5 ms·

Not trying to criticize here, but if "love" becomes freely applicable to all sorts of relationships of varying intimacies and understandings and bonds, doesn't

by majos 7y ago

Not trying to criticize here, but if "love" becomes freely applicable to all sorts of relationships of varying intimacies and understandings and bonds, doesn't that cheapen the word? Maybe the word doesn't need to be love -- but I think we need a word that expresses commitment. Perhaps not exclusively, but at least through-thick-and-thin support. Love without this sounds oxymoronic to me.

IgorPartola 7y ago
It depends on how you define it. It may sound like I am preaching “the one twue way”. I am not, I support those who define things differently. Having said that, the way I view it is that love is already used all over the place: “I love this game!” “I love chocolate cake!” “I love you, and your sister, and your little brother! I love my kids!” Why do we “allow” such usage without qualms, but when it comes to romantic love we only allow for it to mean “feelings you have toward one partner that you must then try to be with, and possibly marry and procreate”? Why can’t you enjoy someone’s company so much that you love them for just that moment, that hour, that year? And what about the whole mutual love dilemma? Have you ever witnessed a situation where two people are together and one is nervous to profess their love to the other because they might not say it back? And if they do, do they feel it the same way? That I think actually brings me to the most interesting way “love” is cheapened: when it is unexpressed. Say you are dating someone and by all accounts “it’s too early”. But you know you are in love. And maybe this is some puppy love because you are a teenager, but maybe you found the person that makes you feel just right in your late 40s after two divorces. You know what Love feels like for you and this is it, but a month in you cannot just profess it to your partner, can you? Well why not? If you tell them “I love you. I feel it deep in my belly, and in my fingertips when I touch you. This doesn’t mean I need to marry you, or we need to be together forever. It doesn’t even mean that you have to love me, now or ever. But I want you to know that you make me feel this way, and I am lucky that you are here with me right now.” How is that a cheapened version of “real love”?
- wool_gather 7y ago
  I agree with what you've said, but your last paragraph also points to a simple, easy way forward (on the individual level): just describe the specific feelings without needing to roll them all up into that one loaded word. The specificity is probably better communication anyways. It also maybe frees the other person to express the same kind of appreciation.
  - IgorPartola 7y ago
    Sure. But why? Because someone else somewhere else might feel uncomfortable with how you feel with my partner? If what you feel can only be described as love, but you don’t plan on making a commitment, why would you call it something else? Wouldn’t it be the person who wants commitment that needs to say “I love you and want to be with you forever” rather that the person who just is experiencing love that has to clarify “I love you but am not necessarily looking for a commitment”? If you accept that loves doesn’t mean commitment, it logically follows that you can experience a form of love unburdened by expectations. After all, I love chocolate but that doesn’t imply that I should only eat chocolate.
    - majos 7y ago
      It looks like we just disagree on definitions -- my definition of love entails commitment and obligation, yours doesn't. But there are so many existing ways to communicate your definition of love: you're so rad! hanging out with you makes me feel great! I'm having such a good time! or any of the things you wrote responding to my comment above. Why take love and make it synonymous (ignoring issues of correctness, I think the current popular meaning of love, expressed between two romantically involved persons, is closest to the "serious" one I have in mind)? I think we should generally be careful using words that may have charged meanings for people -- not for the sake of anonymous third parties not present, but because one of the two parties may be such a person.
      - IgorPartola 7y ago
        Yes, I think that's really the only place where we disagree. And for the record I am OK with that, and just responding as an intellectual exercise, not because I think you are wrong for using that definition. First off, the argument that I can't say "I love you" without it immediately obligating me to start working towards a long term commitment (LTC), and instead having to say "You are so rad" feels a whole lot like the last argument people used against marriage equality: "but why do you have to call it marriage. I am happy that you found someone but marriage is between a man and a woman, has always been that way, and should remain that way, otherwise we are messing with society's understanding of marriage, and that's dangerous." Not saying that this is what you are saying, it just has the same feel to it. If I love someone, I tell them so. I don't think they are rad. I think I am in love. They are different things. Second, if we are looking at these terms as constructs, with the ability to define what they are, I would argue that simpler is better. Love is love. Commitment is commitment. Isn't it better to communicate them as separate things, than have the ambiguity of implying them together? Love is a feeling. Commitment is an choice and a set of actions. Why does a feeling imply action? No other feeling really does: "I dislike you" doesn't mean "now we must fight", and "I think you are funny" doesn't imply "we must start telling jokes". So why is love special in this way? Third, the practical problems of telling someone "I love you" a week into that relationship. Yes, in a vacuum that can be a supremely bad idea. But as someone with some experience with this, I can tell you that practically, it's less of a problem than it would seem. Typically, I will be very upfront about my non-traditional view of relationships and people usually self-select pretty quickly to be the kind that understands them. Also the term casual love specifically is pretty well known in my circles, or I simply explain it as I did here, providing the original post about it. I never had an issue with someone mistaking it for "... and I want to be together forever", nor have I heard of it being mistaken that way. So I would argue it's a non-issue. And fourth, love is a feeling an individual experiences. If you love someone, ok great good for you. Why should that compel you to do anything about it. Like, you suddenly and inexplicably fall in love with someone who isn't your spouse. Are you now obligated to get a divorce and try to pursue this new person? Just because you developed a feeling? Love shouldn't imply expectation. I guess you could argue that if you are in a committed monogamous relationship you could never fall in love with someone else, but let's face it, being committed to person A has rarely prevented someone from developing feelings for person B. Or is the idea that you can develop feelings, it's just not love, because you are in an LTC? Or you can't call it that? That to me that brings it back to the talking heads on TV saying "well where does it end? Today you feel love for your neighbor, and tomorrow the society crumbles?" Again, I think we are all big boys and girls and know when we feel in love, why not call it what it is? So in conclusion, in my mind better communication wins. "I love you" vs "I love you and want to form an LTC" are different things, and rolling them into just "I love you" is what puts all the expectations on someone.

