What does it mean to be "in love"?

Gaze

Gaze

Donor
MBTI
INFPishy
What does it mean to be "in love"?


Do you think this phrase accurately represents what it is like to love someone or do you think another phrase is better?


I feel as if the phrase "in love" diminishes the real feelings or committment between two people. It sentimentalizes and makes it seem as if it's an overwhelming, euphoric feeling which goes on an on just as in a fairytale rather than a settled comfortable feeling.

What do you think?
 
To me when someone says they are "in love", I understand it as they are in a state of perceived love regardless whether they actually love the person they are with or not. It's simply a perception, they could be in love with love itself even, and their partner provides an embodiment for that perception.


When they say "I love [insert person]", then I understand it as they actually love the person they are with because of who that person is, not because they want to feel love regardless.



I don't know if I am making sense. Anyways, I don't take "in love with you" seriously, but "I love you" is something I would cherish very much.
 
In sweden, there is a distinction between love and crush, whereas love is usually something you can't say for sure you feel, until say half a year into a relationship, whilst crushes can last anywhere between 1 day to 6 months. I tend to live alot by this, I wouldn't say I love someone early in a relationship, even if I felt it strongly. Boundaries.

Oh, and K
 
Sali said:
To lose all sense of better judgement, know that you are, and cease to care that you have.
Click to expand...

But doesn't that suggest that love doesn't involve sound judgment or reason? Makes it sound out of control. Should love make you feel out of control? Wouldn't you want to feel in control in love?
 
Carrie said:
But doesn't that suggest that love doesn't involve sound judgment or reason? Makes it sound out of control. Should love make you feel out of control? Wouldn't you want to feel in control in love?
Click to expand...

What you want has very little to do with it in my experience.
 
I only felt truly "in love" with someone of the opposite sex one time in my life, but describing how I felt is nearly impossible. But when I like someone I may have a closer relationship to them than I would others, but to truly be in love with them means something far more. It's not just actions, it's not just words. It's a gut, soul-bonded connection. It's words + actions + bond. And bolded, because it's not a small thing. It's indescribable.

There's a difference between being really fond of someone and being in love with them.

But I will say this: I believe there are different degrees of love, and different degrees of being in relationship with someone. I would say that I'm bonded with my best friend, and we share a soul-bond, but it's a sister love. I love her more than my own family and she means more to me right now than anyone else alive, but I don't want a romantic relationship with her. I'm not sure if I'll find anyone else who understands me as much as she does - but I don't want to date her. That's a different kind of love. Still...if anything ever happened and I ended up never marrying, I would be content because I am loved, and I know someone who loves me in return. And it has nothing to do with sexual intimacy.

I think those relationships are rarest of all.
 
Phebe said:
I only felt truly "in love" with someone of the opposite sex one time in my life, but describing how I felt is nearly impossible. But when I like someone I may have a closer relationship to them than I would others, but to truly be in love with them means something far more. It's not just actions, it's not just words. It's a gut, soul-bonded connection. It's words + actions + bond. And bolded, because it's not a small thing. It's indescribable.

There's a difference between being really fond of someone and being in love with them.

But I will say this: I believe there are different degrees of love, and different degrees of being in relationship with someone. I would say that I'm bonded with my best friend, and we share a soul-bond, but it's a sister love. I love her more than my own family and she means more to me right now than anyone else alive, but I don't want a romantic relationship with her. I'm not sure if I'll find anyone else who understands me as much as she does - but I don't want to date her. That's a different kind of love. Still...if anything ever happened and I ended up never marrying, I would be content because I am loved, and I know someone who loves me in return. And it has nothing to do with sexual intimacy.

I think those relationships are rarest of all.
Click to expand...

+1. Nicely stated.
 
Jane says
She's never been in love
She don't know what it is
only knows if
someone wants her
She wants them
If they want her
She only knows
They want her
 
Last edited:
Vict said:
To accept what one feels.
Click to expand...

nicely explained. I think it's less about euphoric or overwhelming feelings than acceptance of the interest the two people mutually share. The term "in love" has so many connotations that I think it can be misleading at times.
 
It depends on the "with" that follows, and if they are in the delusion of being in love "at" someone, or if it is actually a working relationship between two people who have the same goal, and intent in mind.
 
