Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Relationships

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you need help urgently or expert advice, please see our domestic violence webguide and/or relationships webguide. Many Mumsnetters experiencing domestic abuse have found this thread helpful: Listen up, everybody

Original poster

Is it really better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all?

80 replies

ripitupandstartagain · 03/10/2011 19:52

I'm not convinced.
I feel that once you have had a real connection with someone on many levels, you just click/get each other, the sex is wonderful etc you can't go back to being happy with less.

OP posts:
solidgoldbrass · 06/10/2011 23:12

Mind you, getting back to the OP, I think it's a kind of universal belief that our lives are better and richer for having loved people even though we will outlive some of those we love - think of all the various funeral/condolence quotes along the lines of 'Weep not because he is gone, be thankful that he was here'.
But I really do think it's a mistake to think of and speak of love only in terms of romantic couple-love (the least necessary of the lot).

Hatesponge · 06/10/2011 23:25

I definitely think it is better to have loved and lost, even though the loss can be almost physically painful. and that's true whatever the kind of love - I loved my parents, I lost them both in my early 20s. but I had the most wonderful childhood, and wouldn't swap that for anything.

A few years ago I had never experienced romantic love. I actually wondered if i ever would, or indeed if I was even capable of that (an Ex told me i was only able to make people unhappy and miserable...). I did find it, and it was wonderful. Sadly it didn't last, and indeed ended very painfully, BUT I would never wish it hadn't happened.

AyesToTheRight · 07/10/2011 00:19

I really don't know. Am in the position at the moment where H and I have separated, I think he has pretty much moved on whereas although on the surface I look mostly OK actually I am not. And I am also attempting to deconstruct everything about our relationship and mostly feeling it was all a waste, as he couldn't be bothered to try and do anything to save it.n That is a bit melodramatic sounding but I do feel that the worth of having (and probably still to be honest) loved him is minimal.

Wouldn't have the DC without having been with him and that of course is a horrible thought but that's a different thing really isn't it?

rycooler · 07/10/2011 09:21

SGB - romantic couple love certainly makes life a lot more enjoyable - yes of course you can 'love' all sorts of people for various reasons - but having that one special person in your life actually makes life easier and much more fun.
when I'm on my death bed I want to die in the arms of someone who loved me unconditionally for years - not surrounded by people who thought I was ok for a quick shag once a month.

I sometimes think you protest too much.

solidgoldbrass · 07/10/2011 09:59

RyCooler: I don't disagree with the fact that some people have happy, life-enhancing couple-relationships (not all of which, of course, are monogamous). But the idea that couple-love is the most important does a lot of harm and wastes a lot of time, look at all the threads on here about people either putting up with absolutely shitty treatment in the name of 'love', or desperately trying to make someone else return the love they insist they feel for the person.
And that's a wierd and stupid binary you set up - that the only alternative to heteromonogamy is to have no one in your life apart from 'people who thought I was ok for a quick shag once a month'. I have a family and longstanding friends, we will always be there for each other. Some of the friends are people I have had sex with in the past and may do again.

rycooler · 07/10/2011 11:08

How can the idea of couple love do a lot of harm?
Real love is loving someone 24/7 365 days of the year, we can all be fantastic company for a few hours, ( I can anyway ) it's not 'real' though is it - you're only loving a small part of that person, the side they let you see. I have someone who loves me even when I'm dull and boring ( which is what most of us are 90% of the time, let's be honest )

& family and long standing friends are not what this is about - the vast vast majority of people want one special person/lover in their life. If life was so much fun being single, Internet dating sites would have folded years ago.

solidgoldbrass · 07/10/2011 14:25

The idea that couple love is the most important is harmful. If you think that couple love matters more than any other kind of love then you might think it's OK to remain with a partner who is horrible to your DC, for instance. Because couple love is what matters. Or you might feel pressured to stay in a toxic relationship so as not to be single, or even just be very bored with the constant nagging from other people to stop being single because to be single is Wrong.