by majos 7y ago

IgorPartola 7y ago

It depends on how you define it. It may sound like I am preaching “the one twue way”. I am not, I support those who define things differently. Having said that, the way I view it is that love is already used all over the place: “I love this game!” “I love chocolate cake!” “I love you, and your sister, and your little brother! I love my kids!” Why do we “allow” such usage without qualms, but when it comes to romantic love we only allow for it to mean “feelings you have toward one partner that you must then try to be with, and possibly marry and procreate”? Why can’t you enjoy someone’s company so much that you love them for just that moment, that hour, that year? And what about the whole mutual love dilemma? Have you ever witnessed a situation where two people are together and one is nervous to profess their love to the other because they might not say it back? And if they do, do they feel it the same way? That I think actually brings me to the most interesting way “love” is cheapened: when it is unexpressed. Say you are dating someone and by all accounts “it’s too early”. But you know you are in love. And maybe this is some puppy love because you are a teenager, but maybe you found the person that makes you feel just right in your late 40s after two divorces. You know what Love feels like for you and this is it, but a month in you cannot just profess it to your partner, can you? Well why not? If you tell them “I love you. I feel it deep in my belly, and in my fingertips when I touch you. This doesn’t mean I need to marry you, or we need to be together forever. It doesn’t even mean that you have to love me, now or ever. But I want you to know that you make me feel this way, and I am lucky that you are here with me right now.” How is that a cheapened version of “real love”?

wool_gather 7y ago
I agree with what you've said, but your last paragraph also points to a simple, easy way forward (on the individual level): just describe the specific feelings without needing to roll them all up into that one loaded word. The specificity is probably better communication anyways. It also maybe frees the other person to express the same kind of appreciation.
- IgorPartola 7y ago
  Sure. But why? Because someone else somewhere else might feel uncomfortable with how you feel with my partner? If what you feel can only be described as love, but you don’t plan on making a commitment, why would you call it something else? Wouldn’t it be the person who wants commitment that needs to say “I love you and want to be with you forever” rather that the person who just is experiencing love that has to clarify “I love you but am not necessarily looking for a commitment”? If you accept that loves doesn’t mean commitment, it logically follows that you can experience a form of love unburdened by expectations. After all, I love chocolate but that doesn’t imply that I should only eat chocolate.
  - majos 7y ago
    It looks like we just disagree on definitions -- my definition of love entails commitment and obligation, yours doesn't. But there are so many existing ways to communicate your definition of love: you're so rad! hanging out with you makes me feel great! I'm having such a good time! or any of the things you wrote responding to my comment above. Why take love and make it synonymous (ignoring issues of correctness, I think the current popular meaning of love, expressed between two romantically involved persons, is closest to the "serious" one I have in mind)? I think we should generally be careful using words that may have charged meanings for people -- not for the sake of anonymous third parties not present, but because one of the two parties may be such a person.
    - IgorPartola 7y ago
      Yes, I think that's really the only place where we disagree. And for the record I am OK with that, and just responding as an intellectual exercise, not because I think you are wrong for using that definition. First off, the argument that I can't say "I love you" without it immediately obligating me to start working towards a long term commitment (LTC), and instead having to say "You are so rad" feels a whole lot like the last argument people used against marriage equality: "but why do you have to call it marriage. I am happy that you found someone but marriage is between a man and a woman, has always been that way, and should remain that way, otherwise we are messing with society's understanding of marriage, and that's dangerous." Not saying that this is what you are saying, it just has the same feel to it. If I love someone, I tell them so. I don't think they are rad. I think I am in love. They are different things. Second, if we are looking at these terms as constructs, with the ability to define what they are, I would argue that simpler is better. Love is love. Commitment is commitment. Isn't it better to communicate them as separate things, than have the ambiguity of implying them together? Love is a feeling. Commitment is an choice and a set of actions. Why does a feeling imply action? No other feeling really does: "I dislike you" doesn't mean "now we must fight", and "I think you are funny" doesn't imply "we must start telling jokes". So why is love special in this way? Third, the practical problems of telling someone "I love you" a week into that relationship. Yes, in a vacuum that can be a supremely bad idea. But as someone with some experience with this, I can tell you that practically, it's less of a problem than it would seem. Typically, I will be very upfront about my non-traditional view of relationships and people usually self-select pretty quickly to be the kind that understands them. Also the term casual love specifically is pretty well known in my circles, or I simply explain it as I did here, providing the original post about it. I never had an issue with someone mistaking it for "... and I want to be together forever", nor have I heard of it being mistaken that way. So I would argue it's a non-issue. And fourth, love is a feeling an individual experiences. If you love someone, ok great good for you. Why should that compel you to do anything about it. Like, you suddenly and inexplicably fall in love with someone who isn't your spouse. Are you now obligated to get a divorce and try to pursue this new person? Just because you developed a feeling? Love shouldn't imply expectation. I guess you could argue that if you are in a committed monogamous relationship you could never fall in love with someone else, but let's face it, being committed to person A has rarely prevented someone from developing feelings for person B. Or is the idea that you can develop feelings, it's just not love, because you are in an LTC? Or you can't call it that? That to me that brings it back to the talking heads on TV saying "well where does it end? Today you feel love for your neighbor, and tomorrow the society crumbles?" Again, I think we are all big boys and girls and know when we feel in love, why not call it what it is? So in conclusion, in my mind better communication wins. "I love you" vs "I love you and want to form an LTC" are different things, and rolling them into just "I love you" is what puts all the expectations on someone.