"falling in love" vs "growing in love"

Do you feel society values weddings more than marriage?

We can spend thousands of dollars on a wedding but many couples (myself included) would be less willing to spend that money on things that make a marriage strong, like couples counselling. We automatically spend hundreds of hours preparing a wedding but how much do we willingly spend on attending relationship courses or reading books to make our marriage better?

The first stage of love, or "falling in love" as it has been described earlier, seems to be celebrated more than "growing in love."
 
Do you feel society values weddings more than marriage?

We can spend thousands of dollars on a wedding but many couples (myself included) would be less willing to spend that money on things that make a marriage strong, like couples counselling. We automatically spend hundreds of hours preparing a wedding but how much do we willingly spend on attending relationship courses or reading books to make our marriage better?

The first stage of love, or "falling in love" as it has been described earlier, seems to be celebrated more than "growing in love."

I hesitate to even speak to what "society" wants anymore, man. I mean, do you see, you have in the world of most straight people trying to date, a camp of guys, yelling "Women want this, but then they want that, and it's so unfair!" and women over on the other side yelling, "Men want this, but then they also want that, and it's so unfair!" How we even manage to survive so well as a species, sometimes it baffles the mind. At least when you are standing in the forest, surrounded by the trees.

I mean from the perspective of a woman, I see men going through life phases. First when they're young, they want to get casual sex with as many women as they can. Then at some point, often coinciding with career stability and wanting to "nest"...they start questing for The One. Sometimes there is overlap, or there is an overwhelming preponderance of one motivation or the other that drives them. I've known teenage guys who thought they were looking for The One, and I've known men in advanced years who were still playing the field, and I've known some guys who can't seem to figure out what they are trying to do. These two drives can overlap and entwine and be confusing to the individual. But most men I have known have classed women in categories. "I would not have sex with her" or "I would have sex with her but not relationship with her" or "I want to have her for my own, provide, protect, nest, breed, etc."

So then you've got women, and men want women to be available when they need casual sex, but if you are a casual sex kind of girl, you should not expect to be loved. You exist to be used. You've soiled yourself permanently, according to "society." We are told to stay pure, but pressured HARD not to, but then told to accept all consequences (reproductive ones in particular) on our own heads if we give in to this pressure. It is my opinion that if a man has ever in his life tried to get a woman to give him casual sex, he has NO business thinking that contraceptive options for women should be restricted in any way. If you weren't ready to help make and raise a baby, then don't tell her she has to do it on her own, as though the act was ok for you but not for her. But here, is again, "society" we live in. And there are plenty of guys who feel tempted to do things they consider immoral and then hate women for presenting them with the desires in the first place, as though we have wronged them merely by existing and being seen.

So I guess marriage is the solution. Good ol' romance. The first guy who comes into a young gal's life who is willing to protect and provide, ought to be Miss Purity's Prince Charming, and of course she will fall in love and they'll live happily ever after. That's the package of BS we're sold growing up, isn't it? You would think Snow White had never encountered another man (besides the dwarves, and maybe her father) in her entire life. And wouldn't ya know it, the first one to come along for the princess is just perfect. The flipside being all the media fed to boys that the hero always gets the girl. As though, once you have made it to manhood, the universe will issue you a sexy woman to be your very own.

I have been giving a lot of thought to these social tropes, and the world we live in, and thinking, if I believe that there are very powerful and wealthy people at the top who are even far above our known leaders of government, religion and industry, if I contemplate the possibility of such shadowy pullers of strings...why would they want to institute these systems and encourage them to continue? I have a hard time believing that what feminists call "The Patriarchy" was mere accident. Well. You keep people chained to a dream like a carrot on a stick always dangling before your nose...if you just keep toiling, you will be rich and happy and loved...yes, work harder...keep going...don't give up...and please by all means make more babies, we need more fodder for the workforce... It all really starts to make sense.

I once read somewhere, "There are no poor Americans, just temporarily embarrassed millionaires." I laugh at this, but I agree with the sense of it. Even at my poorest I believed I was only in the middle of a temporary setback, one from which surely I would recover. That one day I will either live a comfortable but modest life within my means but doing art or something that I love...or I will make sacrifices and end up very rich. But the American dream just takes work and time, effort and patience, and it's there waiting for all of us if we just keep trudging forward to reach it.

