Sternberg's "Triangular Theory of Love."

HAHAHA but i'm with his theory except for one point. he missed out the feeling part. for eg, you might have all the requirements for consumate love but if theres no feelings then how can it be called love? so to speak anyway
 
I am familiar with Sternberg's Theory.
I think it is a very good theory.
The "feelings" are definitely included...don't see how anyone can say that they aren't.
I am also confused about how the three sides are somehow still NOT defined. I think those definitions are pretty dang clear.
But I'll give it a shot:
Commitment: "We're gonna be together forever"
Passion: "I wanna kiss you so bad, you sexy person, you!"
Intimacy: "I feel like I can tell you anything! I trust you so much."

So....yeah!
:m032:
 
My first reaction was to reject this as another pointless psychologization of Love. But it's a pretty good description of the facets of love. It lacks a discussion of what techniques can be used to build and maintain commitment though, I am sad to see. That is the part we seem to get so wrong in the west.
 
I pretty much agree with the theory, and i think the definitions are clear. But i agree with Solar Empath that it doesn't include the tools for maintaining a relationship nor does it address the impact of relational dialectics or dynamics.
 
Last edited:
I would like to try and focus on clarifying the 3 definitions now (intimacy, passion, and commitment) because really, unless we can define these things, we cannot apply this theory.

Board members, lets try and define them! My questions:

I wonder if passion has to be sexual in the physical sense, of if it can be sexual attraction? Moreover, I wonder if "commitment" can be solely emotionally? ie, in the case of a long-distance relationship? I would like clarification on the terms/definitions so that I can fully understand them and how they apply; in this case, to my situation.
 Does
 
The way I read the sentences at the bottom, passion doesn't need to be all physical, since you can say yes to those questions without being in close proximity to someone.

Ditto on the commitment parts. And the commitment parts sound like something you feel is stable, and you're sure of. In the early stages of most relationships for instance you won't be able to view your relationship as a good decision or something permanent, because you're still unsure and you just don't know yet.

Once that doubt is gone, when you're sure and willing to work through whatever issues crop up without it toppling your faith in the relationship, I guess that's commitment.
 
Great. Well, now is the chance for all board members to talk about their relational experiences using this theory ;) Lets go!

I wonder if the partners have to be in agreement for it to be the "consunmate" love?
 
Okay.. I'm gonna give this a shot.

The only thing I can ever really tell you is how I relate these things to my situation, and my kind of love.

I believe that no one can ever truly, completely know another individual, or speak for them. We can only make educated guesses, based on how much we have learned or experienced with that particular individual. Therefore, we can only ever truly know what we feel, and think... and we have control over non other than ourselves... (some of us not even that... but that's another discussion. ;)

That being said, we can never speak for another's love because we can not truly know it. We can only go by what we're told and shown. I would say no to the fact members have to be in agreement to experience consumate love. I believe that I could love someone in a complete and whole way and never have that love returned to me the same way. ... sadly.

As far as passion is concerned, well passion is a feeling, and feelings are physical. So I don't believe you can seperate passion from your physical being, however I do believe that it's up to you how you express them. For instance, when I feel passionately about something perhaps someone has written or said, I get this feeling like, "Yes!!! Absolutely! I know exactly what you mean!":m200: But that doesn't necessarily mean I want to jump their bones.

Then as far as commitment is concerned... well that is also individual in my opinion. I am actually having my own dillemna with this particular "facet" of love. I suppose it depends on how much you value your word, and the situations that cause you to question your initial commitment. I think that we as humans have tried to define with words our levels of commitments and they all sound nice and clear until we realize that life is full of shades of gray. In my mind, I thought I understood what "for better of for worse was" and I assumed that I had deal breakers.. things I just couldn't get passed. I want to say that I believe if one person breaks the terms of the agreed upon commitment it gives the other person the right to walk away as well. But that is not how I feel at the moment. I feel like the honesty of the matter is I gave my word, and committed to it, body and soul. I have loved and given unconditionally and I do not see how I could ever go back on that. I know that I can be alone, I can do this. In some ways I was even made for this. And maybe I could even be happier if I walk away. But I feel like it would be a betrayal of who I am. And I didn't realize until I was faced with this situation that my commitment ran this deep. And no, I don't believe it is reciprocated. If the shoe were on the other foot, he would have left me without thought or hesitation... which is why he expects me to do the same.. but that isn't who I am, even if I thought it was.

I don't know if I'm making any sense, so I will try once again to clarify.

In my opinion, commitment is individual and depends on how deeply you love and care for the individual you're committing to. And commitment may be "defined" by words but is only ever clearly understood through action.


Sorry if I made no sense... :\
 
I think the theories presented in the original post are on to something, but I don't feel like they are completely formed by any means.

They are a good attempt to create a checklist to quantify something that cannot be quantified, but that's really the issue. You can't measure feelings. You can attempt to measure the affect feelings have on a person, but the end result is that you're measuring symptoms, not the cause.

This checklist is a measure of symptoms, and therefore I can't bring myself to accept it as a measure of 'love', especially considering that I don't feel the checklist is 'exhaustive' of all the possible symptoms that should serve as benchmarks.

It's a move in an interesting direction though.
 
Last edited:
dneecey said:
For instance, when I feel passionately about something perhaps someone has written or said, I get this feeling like, "Yes!!! Absolutely! I know exactly what you mean!":m200: But that doesn't necessarily mean I want to jump their bones.
Click to expand...
I think when the word Passion is used here it refers specifically to romantic passion, which as you note isn't the same thing as other types of passion.
 
But romantic passion is also not necessarily physical passion and wanting to jump someone's bones. It's more like emotional obsession.
 
Eniko said:
But romantic passion is also not necessarily physical passion and wanting to jump someone's bones. It's more like emotional obsession.
Click to expand...
I agree with the first part, but not the obsession part. There's a difference of degree between Passion and obsession.

As to the first part, Romantic Passion is still different from a passion for someone's thought or writing.
 
Eniko said:
But romantic passion is also not necessarily physical passion and wanting to jump someone's bones. It's more like emotional obsession.
Click to expand...

Quite true. Too often we equate romantic passion with something physical. I may be emotionally responsive and passion about someone but this doesn't mean i want to be with them physically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top