rycooler · 07/10/2011 17:57

Most marriages/long term partnerships are happy and life enhancing - you can't judge the world of relationships from reading MN, ( people only post when they have a problem, plus you only ever hear one side of the story )
A good marriage is about commitment, love, and mutual respect, that's a great thing to have isn't it. Of course you'll have the occasional argument and go through bad patches - that's life, but you work through them.
I know what you mean about really bad marriages and of course people shouldn't stay together if one ( or both ) of you is deeply unhappy - I doubt many people do anymore.
I don't think there's anything wrong in being single if that's the life you want, but don't forget - 'fuck buddies' are the biggest users of all and will drop you like a stone when a better 'buddy' comes along - I'd hate that life.
Anyway, I've taken up enough of your time - ( sorry ) but Fwiw, I do agree with a lot of what you say wrt porn.

nokissymum · 07/10/2011 18:01

I agree with scarah- i think this phrase usually applies in situations where there has been unrequited love, it wouldnt have meaning if love was mutual, why would you prefer not have experienced mutual love ?

But unrequited love is an awful, painful, gnawing feeling, therefore better to not have experienced it in my opinion.

exoticfruits · 07/10/2011 19:03

I assumed that we were talking about mutual, long term love. Romantic love is short lived, more an idea than reality. I don't think that anyone would want unrequited love.

nokissymum · 07/10/2011 19:30

Ive always associated OP's phrase with romantic love, as its the one you are never sure you will experience never mind have it long term, hence the saying.

Love between family is sort of a given /assumed (well its not, but hope you see what im trying to say)love between mother and child, siblings etc is more likely to be assumed as long term.

LemonDifficult · 07/10/2011 19:53

Yes, it's better. Life is much richer.

solidgoldbrass · 07/10/2011 22:16

RyCooder: Yes, a good couple relationship is a nice thing to have. I don't see anyone arguing with that. But it's not essential and life can be nice without such a thing. It's kind of like, a truly fulfilling career where you make a difference to the world is a nice thing to have. But that doesn't mean that people who have OK jobs that pay the rent are missing out on anything essential.

passionsrunhigh · 08/10/2011 01:33

rycooler, I think you aer slightly missing the point of this discussion - of course if you aer one of the lucky who have found a man who loved you unconditionally for years, that you can assert how great is romantic love. Wouldn't we all. But OP is about 'loved and lost'- and it's more about unrequited love (patner left) than a death of partner which would still leave warm memories with the pain, When it's unrequited, or partner left/cheated/lost his feelings, THEN the question is relevant. As in, is the pain of loss worth the YOUR love for aomeone.
SGB has a point about it being dangerous to chase and make priority of romantic love and the One, because rycooler not everyone does find them, and if that's a focus and biggest desire of your life, you will end up extremely bitter and sad at your fate. It's important to find other love sources, child being the obvious, but others too.
I think it's better to have loved and lost if that was an episode in your life which you went through and recovered from or met another love, but I think if it's a pattern, it can be soul destroying so better not to happen.

izzywhizzyletsgetbusy · 08/10/2011 04:24

'fuck buddies' are the biggest users of all and will drop you like a stone when a better 'buddy' comes along

I don't know where you've been getting yours from, RyCooler, but my fbs aren't at all like that.

Original poster
ripitupandstartagain · 08/10/2011 14:26

I guess I was thinking of romantic love when I asked the question, as that seems the most precarious form of love (eros).

OP posts:
rycooler · 08/10/2011 18:14

Passionsrunhigh; - I probably have missed the point ( I usually do tbh )
I'll try and sum up quickly what I'm trying to say.
It's better to have had one person in your life who truly loved you, ( deep mutual love) - even if you lose them - than to have had one hundred fuck buddies ( for want of a better phrase) love is a lot more precious and elusive to find than sex ( anyone can have FB's - you're not cool or edgy leading that kind of life - probably rather lonely and empty if true to yourself ) - but of course one should not pursue love, if it comes our way then that's fantastic, if it doesn't, you can still lead happy and fulfilled lives in other ways - I personally wouldn't go from partner to partner filling the void.

solidgoldbrass · 08/10/2011 21:01

Rycooler: while you are absolutely right about it being a bad thing to go from partner to partner in the pursuit of One True Love, you do have this wierd mundane attitude that 'fuck buddies' are people who don't like each other and meet occasionally just for sex. A good fuck buddy is life-enhancing: someone to have some fun with from time to time, someone whose company cheers you up but with whom there is no stress, no angst about 'Where our relationship is going', no obsessive monogamism and no rows about putting the bins out, either.