Most of us will never reach it.

And we are also socialized to think that if/when we fail to get where we think we should, or those who fail to, well clearly you made poor choices. You succumbed to some addiction, or chose the wrong career, you wasted your money or your time. You chose badly in a mate and deserve a bad marriage, you ate delicious food and deserve to be fat, you spend your money frivolously and deserve to be poor, it is certainly your fault, but by all means feel guilty...and then keep doing it. As a woman, "society" seems to want me to feel guilty for every single speck of joy I've ever experienced. Even ten minutes of relaxing with a good book is idle time I could spend more productively, so when I don't get to where I think I should, I can tally up my every indulgence and know it was all my own fault.

But it is this illusory thinking of "the perfect life" that keeps us all toiling away and creating value to benefit the ones at the top, and new generations of human beings to do the same, all under the glorious illusion of "freedom."

Seen in this light, the wedding industry and institution is completely understandable, and at the same time, a tragic joke on the hapless fools who grew up imbibing Disney tropes and American dreams, like mother's milk.
 
But you know what is really cool, though?

All the cynicism of the last post and the unrealistic systems of "society"...

And then all of the individuals I know, the many many people, who have sat back, looked out over that forest of fake cardboard trees... And said:

"You know what? This shit doesn't work. It hasn't worked for me. It doesn't work for most people I know. Why the hell do we keep doing this? I'm going to try something different."

And in my mind, that is what hope looks like.
 
We should create a different thread Spork. I'd love to see one on optimism and entitlement - the lifeblood of democracy.
 
We should create a different thread Spork. I'd love to see one on optimism and entitlement - the lifeblood of democracy.

True enough. I mostly tossed all of that out there because I think that the whole ideology behind weddings as compared to the skills and work of building honest and viable longterm connection... It feels like a symptom of a thing. And it feels connected to the thing that has been occupying my brain a bit lately.
 
I was thinking about semantics today, Shaya, & couldn't recall if you've touched upon a particular point. And now I think it may loop back toward elements of Spork's excellent post.

How did it happen that "I've decided that I love you" is interchangeable with "I've decided that I am in love with you"?

The first is an assessment of Self -- mistaken perhaps, or an overestimate, but growing from some attempt at truth.

The second takes that assessment, & not only projects it 1:1 upon US, but then uses that leap to project it onto YOU.

The first is silly enough. How many times every day do we hear how someone "loves" chocolate or Star Trek or their dog or warm summer nights or Warcraft or...?

But to take that bastardized tool, mangle it further, then use it to exert one's will upon another, & expect that it's something holy?

And nobody seems to be aware of this bland manipulation.
 
To speak to your post, Ravenscroft, it's been my thought and my approach, that this foolery can be remedied through expanded communication.

Not merely saying a phrase that everybody assumes means the same thing, but then going on to explain what you mean when you say it. Of course, I am both a "words of affirmation" person and unapolagetically verbose, anyways, but to me this seems sensible.

Where I run into trouble, is where people (many people) cling so hard to the Disney trope, as I will now call the thing I explained earlier, that they completely refuse to accept your explanation of your motives and state of being, or they cast unfair judgments upon you for your refusal to play along with the game by the rules they understand.

So take the man who has only a few categories for the women he encounters and pursues. She is either a sex-girl, or a wife. When he says those three little words, he is actually saying "I see you as wife material." If he sees her as a sex girl, whether that is for one night or many, if SHE says those words, he had better spook out quick, she clearly wants babies and a wedding and China patterns, before ya know it's she's got your balls in her purse! RUN.

I have also heard plenty of arguments that loving freely and generously, cheapens love. Well, we of the poly world are well familiar with how scarcity thinking is a bit silly when applied to love feelings. I have found the act of unpacking stuff and handling each bit separately to be very helpful. I have to explain very early in knowing people, especially if I will be having sex with them, what love means to me, that it isn't this "holy" thing. Except insofar as I believe so much that more love in general is good for humankind, so I try to be as generous with it as I may.

Love is not sex, or intent to have sex, or consent to sexual activity of any kind.

