What do YOU think love is?

[OverMyDeadBody]

Not the unconditional love for children, but the 'love' we speak about in relationships.

What is it? I'm pretty certain that, although I have been 'in love' a fair few times, I've never actually loved any boyfriends. Maybe my expectations are too high or I've got the definition wrong, so was wondering what others thought?

I don't believe in fairytale romantic notions of love either, that's just being in love and always passes. What do you think? What's your definition of love? Does it even really exist? Is it a concept, a feeling, a thing, a belief?

[OverMyDeadBody]

Gosh, does no one have a definition of it?

[noddyholder]

I don't think being in love always passes but don't have a definition for you although I thought I was in love a couple of times until I really was and the difference was obvious

[charliecat]

I read on MN, that being In Love is loving the way the other person makes you feel.
Can sort of get that..

[Anna8888]

In love = in lust IMO.

Loving is about caring so deeply for that person that you want to share your life with him/her completely and work to make your joint life as pleasurable and happy as possible for both of you and for your children.

[OverMyDeadBody]

But do you think being In Love is the same as loving someone? I've come to the conclusion that they are two seperate things, with the In Love feelings aften developing into true love but not always. Perhaps it is all down to experience, and the reason I find it hard to fathopm is because (retrospectively) I haven't been there?

Maybe for love to last you have to both have similar views on what love are?

[noddyholder]

I agree with charliecats definition.I think you can really love someone and be in love with them.You need both I think to keep things going and to stay interested

[OverMyDeadBody]

agree that In love= in lust too.

mildjanitor that's sort of what I view love as, a mutual respect and understanding and a willingness to nurture the other person's growth.

Is it just a feeling though, like sad or hot? I think it's more complex than just a feeling. Lust is the feeling. Love must be more...

It is conditional though isn't it?

[southeastastra]

love is never having to say you're sorry

[OverMyDeadBody]

lol southeastastra!

[Anna8888]

I think love is first and foremost a feeling, but it must be translated into actions in order to have value for the person who is loved.

You need to receive another person's love through their positive actions in your favour in order to make a relationship work and be happy.

[LoveMyGirls]

I don't know the exact definition BUT i do know that I'm both in love and i love my dp, we've been together 6 years and I still really really love him.

I love the way when he laughs he gets dimples
I love the way his hair smells and when i run my hand through it with the light shining on it I see loads of different shades of his hair colour
I love the way he treats me and our children
I love the way he works so hard to provide the best for us
I love how funny he is
I love how popular he is because it proves i'm not deluded and he is actually a great person to be around - they say you can judge a person by the company he keeps, i think that's true.
I love how if he has something he will give it to me
I love how much we have in common
I love how he makes me laugh smile and feel
I love how I can be myself around him
I love the way he encourages me to go out and do things i want to do (go out with friedns, join weightwatchers, start my own business etc whatever it is he will support me)

There is probably a million other things i love about him but I will bore you if i carry on!!

[Pickie]

good question, I agree with Anna that: To love somebody is about caring so deeply for that person that you want to share your life with him/her completely and work to make your joint life as pleasurable and happy as possible for both of you and for your children

and in love is lust. I very reguarly still get butterflies when seeing DH

[postingatlast]

now I love a good phillosophical ding dong but in this instance I think it is a bit futile. Love is literally undefinable and I fear that the search for the meaning of love can get in the way of actually finding it.

The reality is that everyone here will be right because love is such a personal thing.

IMHO, people do not have difficulty finding love and/or knowing what it is. I think the difficulty lies in the ongoing building of a relationship and the commitments that brings.

I think there is a moderately simple answer. If you love being with someone, you are a good chunk of the way towards loving them. If they bring you something which you wouldn't have if you were single, you are a good chunk of the way towards loving them. If you feel comfortable with them, if you can fart without blushing, if you can cry without cringeing, if you find time to be on your own without fearing neediness from your partner and if you can accept that he/she is just a man/woman, well you are a long way there.

I hear you say that these are qualities of a friendship, how do we know the difference? good point but a relationship is just a friendship with benefits... so if you have all the above and want to rip his/her pants and/or knickers off, well then you really do have something special.

Finally, I don't believe you can find true love with someone else until you find it within yourself. Don't mean to sound hippy but, IMHO, you cannot love someone else healthily until you (at least, in part) love and accept yourself. Getting together with someone because you need them to meet your needs, to plug the gaps, to make you feel better - these are recipes for disaster. If you accept yourself for what you are, you are a long way to being able to love someone else...

Hope that helps

From a daddymumsnetter!

[OverMyDeadBody]

Love is an action though too isn't it, not just a feeling right?

My ex always said he loved me, would reel off lists of things he loved about me, but his actions never supported his words. He said I was so important to him that he couldn't live without me etc. etc. and was still saying he loved me two years after our divorce. I don't believe for a minute that he loved me, his actions didn't point to love. He was passively dependant on me and thought that was love

I tihnk love is the ability to go that one step further or do that bit extra in order to support the other person and visa versa.

[Anna8888]

That's an odd idea to me, Starlight - that my life could be complete on my own. I like living in a couple. I think that it is how I am meant to live.

I have lived on my own for quite a few years, btw.

[OverMyDeadBody]

great post postingatlast!

What you said pretty much sums up what in my mind was what love was all about, especially about loving yourself first and not looking for love as something to plug the gaps or 'complete' you. I do think you need to already feel complete beofre you find love, otherwise you'll end up confusing love with dependancy.

Thanks for the input from a male perspective too smile]

[discoverlife]

The true sign of love is when the other persons happiness is more important than your own.
Now if this is mutual then you both proceed to try to make each other as happy as possible.
BUT if it is not balanced, that is when you get selfishness, power struggles etc.

[OverMyDeadBody]

Hmm I disagree Starlight, I think I'd want to love someone and know that I could get along just fine without them in my life but choose not to because they give that extra something. The thought of being with someone because I couldn't live without then in my life would send me screaming to the hills tbh! I think it's the active decision that,yes, this person adds to my life, and I add to theirs.

[hellish]

Don't believe in it myself

[postingatlast]

Thanks Overmydeadbody and you are right, the line between love and dependancy can be slim.

Discoverlife, sorry but really cannot agree with you. If we were talking about the love we feel for our kids then, yes, the notion of putting their happiness first is healthy.

But to put someone else's happiness above our own is, IMHO, a recipe for disaster. It is not selfishness to cherish one's own sanity, serenity and happiness above anyone else's. On the contrary, if we cherish our own happiness first, I firmly believe we will be loving and balanced partners.

That doesn't mean that, within a relationship, there are not times when the partner's needs come first (it's called compromise) but to put their happiness first, for me is a very bad plan...

[OverMyDeadBody]

I agree too that putting someone else's happiness above our own is a recipe for disaster (other than in the case of unconditional love for our children, although even then it wouldn't be wise to always put their happiness above our own).

Postingatlast says it better than me, but I do think we need to put our own wellbeing fisrt, and then we will be a better position to properly love someone else.

[OverMyDeadBody]

Oh right! Yep I think not wanting to be on your own is very different from not being able to be on your own.