TheOriginalFAB · 08/10/2011 21:07

I find this hard. Once I asked DH if he would have been happy if we hadn't met and he said yes, as he wouldn't have known I was in the world and he would have met someone else. I was not impressed.

I have loved 2 men in my life. One got right under my skin and it isn't healthy. The other is my husband and it is real and safe and solid. I am glad man number one wasn't the only man I loved..

rycooler · 08/10/2011 22:39

SGB - of course 'fuck buddies' like you, why wouldn't they? - they get sex as and when they want it, no commitment, no hassle, probably have a fair few other 'buddies' on their contact list - it's all so cold and business like almost - it would leave me feeling used and kill my self esteem - but that's me - I'm not mentally tough enough for that life. If that makes me boring and mundane then that's what I am ( although my sex life is far from mundane I can assure you )
I respect your choices, but I can't help feeling that you're missing out - and although I find some of your posts quite sneery towards those in lurve - I do like you.

solidgoldbrass · 09/10/2011 00:37

Rycooler: but sex without commitment is something that plenty of people find fun and enjoyable and not upsetting at all. Not everyone considers sex such a big deal. Of course there is no need to engage in casual sex if you don't want to do so, how you conduct your sex live is between you and whoever you're conducting it with.
I think people who only have sex in ReallyCommittedLovingRelationships are missing out, actually. For women in particular, a lot of the time that means putting up with sex that isn't all that thrilling once the first excitement has worn off, because you love him you just put up with five minutes of PIV on a friday night, because asking for anything different might hurt his ickle feelings... Having a variety of sexual partners and not taking any or all of them that seriously helps you learn who you are and what you want, and teaches you that human beings are very diverse.

passionsrunhigh · 09/10/2011 01:13

TheOriginalFab, in what way did he get under your skin which sounds negative? was it still love or sexual obsession?
rycooler, I meant that the question was about loving a man and losing him (he leaves or doesn't love you in the same way) - not about being truly loved or mutual love (which wouldn't even be for debate as that's an ideal thing, and you wouldn't lose it then by definition)!
You are talking from the height of the best psition possible (mutual love, AND good sex) but majority doesn't find that, or finds it short term, so would you want to love and person not loving you back as an experience, or would yo urather not?
I'm with you about f-buddies, I'd just find it sad that they are not interested to get to know me more than in sexual way, even after regular contact. I'm not against sexual flings at all if they are like a mutual crush and passion even short-lived (in absence of deep love) - to me FBs would be just too cold and un-passionate, it's just an urge that easy to satisfy, they can have it or leave it. If a man doesn't love me, he could still be obsessed with me for a while sexually with all his passion going to me, that's a good thing, if temporary, it's not a diluted passion shared between many people, and if FB became hotter, than it would become something else/more.

TheOriginalFAB · 09/10/2011 11:49

He got under my skin as I totally fell hard for him. He was utterly gorgeous, still is really hot, and was also caring and supportive. We were together a long time but it was too much too soon and then I moved and that was that. He says he still loves me but DH is the man for me.

Original poster
ripitupandstartagain · 09/10/2011 21:28

passionsrunhigh
That is exacly it - the mutual love and good sex is the best position possible - but if you lose that or it turns out to be short lived my fear is that anything else is then second rare when compared. I also think that the majority don't experience it, but maybe i'm wrong? we never know what other people's relationships are/feel like do we?

OP posts:
rycooler · 10/10/2011 12:42

Passions; Yes, I'd risk unrequited love - why not.
Lust never lasts much past 6 months does it - but what replaces it is something better. When I think about the people I have loved, it's their personality I loved them for, not for how good they were in bed.

SGB; My dh agrees with you ( I read him your post, hope you don't mind ) He said if we ever split up he wouldn't bother living with another woman, he wouldn't want the hassle of long term commitment at his age ( 45 ) he'd be happy to have a female friend he could go out once a week and have a good time with, then go home to his messy flat, sky sport and peace.

Wrt to what you said about diversity and sexual partners - yes, I do agree that we should explore our sexuality ( I have had sex with women ) - but you can do that with one person surely? - I don't know how having multiple lovers would have enriched my life? - There's absolutely nothing my dh wouldn't do for me sexually, so why go anywhere else?