Love is not intent to "escalate" the logistical realities of the relationship.

Love is neither a threat, nor a trap.

When I say, "I love you," I mean that I enjoy you in my world, I appreciate you, I would probably help you move if I am available to do that, my senses enjoy experiencing your physical self in my proximity, you can expect me to be affectionate to you, to respond positively to you in general, to listen when you need to talk. You are one of my tribe, my chosen family, my people, if you wish to be. I will always have space for you in my heart. You matter more than everyday strangers to me.

Now, I can say that to a friend and somehow it is understood. But if I say it to a lover, now it MEANS THINGS all of a sudden? Nonsense. The words didn't change, and neither did the meaning.

When I say, "I am in love with you" it is a bit different. It combines sexual desire and intentions, and a druglike addiction to the physical presence of the person (sight/sound/touch/taste/smell) rather than simply "when you're around I notice that you look or smell nice" now I am trying to climb in your lap and smell your hair. In addition to the physical component, there is an overall joy in having that partner in my life and a tendency to talk about them and think about them a lot. I will be giving them a high priority of my time, and projecting "love language" type expressions at them. I will want to know when I'll see them next, and I'll look forward to it, and I'll think fondly about integrating them into various aspects of my life, and sharing the things that bring me joy with them, because I want them to have my joy as well.

I am in love with Zen, AND I love him, AND as far as I know at this time, I also like him.

I love my former poly quad. I always will. Even if I am not IN LOVE with them. I even love my ex husband, if more out of habit than present-day affection, probably I always will. You can love someone even if you don't LIKE them, and that's a whole other animal, LIKING. In some ways, it's more significant, I have to know somebody even better, to know if I really LIKE them. Liking a partner can be the difference between moving in together and being happy for a year, or happy for many decades, and it has to be reaffirmed with conscious behavior. Love with no like, is a dog that keeps going back to the owner that hits him. It's not really good or healthy.

Does any of that mean, "Cohabitation, marriage, and babies, exclusivity and commitment?" No. All of those things are STILL very negotiable. All terms are negotiable, always.

And that is my issue with "Monogamy as practiced" or the Disney illusion...it's the damned assumptions.
 
To me, "I love you" and "I am in love with you" mean the same thing, but that might be due more to my monogamous inexperience. I understand the distinction as Spork put it, and I want to understand the distinction as you put it, Ravenscroft, but I don't think I fully get what you're saying yet. Did you and Spork mean the same thing or is it something different for you?
 
Spork's understanding is pretty much mine.

Someone once told me that there'salanguage (Thai, maybe) that can be damnably dificult to teach to Americans in part because there's like 16 different pronunciations of what (to us Englishers) all sounds like "s". Words that sound "the same" to someone from New York are wildly different.

It can be overcome, with thought & practice, training one's ear.

You, Shaya, have been presented with a new concept. ;)

Do we love our children? Generally, yes. Do our children love us back? Mostly, probably. :D So, does that mean we are in love with our children? Elaborate on the answer.

Let's say I walk up to a random stranger, assessing her as I approach. I stop, look her in the eyes, & say "I love you." That may or may not be true, depending on the criteria for defining "love," but it's at least a valid statement.

But if I instead say "I'm in love with you," THAT is certainly false -- there's no way she could instantaneously reflect my definition of "love."

Our culture takes it further: the "with you" statement traps the recipient into either accepting the burden or rejecting it completely. Saying "with you" is not so much an assessment as it is an attempt at a headlock. :eek:

Saying "with" about someone who's not present (to at least have opportunity to defend her-/himself) may be true, but it's questionable at best.
 
I'd say I'm "in love with" my friend Teri. She's a big stunning redhead & '80s metal fanatic. Though we've never had sex, & sometimes exchange affectionate kisses, we have slept together on occasion, sometimes bathed each other, are socially naked, & had hours-long oily massages. I feel I can make that "in love with" claim because we can say "I love you" when we're feeling particularly affectionate.

As I said in the book, I feel our culture has perverted the meaning of "gift." To me, a gift is something given freely, just because it feels good to give it. It's NOT to repay a debt, it's NOT from a sense of obligation, it's NOT in hopes of getting something back -- any of those things instantly renders it NOT a gift, but rather somesort of bribe.

