. Because the same person could fall out of favor the next week by not complying." I would add, or changing into someone that we are not attracted to and won't give us that rush of feel-good chemicals in our brain.

I would say "love is an addiction" is more accurate.

And the people who are able to provoke that response in the brain of others are seen as the most desirable. (i.e. models, players, etc...)

Gilda

Never mind.

snowy

I definitely consider my SO my closest friend. I have three friends beyond my SO I call my best friends, but he is the closest to me out of all of them. I love that we can do things that friends do and talk like friends do. It makes our relationship feel stronger.

I suppose I had a positive example in my parents--no matter what, they were always each others' bestest friend. Mom says that being best friends with Dad got her through some of the toughest times of their marriage. It gave her something more to work for. And yes, love and marriage are work.

Love is like a garden; you reap what you sow, and it takes constant tending. Loving another is like having to maintain that garden together. It takes communication, commitment, and a common goal to make the garden grow. Without those things, it fails.

Love is a feeling, but keeping the feeling around takes work.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

abaya

Mike, I look forward to hearing more from you!

ASU, isn't that kind of a cynical take? The kind of love that would be an addiction would be very unhealthy, though I agree that MANY people in our society are addicted to those kinds of chemical rushes. For me, I am not drawn to players whatsoever (in fact, I chose my current SO precisely because he was a bit of a wallflower, which I found quite attractive)... so I don't apply to that movie's take on things, I guess. Has that been your experience?

Gilda, beautiful post... I loved reading it, and I agree with you on all points. I am sure that some people dislike the idea of "scheduling" acts of love (that includes everything from sex to cuddling to playing Scrabble), but your post is evidence in itself that these things do need to be set and adhered to, as "maintenance" of the bond that Owl described.

I like the way you put it, Owl, that love is a feeling, but maintaining that feeling is what takes work. I think for me, I used to think that the "work" didn't need to happen, that the feelings should be natural or it wouldn't really be love. But my views have changed since being in a relationship with ktspktsp for two years now (my longest and most significant relationship). Hence my OP.

It doesn't take much to get a fire started, but it takes a hell of a lot more to keep it going. Good thing I'm a pyromaniac...

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

ASU2003

I think the brain chemicals and memories are why we seek out and remain in relationships. Love is just another reaction in our brain that makes us feel good. And in my limited experience, there are many 'the ones', that I would be happy with. There might be 'the BEST one' or 'the PERFECT one' out there someplace, but there is no way there would be as many relationships if everyone had to find 'the only one' for them.

abaya

If the assumption is that *all* things we feel (not just love) are chemical reactions firing off, and that love is just another type of that... okay, I can go with that. (I don't particularly think about chemicals reacting when I'm enjoying my partner's presence, and in fact I *do* think love is the closest form of spirituality/the unknown that most of us can ever experience... but I can go along with the chemical stuff as a premise for now.)

I certainly agree with you that there is no One person out there for each person... there are many possible Ones, or for those who are polyamorous, there are a multiplicity of Ones all at the same time. But some of us do want to invest our energy in one, or a few, people... and then the question becomes, how to sustain that particular bond so that it remains positive and fulfilling for as many years as possible?

I suppose my intent in the OP was to ask if the TFP if those initial chemical reactions of lust/infatuation (using your model) could indeed be resurrected over and over again, with the same person(s), by instilling a kind of habit in one's acts of love. I don't mean "habit" in a bad way, but perhaps if we use the chemical reaction analogy... that we want our brains to get into the habit that is most pleasing to us and our partner(s), which is to program ourselves a bit into a loving "schedule" that maximizes both our chance of happiness.

But now I feel like a biologist or an economist, of which I am neither.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

abaya

Gilda... your post... it was so beautiful. Where did it go?? I was telling ktspktsp how much I liked it, but he didn't get a chance to read it. Any chance you can PM it to me or him, at least?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Gilda

I deleted it because I was embarrassed by what I had written there, and felt stupid for having written it.

It only existed here, so it's gone for good, I'm afraid. If I had it, I'd be happy to PM it or even repost it, but I don't save my posts elsewhere. I'm not even sure I'd know how to do that.

I'm sorry, I was just trying to avoid offense, and I thought I'd said some things there that might be taken as offensive to some.

