It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is it "Love" or "In Love" that makes it work?

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 08:53 PM
There's been a rash of recent posts in the relationship forum about men being unhappy in their marriages. I could say the same. (I haven't.)

You can "love" many things, but you can only be "in love" with one other person. That's the person you are intimate with. Most people consider the topic taboo, and I don't blame them for not discussing their personal lives, but in this thread, I'd like to see if members are "in love" or just "love" their partners. Most people are lazy, and will stick in a semi-happy relationship. I will admit that I "love" my partner, but I constantly question whether I am "in love" with her. From my perspective, and PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong, being "in love" means a meaningful sexual relationship, and "love" pertains to a feeling of friendship, and trust.

Men are quite the carnal creatures, and we base most everything upon physical satisfaction. We perform best when satisfied.

A woman that makes us happy makes us productive, and they control us. Those who don't we "love". It's a complicated topic, so I'm looking forward to alternative viewpoints.

You can love your wife or husband or significant other, but are you REALLY in love with them? Are you selling yourself short for the convenience?

Is there really a difference? Maybe I'm skewed in my thinking. Your thoughts, and comments, are all very much appreciated.......

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by Druid42

You'll be getting a lot of different viewpoints considering everyone defines the two terms differently.

I both love and am in love with my partner. Love to me is an emotion that is felt when the thought of losing the person, place, or thing provokes deep rooted sadness or anxiety.

To say that I am in love is saying that the love I feel for my partner surpasses the love of other things and people. I love my dog, just as I love my mother. To say that I am in love however proves that I love my partner more than anything else in an exclusively romantic way.

edit on 31-3-2012 by Skepticesque because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:13 PM
reply to post by Skepticesque

You have grabbed the nubbin of it there. The in love feeling surpasses the love feeling. The former precedes the latter. The in love feeling overwhelms.

However, at some point the in love fades. For whatever reason. Why?

Off topic: You know the system too well for a new member. You already have an avatar up. Do I know you from somewhere? You seem vaguely familiar....

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:17 PM
In love is the passion you feel for someone.
It is strong in the early years but subsides a bit later on.
It's still there,but there are many other things in your life.

Love is the loyalty and commitment you feel.
It can be spread around and shared.

In love is between two people.

Most of the time.

My father in law is currently in love with the Kentucky Wildcats,if you know what that means.
edit on 31-3-2012 by kdog1982 because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:30 PM
reply to post by kdog1982

You also have nailed the nubbin of the topic. I'll give you a star for the flag.

When will the March Madness end? *wink*

I want more depth to the topic, however, and not from the male side. I want to hear what the females have to say.

Believe it or not, they ARE the ones in charge.

Supposition: The females of this world create or destroy a man's destiny. True or false?

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Druid42

You can "love" many things, but you can only be "in love" with one other person.

Your proof?

As a species we can love an infinite number of others. I have three children, I love them all with passion.

Oh, what you want to talk only of sexual love. Why is it so different. But Ok. It is your society that demands a single pairing. Why are so many people unhappy, because it takes two to make a pairing work.

People grew up having every whim catered for and still want the same.

People argue rather than discuss. An argument is a dual monologue with no listeners.

We are at our worst when

The dictates of our species

Are in direct and fundamental opposition

To the dictates of our society.

In love, sex and marriage we are at our worst!

So back to the OP "but you can only be "in love" with one other person" Prove It Please!


posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 09:56 PM
There are more divorces because of this love verses being in love crap. Does anyone really think they will feel as deeply passionate after say 20 years or more? If people expect to constantly be 'in love', you are being unrealistic. Why do you think some people get married over and over again? When you first fall in love it's almost obsessive where it is all you think about, all encompassing. After so many years that will fade and it is normal. True love is so much more than sex.

Let me ask you all one question. If the person you are deeply in love with today gets in a horrible car accident and becomes disfigured in some way, do you end the relationship? If so, you never really loved that person for who they really are. It was superficial.

I have been married to the same man for 32 years. Was it always easy? No, but we knew that what we we had was still worth a lot. We have stood by each others side all these years, through his diabetes and other health problems, his losing a leg, my having breast cancer, both of losing our jobs at the same time etc. We have shared our ups and downs, our hopes and dreams, tears and laughter and I wouldn't change that for anything in the world.