When I say "I love you" to someone, that's intended as a small gift, a token of affection. I do NOT want to hear "and I love you TOO" because that strikes me as a too-common quid pro quo; it deflects/erases my little gift, so I'm less inclined to give another. I've asked more than a few [partners to refrain from the reflexive response, & instead to say it when/if they happened to feel it.
 
I'd say I'm "in love with" my friend Teri. She's a big stunning redhead & '80s metal fanatic. Though we've never had sex, & sometimes exchange affectionate kisses, we have slept together on occasion, sometimes bathed each other, are socially naked, & had hours-long oily massages. I feel I can make that "in love with" claim because we can say "I love you" when we're feeling particularly affectionate.

As I said in the book, I feel our culture has perverted the meaning of "gift." To me, a gift is something given freely, just because it feels good to give it. It's NOT to repay a debt, it's NOT from a sense of obligation, it's NOT in hopes of getting something back -- any of those things instantly renders it NOT a gift, but rather somesort of bribe.

When I say "I love you" to someone, that's intended as a small gift, a token of affection. I do NOT want to hear "and I love you TOO" because that strikes me as a too-common quid pro quo; it deflects/erases my little gift, so I'm less inclined to give another. I've asked more than a few [partners to refrain from the reflexive response, & instead to say it when/if they happened to feel it.

I'm still confused on how you are defining in love with someone. Are you saying that phrase means that both of you have to love each other in order for it to be true? That in love with is referring to the interaction between the emotions of the two people?

I ask because most people don't refer to something like that when they talk about the difference between being in love with someone and loving someone. I loved my father when he was alive, but I didn't particularly like his decisions or who he was as a person and I think that difference between loving someone but not really getting along with them or liking them and loving someone, getting along with them, liking who they are as a person is what people are trying to convey when they discuss the difference between loving someone and being in love with someone.
 
Are you saying that phrase means that both of you have to love each other in order for it to be true? That in love with is referring to the interaction between the emotions of the two people?
I've been refreshing my familiarity with logical analysis, so it seems proper :) to make the comparison more forma:
  • "I love..." is a subjective statement of one's feeling -- there is no need whatever for reciprocation for this statement to be factual
  • "... in love with..." is an objective summary of an interpersonal situation -- for this statement to be factual, ALL persons encompassed by the proposed "with" MUST agree with the statement
 
I've been refreshing my familiarity with logical analysis, so it seems proper :) to make the comparison more forma:
  • "I love..." is a subjective statement of one's feeling -- there is no need whatever for reciprocation for this statement to be factual
  • "... in love with..." is an objective summary of an interpersonal situation -- for this statement to be factual, ALL persons encompassed by the proposed "with" MUST agree with the statement

I had been about to come back to this after reading something on another thread that clarified where I thought you were coming from for me. Someone had said something about "being in love with each other" that made me realize that you were referring to that situation when talking about in love with. I'm glad to see that I was right in my understanding :).

On the flip side, I think I use in love in two different ways. I definitely use it to describe relationships where both myself and the other person love each other. Though right now I'm not sure either of my romantic relationships fall in this category. I know how I feel about them, however, one of them has huge issues surrounding the idea of love and while I know that he cares deeply for me, I'm unwilling to put words in his mouth to say that he loves me also. The other one, he says he loves me, but his actions very seldom back up that statement, so I'm unwilling to label us as in love with each other.

I also use the concept of in love versus love for situations like I described before. I may feel love for someone that I am not particularly close with or even sometimes like, so I use the idea of in love to differentiate between those people and the people I love, am close with, and like.

I think that the part that was tripping me up was using in love with to define both being in love with each other (mutual affection) and to describe the difference between loving someone and feeling close to them versus loving someone who I am not close with. I get the area of misunderstanding now, thank you for being willing to further explain.
 
Last edited:
Interesting point about love and children, Ravenscroft (and others.)

I touch back to what I said before about what being in love means to me, that it is that nearly-addicted state, the thing that is well...to be fair, probably very much the influence of chemicals and hormones. It is a very animal feeling.

