Skip to main content

What Is Love?*

Last night, a friend asked me, "Have you ever been in love?"

I have never been asked this question before.


In November, the same friend asked me if I'd ever had a serious boyfriend. I answered something along the lines of, "Well, none of the guys I've dated have been flings. But none of them have made it to the six month mark."

"So no," he replied, almost instantly.

It made me sad. Not because of what he said or how he said it, but because it rang true. (I think this is one of the things that makes me sad about my relationship history - I've yet to get into the nitty-gritty of relationship, the daily grind, the conflicts that are inevitable. Is it strange that I want that?)



This time around, I didn't have an answer very quickly. I scrolled through the memories in my mind. I umm-ed and uhhh-ed for a minute or so. Then I said something like this:

"I don't know. I really don't know. I have been giddy and crushing and so excited to spend time with someone I'm quite attracted to. I have been ready to commit to a person and a relationship indefinitely, to walk through the boring parts and the conflicts and the differences. Is that being in love? - I don't think I know what "in love" means."


I've been thinking about it all day. What is "in love"? What is the difference between caring deeply for someone, loving them, and being "in love"? Is it all about mutuality? Continuity? Is it simply the sexual attraction factor? Where's the line between self-centred desire and actual love?

What.
Is.
In Love?


Please comment.
(Starting with you, Nadine.)





*Of course, I've had this song all day:
Labels:

Comments

  1. Nadine10:06 PM

    Eek! Pressure to respond!

    Um, okay. My comment: I don't know what "in love" is. Or how to define it, even though I claim to be "in it" even as I type. I'm tempted to say it's a construct of fairly recent generations, turning love into a passive thing that happens to us rather than it being an active choice. (Which makes it easier to walk away, claiming we're just not "in love" anymore as if we're helpless in the situation. People are dumb.)

    AND YET...

    I think "in love" follows "love" (and the two eventually become one awesome indistinguishable glob of goodness, like peanut butter and chocolate ice cream). I LOVED first. I chose to love. And then one day.... It was like the good, selfless, non-mushy love I felt was suddenly bundled with the desire to pursue a future WITH him. My choice to love sort of gathered its own momentum, and my investment in him turned into an investment in "us."

    Does any of this make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thom2:27 AM

    ooh, I like Nadine's comment, and I’m not sure if what I’ll type is adding to it or just affirming it. I wanted to say something about love being something you choose. I don't think the crushing and infatuation that typically ushers in a relationship is love, even though I think a lot of people would say it is, if it lasts long enough. I refuse to think love is just a feeling, because feelings are passing, and reactionary, and easily manipulated by circumstance. But love is better than that! Love endures, because it has will behind it. This is my lofty notion of love: the will to act for the better of someone else. You get more out of that than just being happy. Like a husband and wife who still love each other after 40 years, or a mom who loves her bratty kid, or a God who loves the world. I think “in love” is used incorrectly to describe the way someone makes you feel good, but used rightly describes your emotional response to actively loving someone (which could be euphoria, or it could be grief or many other things in between). I think love is rewarding because it draws us into relationship and that’s what we want most.

    You know how there’s all those different types of love? I like how English forced it to be one word, because then you have to think about it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous10:04 AM

    Our generation has a very selfish view of love: love is what I can get from a person or how someone makes me feel. Love is, in part, acting for the best for someone else; it is other centered and self sacrificial.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Laura10:49 AM

    I've thought a lot about this over the last few days. I LOVE (ha!) Tom's description. I would agree with him that choice is the most important aspect of being in love and loving. As fun as infatuation is, it is fleeting and, let's be honest, quite ridiculous. Love has so many more aspects to it. Sexual attraction, shared values, deep respect, holding that person above yourself, sacrifice of the individual for the sake of the union.

    Here are a couple of quotes that summarize well:

    “Life has taught us that love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking together in the same direction.”

    Perhaps love is the process of my leading you gently back to yourself” (or maybe to God)

    I also believe it is nearly impossible to love another person without experiencing God's love. Our love is so imperfect. We must experience the perfection of God's love toward us if we are ever to have any hope of loving another.

    So much more to say but I'll leave it at that!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ariana12:14 PM

    I agree with all of the above! I think for me, if we're discussing semantics, what makes the difference between "loving someone" and "being in love with someone" is that when you're IN love, you both love each other equally. You can love someone who doesn't love you back... but it usually sucks real bad. The IN love comes when they love you back just like you love them, and there is such deep security in that. Especially when you both have a reasonable understanding of LOVE the way God intends it (as described by previous commenters). :D

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous1:11 PM

    Eeeww, peanuts (especially peanut butter) and chocolate should never be mixed!!