Gilda

xim

The subjective feeling referred to by the word-symbol "love" is the existential experience of chemicals automaticly released by the brain from the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of pairbonding. The desire to pairbond is emotionally hardwired into the biomachine to increase the probability of survival and reproduction.

__________________
If I could be anyone in the world I would be Britney Spears. Shes in so many commercials about pepsi... www.ximcity.com

abaya

I'm sorry you felt that way, Gilda. I'm glad that at least I did get to read your post, which I thought was quite poetic and some of the best words I've read from you. I am not sure what could have been found offensive, honestly... I think you'd have to work a lot harder than that to offend anyone here on TFP.

Hey now, I'm an anthropologist here... so the whole chemical thing is familiar ground (not to mention someone else already posted something like this earlier). This isn't really what I'm looking for... I'm not so much into the biological definition, but into the behavioral/applied definition (using social science words here).

I have a hard time figuring out from your post, xim, how *you* have experienced those chemical reactions known as love, and whether or not you think it can be sustained (for pairbonding or otherwise) via getting into good daily habits, regardless of the level of passion each day. Can you give us some more insight into those aspects of your perception?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

Gilda

Thank you. I wasn't aware that anyone would care that I had deleted the post, but it seems I was mistaken. I apologize if my doing so in any way interfered with the progression of this thread. I'll do my best to make sure that I get my editing done before posting anything in the future, instead of coming back later after people have already read what I've posted.

Gilda

Cynthetiq

First and foremost, there's no reason to feel embarassed by what you write in this forum especially if it's rooted in you believeing you are or could be offending another individiual or group.

We don't ask the individual to censor their expression, but on the other hand we ask that the offended person thicken their skin and open their minds.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Sultana

What you describe here is infatuation, not love. Two entirely different things.

When I have more time I'll return and address the OP.

By the way Gilda, I greatly value your opinions and viewpoint as a well-spoken, loving lesbian.

__________________
"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over, pinning you underneath.
At night, the ice weasels come." -

Matt Groening

My goal? To fulfill my potential.

Gonth

Following Ayn Rand as much as I do, I'd have to say love is a pretty selfish emotion. Instead of thinking of it as sacrificing your wants and desires for someone elses, think of it as your happiness and well-being relying on their happiness and well-being. If they are sick then you can't truly enjoy anything until you know they are ok. If they are unhappy for whatever reason, then you go out of your way to fix it.
If, say, your SO likes to do something you hate. Instead of relying on the activity to make you happy, rely on your partners enjoyment of the activity to make you happy.
As this type of thought is supposed to go both ways, its not so much sacrifice as depending on each other for emotions.

Don't know that I'm really expressing this the way I want. >_<

NotAnAlias

And that there's why Ayn Rand's theories are absurd :P.

There is nothing wrong with being happy because the one you love and adore more than anyone else in the world is happy. Nothing at all.

abaya

Thank you, Alias. Yeah, I have to say, I didn't expect such cynical responses here. I wasn't looking for a definition of love; I was looking for opinions on the idea that in order to *maintain* love (whatever your definition is), you must get into a series of good habits. I'd appreciate hearing about people's actual relationships and experiences, rather than their theories on what a load of bullshit love is. Thanks.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

maleficent

I don't think there's anyone on the planet, well at least on TFP more cynical about love than I am... however...

I'm not sure a 'habit' is the right word to describe what's needed in a relationship. It's a habit to leave the toilet seat down, or not to leave dishes in the sink, it shouldn't be a habit to ask your partner about their day, or to show concern for them. I bite my nails, that's a habit, I've done it my entire life, I'm not sure I'd want to equate showing care and concern for another person with biting my nails.

If you know your partner likes receiving flowers, and it makes that person happy. As a partner, you want to make that person happy, so you send them flowers. If you do it so often that it becomes a habit, it's really no longer a suprise or unexpected and it makes it a bit of a chore... I would rather be surprised with flowers for no reason that to know that the third Wednesday of every month I'm going to get flowers... (but that's just me-- a habit takes the thought and spontaneity out of something)

Relationships require communication. Communication requires work. Both require both parties being honest with their feelings in a non hurtful way(whcihis probably why i suck so badly at relationships) It's about sharing and most of all -- listening... One of my cliched phrases, is that we have two ears, one mouth, we shoudl listen twice as often as we talk.. and 99 percent of the population talks twice as much as they listen...