Ame said:
nicely explained. I think it's less about euphoric or overwhelming feelings than acceptance of the interest the two people mutually share. The term "in love" has so many connotations that I think it can be misleading at times.
Click to expand...

I think the term "in love" is often used to sweeten up ones greed. This doesn't fit with my view of love as beeing immaterial.

Just to support your statement.
 
Last edited:
joz said:
I think the term "in love" is often used to sweeten up ones greed. This doesn't fit with my view of love as beeing immaterial.

Just to support your statement.
Click to expand...

People put a lot of conditions today on love and place even more restrictions on what makes someone "loveable".
 
"In love" to me sounds sexual in nature.

I make two distinctions in this regard.
There is love
and there is lust.

Love is more superior to love. Lust is inferior to love.
Love does not have to be sexual in nature. Lust does have to be sexual in nature.
Within love, you may have lust.
Within lust, you can not have love.

So there are two distinctions...

Now, "in love" suggests being in love, with an addition of lust.
It suggests a relationship or a yearning for a relationship similar to that of a marriage...or something that is loving in nature but accompanied with a degree of lust/sexual intimacy, which stems from the love itself.

Problem is people can fall out of love, which makes the idea of being "in love" pretty useless...

Love in general is difficult as people can claim to love or be in love and the next day no longer claim to love or be in love.

I think we use that word too often, I think the word is more powerful than the casual way in which many people use it.
 
Different said:
Love in general is difficult as people can claim to love or be in love and the next day no longer claim to love or be in love.

I think we use that word too often, I think the word is more powerful than the casual way in which many people use it.
Click to expand...

Yep, I think the overuse of this word to describe every or any feeling we feel, especially sexual feelings, takes away from the deeper meaning. At this point, when someone says they're in love, it almost sounds like what they'd call "puppy love" that initial feel good, passionate, exciting feeling that seems to be continuous. But when that exciting phase ends, what's left? Does it mean, the love ends? The belief is that if you're not hyped or you're not feeling those passionate feelings about your partner often or all the time, that it's not love. I mean, everyone experiences love differently, in their own way, but I think basing love on a fleeting or temporary all encompassing "feeling" is probably not such a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Different said:
Love is more superior to love. Lust is inferior to love.
Love does not have to be sexual in nature. Lust does have to be sexual in nature.
Click to expand...

Did you mean "love is more superior to lust"?.. :) Sowy!!

Anyway, I have a question (related to the above quote).. In Twilight there r many hidden meanings -- I suppose because it is basically built on fiction. I won't harper on about Twilight much longer, but what did you think "imprinting" would mean in real life situations? What sort of relationship do u think they had?

If anyone feels like answering this :)
 
I nibble at flashy jewels said:
Did you mean "love is more superior to lust"?.. :) Sowy!!

Anyway, I have a question (related to the above quote).. In Twilight there r many hidden meanings -- I suppose because it is basically built on fiction. I won't harper on about Twilight much longer, but what did you think "imprinting" would mean in real life situations? What sort of relationship do u think they had?

If anyone feels like answering this :)
Click to expand...

In Twilight it was a combination of pre-arranged long term relationship (i.e. marriage) with a soulmate connection (imprinting) along with life partner status.
 
Ame said:
In Twilight it was a combination of pre-arranged long term relationship (i.e. marriage) with a soulmate connection (imprinting) along with life partner status.
Click to expand...

I suppose a person could be sworn into marriage with someone and have one partner being an idealist (like infj's and infp's) and this would be manifestated into a imprint.
Or would it be more like an attitude of faithfulness (I think that's the word) and a good spiritual bond.
What do you think?


In my opinion, to be in love (in the strongest and most faithful way) would include becoming partners in law. Romantic people often have this dreamy, relaxed and this 'magic' aura about them, and I don't really understand how this picture of an idealist would correspond to someone who has to stress whether or not their partner is seeing someone else too, ha ha. I just think having the confidence of knowing what will most probably happen tomorrow will give romance that extra spark, ha ha, because marriages are a hassel to end!!

And if they are married and their personalities don't clash too much, there would be imprinting.

I really hope this makes sense!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top