When I had my babies, I was IN LOVE with them. I was obsessed with them. I wanted to sniff the tops of their heads and have intense contact with them, they were the most perfect creatures to ever live. Of course most new mothers feel similar things for their new babies. Nature has put this whole thing in motion for very good reasons.

My sons are now teenagers. I am actually counting the days until my youngest turns 18 (833 days to go!) and graduates (1070 days!) ...I have a spreadsheet that counts down to various milestones in life. I love my sons. Am I still "in love" with them? Nope. Haven't been since they were quite small. Somewhere along the lines, they went from being my babies, who needed everything from me, from snuggles and reassurances to feeding and cleaning, and now they are these tall, gangly, surly creatures with weird facial hairs and strange fashion habits. The chemical effects are long since gone, now I love them as the adults they're quickly becoming.

And I mostly like them. Sometimes we don't like one another very much. But we don't always have to, and I know that, and I cannot allow a temporary state of dislike get in the way of teaching them the things they have to learn.

These states are actually kind of similar to how I think about romantic love, "in" love, and liking. It is very easy to like my friends, we don't have all of the heavy duty life stuff to share, I see most of them socially when we're all out to have a good time. I can even be supportive when they experience difficulties because I'm not that deeply involved in the outcomes. Now let us become roommates...and we may wind up disliking each other enough to break the relationship. That happened when I was a young adult, and shared a house with other young adult friends. But there is something having been "in love" with someone, having had that chemical, animal bond, which makes us perhaps more prone to forgive. More invested in the connection. If you live together, there will probably be moments where you don't like each other, but either animal bonding or a deeper, more familial love based on shared history will make you want to keep trying.

I don't think that a state of "in love" demands an answer from your partner, requires them to feel the same. My ex was in love with me for all of our 18 years together (though I personally think that a lot of that was misplaced mother-needs from his own childhood programming)... I was NEVER "in love" with him, and I only liked him maybe half the time at best, but I did grow to love him. And we made things work for a long time.

I have been in love with people who did not feel the same, and have not asked them to feel the same, only to accept that I am having some feelings, and let me feel them. But then I must remember the times that someone else was in love with me, and how I felt when I did not reciprocate...there is definitely a discomfort involved. A feeling that the partner who is in love needs something that I cannot give them.
 
Hi Spork, Ravenscroft.

I think the two of you define 'in love with' in different ways. That's fine with me. I find the difference interesting.
 
Hi Spork, Ravenscroft.

I think the two of you define 'in love with' in different ways. That's fine with me. I find the difference interesting.

The more I think about this, the more I believe it's...kinda the same, kinda not.

The main point where I wasn't sure I agreed with RC was the "when you say you are in-love-with, you require reciprocation from your partner" and I'm kinda...well yes, but no, but kind of. When I feel "in love with" someone, I just don't want the interaction to stop. Even if they aren't blazing away with feeling for me, I am like, "Just let me feel this and enjoy it please, and I'm sure it'll calm in time, alright?"

But when I've been the one receiving the "in love with" and I did not feel that way... It felt like I had the distasteful burden of eventually breaking someone's heart, hanging over me. It definitely felt that something was being asked of me that I just did not have, to give. And as though I had to apologize for that fact. Certainly it is the greatest malfeasance of which I am accused by my ex husband, that I failed to return his "in love with" feelings.

Thanks for the food for thought, guys! :)
 
I figure part of my insistence on parsing those two sentiments has to do with my exposure to various languages. My first lover, Cindy, was German fluent. I remember when we transitioned beyond sex & affection & companionship: she left a note on my door, with a little "ILD" in the corner. That was a BIG statement, ich liebe dich, "I love you." Succinct, very clear.

To use that "with" clause, she'd have had to say something like ich habe mich in dich verliebt which sounds much more like a contractual phrase or maybe a Rammstein tune.

I cannot recall ever saying "I'm in love with you" to anyone, in any context. Drawing a blank on ever saying "I'm in love with..." at all -- seems much less roundabout/shifty to simply say "I love...".

Yah, I can indeed understand using "I am in love" as a means to express that overwhelming, head-over-heels high, setting it off from the stable, abiding, steady sort of love. That may stem more from our use of "love" to mean so many different things, from ephemeral faint affection to sociopathic obsession.
 
Back
Top