My parents, as much as they drive me crazy, have been married 45 years... there is no doubt in my mind that they love each other... and are still in love with each other... My father is not the most patient of people, especially not where his headstrong daughter was concerned, but my mother is getting on in years (as is he) with failing health, and I see how he treats her - and it honestly surprises me --that he shows such patience, and compassion and love. He takes care of her, not out of a sense of obligation or habit or duty... but because he loves her...

How do they maintain this relationship? In early years, it wasn't easy - my dad would go out of the country on business for weeks at a time... I inheritied my workaholic tendencies from him... Mom was left working, managing the house, and raising three children (one of them me, which was no easy task) basically as a single parent before it was fashionable to do so... Dad would call in every night, and they'd talk... Later in years when he stopped travelling, but still worked himself to death... they would always have dinner together (put the kids to bed, and have a late dinner) they talked... Mom talked about how his working late made her feel but never asked him to stop... (it was more fun to nag me, than nag him)

They take vacations every year, and enjoy being with each other.. which is very cool... I look at my sister and her husband... my sister doesn't work... her husband puts in long hours.. and my sister nags... Her husband has grown on me, in that I think he's good man and provides for his family... but if I were him I'd bitchslap my sister into next week for the nagging... Her family also takes vacations.. as a family.. She and her husband never do anything without the children... (I doubt they will divorce because she just wont - but they do not have a good relationship - and it's not a relationship taht I think is healthy for children...

I'm way too long winded...

To make a relationship work -- not a habit necessarily but a willingness on both parties to work... to want to make the relationship work. to want to spend time with each other. To say how you feel in a non confrontational way (guilting the other person is never good) and the commitment to spend time with each other away from distractions and talk.

__________________

abaya

Thanks, Mal, for your insightful response. Not long-winded at all! I enjoyed it very much.

Perhaps my choice of the word "habit" was wrong... but I do think you're talking about the same thing I'm talking about. I suppose I meant "habit" less as something that you do mindlessly because you've done it so many times, but more like being disciplined to know what is the right thing to do to acheive a goal.

Say, for working out, if you know you should be healthy and in good shape, you have to get into a habit of working out. That doesn't mean that every time I go to the gym, it's a mindless thing... hell, it takes mental effort just to get me INTO the gym several times a week. It's never easy!! But I try to stay in the habit, in the discipline, of doing what's necessary for my health, because I care about myself.

That's what I mean about relationships, too, and I think you agree... the willingness to work, to communicate, to spend meaningful time together, in order to stay healthy together. You said that your dad would call your mom every night, and later on they had dinner together and talked every night, and how they take vacations together. I guess that's what I mean by "good habits." Calling regularly, talking over dinner, communicating... making those actions such an integral part of your relationship that you stay as healthy and loving as possible, even when you don't feel like being that way.

But what do you think happened with your sister and her husband? Surely they didn't start out that way. What got in the way of their daily intimacy? Did they ever have it, and lost it? Or was it just never there? That was part of my OP... if love is being committed to working on a relationship, what happens to make love go away? Do all those little daily decisions that people make, that don't seem to matter at the time, build up to destroy the love that the couple began with?

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

maleficent

I'm not close enough to my sister to know the answer... I can guess... and I think it's the reason why a lot of relationships go south... She was in love with the idea of being in love... While dating, he was attentive, they also worked in the same building so it made it a lot easier to see each other all the time and his working late wasn't that noticable because - she didn't live with him then, and she could see him at the office. Once they got married... Life gets in the way... House repairs come up - and that takes away from the "me" time my sister was used to getting, kids come up... work comes up... dating and long term committed relationships are two totally different things and I'm not sure my sister (nor are a lot of people) ready for the differences...

Long term relationships aren't all roses and lollypops.. there's thorns and sticky fingers too... it's how people deal with the thorns and such that really define the relationship... My sister... is one of those types who sees her husband's working late as a personal affront on her... that he's doing it to piss her off (maybe so and kudos to him for doing so because it's fun to piss her off) but what she doesn't see is that he always worked late... If she was smart (she'll tell you she's got a high iq and is really smart and has all these degrees) she would have had her eyes opened in the beginning and not continued the relationship... and found someone who was more suited to her... She forgot the cardinal rule in a relationship -- you can't expect to change another person, you can really only work within their personality.