    (Otherwise I like the comments posted above!)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Beth9:30 PM

    thank you all!

    two thoughts/questions to continue:

    a) how do my readers who don't factor Jesus in view love?

    b) all of us (including myself in with all y'all who left comments) would say that chemistry/attraction is an important factor in romantic relationships...yes? but no one mentioned how that fits in. isn't that a major part of the "in love" experience?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jess3:03 PM

    Here's my recent/current experience:

    I knew I had never been in love, because you're just supposed to KNOW, right? I knew I hadn't. Then I knew I loved him on a certain level because I was willing to meet him part way on things, I wanted to honour him and make sure I wasn't making him sin or whatever. Then it came to the point where I was willing to give up everything - living my glorious life in Montreal etc - to be with him. At that point I knew I was there -- it was that element of willing to sacrifice in combination with the mushy feelings & me laughing at his BAD JOKES that with anyone else I would have totally rolled my eyes. My sudden DESIRE to listen to country music with him because it makes him happy. It was attraction + desire + happiness + not even just willingness to sacrifice but almost looking forward to the opportunity if it meant I got to be with him. It's the infatuation + desire to give. But then again, what do I know. I'm still figuring this out.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ariana12:43 PM

    Beth, to answer your question... I guess I didn't mention it because I assumed it was a given in this situation, where I was discussing the difference between loving someone and being in love with someone. I was operating on the assumption that you are already attracted to this person and we were talking about romantic love, not friend love or family love. (Forgive me, I don't know the Greek words, hehe.)

    I still didn't really answer your question.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Beth7:00 PM

    ariana - i think i get what you're saying. and i think you did answer the question. :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Simone Weil: On "Forms of the Implicit Love of God"

Simone Weil time again! One of the essays in Waiting for God  is entitled "Forms of the Implicit Love of God." Her main argument is that before a soul has "direct contact" with God, there are three types of love that are implicitly  the love of God, though they seem to have a different explicit  object. That is, in loving X, you are really loving Y. (in this case, Y = God). As for the X of the equation, she lists: Love of neighbor  Love of the beauty of the world  Love of religious practices  and a special sidebar to Friendship “Each has the virtue of a sacrament,” she writes. Each of these loves is something to be respected, honoured, and understood both symbolically and concretely. On each page of this essay, I found myself underlining profound, challenging, and thought-provoking words. There's so much to consider that I've gone back several times, mulling it over and wondering how my life would look if I truly believed even half of these thin
1 comment
Read more

I Like to Keep My Issues Drawn

It's Sunday night and I am multi-tasking. Paid some bills, catching up on free musical downloads from the past month, thinking about the mix-tape I need to make and planning my last assignment for writing class. Shortly, I will abandon the laptop to write my first draft by hand. But until then, I am thinking about music. This song played for me earlier this afternoon, as I attempted to nap. I woke up somewhere between 5 and 5:30 this morning, then lay in bed until 8 o'clock flipping sides and thinking about every part of my life that exists. It wasn't stressful, but it wasn't quite restful either...This past month, I have spent a lot of time rebuffing lies and refusing to believe that the inside of my heart and mind can never change. I feel like Florence + The Machine 's song "Shake it Out" captures many of these feelings & thoughts. (addendum: is the line "I like to keep my issues strong or drawn ?" Lyrics sites have it as "stro
2 comments
Read more

Esse - Czeslaw Milosz

I'm on a bit of a poetry binge this week, and Monday afternoon found me lying on the luxurious shag rug of a friend's tiny apartment, re-reading some of my favourite poets (ee cummings, William Carlos Williams, Czeslaw Milosz). It is an adventure to re-open a collection and wonder what will pop out, knowing something you've read before will strike you afresh, or you will be reminded of a particularly moving line that you had somehow forgotten. Like this piece from Milosz, which floors me. Every. damn.* time. The first time I read it, I lay in a park with a friend (this same friend who offered me her rug as my reading burrow) and demanded that I share it with her. I spoke it carefully, and then, into the post-reading silence, I slammed the book shut, and dropped it as loudly as I could onto the grass. "I'm never reading anything again," I declared, "What else is there to say?" Esse I looked at that face, dumbfounded. The lights of métro st
Post a Comment
Read more