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 10:03 PM
"In love" can also be described as infatuation. It doesn't last, it isn't meant to.

"Love", as defined in romantic relationships, is a deeper, more mature feeling that is not based on hormones.

The confusion between the two is why marriages are always being split up. Here's how it works: You fall "in love" and get married. You love the person, but the "in love" feeling fades because infatuation is a trick of nature so we breed and perpetuate the species. Because the "in love" feeling fades or is gone with time, people feel like they need to find somebody else to fall "in love" with so they can experience the drug-like infatuation all over again.

Some people are in love with being in love, which is why their relationships crumble after a while....because the whole relationship is built on shifting sands. So they run off, get divorced and remarry, and then guess what? The same thing happens all over again.

Being in love is a heady crush, and is based on dreams and illusions.

Loving somebody is based on reality. When your partner wakes up, has morning breath and crazy hair, farts and burps and stumbles around grumpy, and you still love them, that is real love. When they annoy you, disappoint you, you trip over their shoes they left in the middle of the floor, and you still love them, that is real.

Don't let the illusion of being "in love" ruin a solid relationship. You can re-create the in love feelings by spending a fun, care-free day doing something happy and enjoyable. Go on a date. Go out dancing or to a movie. Go parking in a dark place like you were teenagers. Be naughty out in an open field (just make sure there isn't anybody around).

Trust me, dumping one partner because you don't feel "in love" will not get you anything but another partner that you will fall out of love with eventually as well. It is the nature of the beast. Nurture the relationship you have.

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by pheonix358

I cannot prove what you request, I cannot prove that a person can only be in love with one person at a time. I can only speak from experience, and my experiences limits me to only one person that I can be in love with. I"m not talking about multiple "lovers", having flings and such, but other individuals that you are intimate with. That is the "in love" aspect. Once you share your body with another person, then, and only then may you be able to use the words "in love with". I love my dogs, my kids, etc, but it's only a intimate situation that can encompass the "in love" definition.

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:22 PM
reply to post by Night Star

I must commend you for 32 years of dedication to the same individual, and the fact that sexual intimacy has never been an issue in your own relationship, but others don't have the devotion or understanding that you two have.

The divorce rate in the US is over 63%. That's sad, but it points to the fact that people are in love, marry, and realize it was infatuation, then divorce.

Basically, it tells me that people don't know what love is, or even the difference between love and being in love. I'll venture to say the majority of people, because you obviously are in the 37% that have all your ducks in a row. You figured it out, and congrats. I envy you.

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:50 PM
reply to post by FissionSurplus

Being in love is a heady crush, and is based on dreams and illusions.

Yes, so true, and many a night you could ponder your desire for that person, however irrational it may be. In fact, by the time you are in love, reason is thrown to the wind, and all you can think about is being with that person. None of that is reality at all.

Don't let the illusion of being "in love" ruin a solid relationship.

I suppose that is directed towards the males reading this. Those who are left deprived by their female companions, those who only truly wish to be able to express the innate feelings of love to another soul. After years of negligence, there are those individuals whose only hope is in the arms of someone other than their spouse, and that for that fact of the spouse denying their needs. It happens, it's possible, and if the male population of ATS were to respond to this thread HONESTLY, and state whether they were happy with their intimate life with their spouse, or not, I would think that the majority of males would be wanting.

Age is no excuse.

Intimacy is the key to being in love with a female, from this male's perspective. You've proven it's not so from a female's view. All the females want is a man to lie in the same bed with them, night after night, intimacy optional, and they are happy with the security that that scenario provides. The catch is that if we take you for a spin around the park, or off on a cruise, the in love feelings come back, and intimacy is reborn.

In other words, female intimacy has a price. How wrong am I? Please, correct me.

posted on Mar, 31 2012 @ 11:52 PM
Well,16 years of marriage,splitting up a few times and getting back together realizing that what we have together is alot better than what we could find with someone else,that we care about each other still and will be willing to wipe each others butt when it needs to be done.
That is love and commitment,being there for each other no matter what.
And those moments that you steal together,become the playful young couple that you once were,just like in those cialis commercials.