__________________

Gonth

I'm confused as to how you got that from my post. What I was trying to say is that the happiness of the two individuals is dependent. If one is unhappy, the other can't be happy. They both are either happy or unhappy. In theory this goes both ways in the relationship so the two people try and make the other one happy.

The selfishness of the emotion is that in order for you to be happy, the other person has to be happy. Their happiness is what makes you happy. So you go out of your way to make them happy.

I wonder if I could write happy any more times than I've just done....

__________________
You are the most important person in your world

Cynthetiq

Hmmm, tying happiness to the other individual is dangerous territory.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Gonth

lol, I'm really not getting this accross the way I wanted to. Maybe third times the charm. And sorry to abaya, I feel like I'm turning this thread into something you weren't after. but here goes again.

Tying the emotions together does happen. If you care about someone, you want them to be happy and healthy, and if they are not, it affects you. If they are sick, it occupies your thoughts. If they are unhappy, you want to do something to make them happy.

As I said before I really like Ayn Rand's egoist philosophy, and I beleive the desire for their happiness is a selfish desire. It stems from your own desire to be happy. You derive your happiness from theirs. So your not relying on them to make you happy, because you can do something to change the situation. You can do something to make them happy.

For example: About 2 months ago a good friend of mine fainted in our massage class. This is a girl I've know for almost 2 years now, my first friend I made when I went to college. So I care about her. She was only out for about 5 seconds and was weak, but pretty recoved in about 15 minutes. I figured nothing was wrong and wasn't worried at all. But, the campus aid person who checked her out decided she should go to the hospital. Now, I don't know about you all, but hospitals are not really my favorite place in the world, and I knew she didn't like them at all. So I went with her. My reasoning? Because I knew that if I didn't, she would be stuck in a hospital for a few hours, with noone she knew around. Unhappy, to say the least, and I knew that if I went home, it would bother me. So I didn't go with her because it would make HER happy, I went with her because it would make ME happy. Selfishness. My happiness was the ultimate goal.

Obviously this is not fool-proof, there are times when your SO just wants to be left alone and their is nothing you can do about it, but during that time, are you ever fully enjoying what your doing? or is that little voice in the back of your head always going, "What could I do to make him/her happy again?"

The problem with the man in the story, and its definitly a good lesson, is that he tried to depend on the girl to make him happy. If you rely on someone else to make you happy, your doomed. You have to find out what makes you happy, and make it occur. Hopefully alot. In your SO, what makes you happy should be their happiness. Which, to an extent, is in your control. The problem comes when they depend on you for their happiness. If you ever find yourself relying on your SO to make you happy, its become a dependance thing. Instead of making yourself happy, you wait for someone else to make you happy, which doesn't work because, as the story said, they can't know exactly how you feel.

For Example: If I had not gone to the hospital, she would have been fine, there were nice people there, a TV, she got some apple juice, yada yada yada. She wasn't expecting me to come with her, she didn't ask, and I know that if I had said, "Well, cya, call me when you get back from the hospital so I know your ok." She would have been fine with it. I think she knew, maybe not conciously, but knew, that I came with her for my own reasons, and not because I felt bad for her.

phew, ok, I've been through this for 30 minutes now and I think it says what I wanted to say from the beginning. I have to dream right?

PS: Egoist is different from Egotist. You have no idea how many times people think I've misspelled it.

__________________
You are the most important person in your world

Cynthetiq

What you are describing is text book codependent behavior, "control through people pleasing, being a chameleon, wearing a mask, dancing to other people's tunes" all equalling making the other individual happy.

Now mind you I don't want my wife to be miserable and yes, if she's miserable I will not be happy, but I will not be miserable also. No, she's completely detached from my wellbeing. I will be concerned for her, but my happiness cannot be tied to hers lest I lose my own independent self.

In the past I have done what you are saying, I'm still paying the price to this very day for it because somewhere somehow I wonder if this woman that I tied my happiness to is happy or not. Note, this woman isn't my wife, but it's someone that I became quite codependent on via the exact mannerisms and mechanisms you are describing.

My suggestion is that you be your own self 100%. In my experience once I've done that all my relationships from my parents to my wife have all become more positive, respectful, and healthier.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.