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:09 AM
I will post this link to a very relevant article.

Love requires that you love yourself too. That doesn't mean that you're the center of your universe. It means you truly see and accept yourself, and you also see the object of your desire with those same eyes. Love means that you enhance each other. You both give the other room to grow and create a fertile environment for that to happen.

My own marriage ended after only thirteen years. My husband would only accept things his way - and I'm not without my own will. Was there love? How can one really say? In a relationship, it takes two in a committed bond. What hurts one, hurts the other. If that is not true, then the relationship will be doomed to failure.

Being *in love* means allowing the other to change and grow and seeing the beauty and glory in all the change that occurs in your life together. When growth and change are disallowed or otherwise hindered, that split will necessarily occur. Unconditional love knows no bounds. Limitation is not within its scope.

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:17 AM
Love is not required to be in love. I have been "in love" with someone only for it to fade and realize I never really loved them to begin with.
Being in love does not last. It will never last, If after the being in love part wears off and you are able to say you love them but are not in love with them, then you have something special. Most people just don't realize that.

Love is what makes it work. Not in love.

edit on 1-4-2012 by calstorm because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:36 AM
reply to post by calstorm

That's simply infatuation. That quite obviously has nothing to do with love. Maybe you're just fickle? Doesn't mean you've experienced anything like love or being in love.

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:47 AM
reply to post by CosmicEgg

I think you are missing the point of what I was trying to say. What most people are talking about when they are talking about being in love is just that, infatuation. It has nothing to do with being fickle and everything to do with the difference between what I know now and what I knew 20 years ago.
If people are reffing to the sexual passion and they high of a new relationship like it seems so many are, then they are using the term in love in place of the word infatuation.

People are mistaking infatuation for love. I did it to when I was younger. Some people here however are thinking because they no longer feel the high that their marriage is over. Yet they claim they still love their spouse.
edit on 1-4-2012 by calstorm because: (no reason given)

I put the term in love in my previous post in quotes to hopefully clarify what I was trying to say.
edit on 1-4-2012 by calstorm because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 12:48 AM
reply to post by CosmicEgg

Love requires that you love yourself too.

That is one of the best pieces of advice offered so far. More often than not, the husband, or wife, is selfish, and takes more from the relationship then what the other gives. There's a huge imbalance, and the relationship is doomed to failure.

If you love yourself, you have the innate ability to share that love with others. Without the ability to love yourself, you need to siphon love from others to fill the void in your own life. A relationship based on needs is doomed to fail as well.

At this point, most will agree that an unbalanced relationship will fail, but who is responsible for that balance?

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:02 AM
reply to post by calstorm

I'll slightly disagree with you, on the point of the new relationship "high". It's real, yes, no matter how old you are, when your lips touch for the first time, and you feel the rush inside your soul.

However, that rush is not limited to physical contact when it is new. You can simply think about a person you are "in love" with, and the butterflies fly, and your belly is unsettled. It feels good. You want the rush, you want to feel loved, and as long as that other person reciprocates, the ideal, the "illusion", is held in place.

16 years later the butterflies have all died. Well, 3 years, 6 years, heck, the 7 year itch.

I'll venture that there is a ratio for years married versus libido, it's a sharp downward slope, if graphed for female libido. If graphed for males, I'll venture a upper limit line, with moderate spikes, and only a slight decline, never dropping below the 80 percentile.

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:27 AM
So you believe, that to be able to feel that high, you must have real love for that person?
I think it is possible feel that high without feeling genuine love for someone.
Perhaps I am just not making my self clear. I was going to start a thread on the female libido decline, why and what men can do about it from a females point of view, but perhaps I will wait until I get a good night sleep and can word things more clear.

Unfortunately, by the time I have free time to post on ATS at the end of the day, I am so tired I probably shouldn't be posting in the first place.

edit on 1-4-2012 by calstorm because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 01:46 AM
reply to post by calstorm

Who said anything about a high? It's a matter of love and not a temporary attraction that fades quickly. They are not one and the same.

The topic here is love or in love. Please read that article I linked. Maybe it will shed some light on just how off-base your infatuation issue is with the topic at hand.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in