And.. introducing the challenger.. Giving away an infinite amount of weight, and not sounding half so scary... I Want You! I Want You's best asset is its underestimation, ie it doest seem to carry much of a threat, allowing guards to come down!
It looks like a no contest really doesnt it! Everyone reacts to the first hearing of "I love you" from someone special. I want you, is often associated with sexual attraction, and this renders some responses accordingly. But... I say lets look at this again.
Love, is supposed to be an emotional thing, a reaction to feelings, often portrayed as something which a person cant help (though I dispute this, but thats another topic) . To want, is to consciously choose something, to desire, to long for. Personally I think this is much more important than something which is possibly not a conscious decision.
I think Love is an odd word. Loving someone and being loved in return etc. I wonder sometimes if too much weight is put upon the word. Tis just a word. If people were asked to define it, i'd be curious as to if they could, and certainly two individuals answers would differ. But if someone says "I want you".. well thats kinda self explainitary. Does saying I love you incorporate I want you? I dont know. In truth, i dont think it does. Sometimes yes... but not all the time. I love you means different things to different people. I want you, is more specific, and in the right circumstances, is demonstrable of being loved!
I have been told in my time by people that they love me. I'm still not sure what it meant each time. To me, i guess, it means i want you, i think about you lots, and when i do i smile (For me though, i prefer to say these things individually) It means a daft IM or text message or email, or a 2 min call just to touch base. But i'd do that if i wanted someone, as an ongoing demonstration. But then, im insecure. I need to be reminded of how someone feels. Sometimes i think "I love you" is used as a substitute for all of these. I think thats a shame. Without the word "Love" as a cop out... people would articulate more, exactly what it is which makes those butterflies appear in your stomach.. and in fact, they'd tell people that the butterflies are still there at all!!
Which... is nice!
And the above contest? Technical knockout to I Want You, I Love You having never recovered from a spontaneous takedown from the rear! At the end of the day, I Want You.. simply wanted it more!
Alistair Mad Scotsman
26 Comments
too not be in love is only having the wanting of one of the two- either my heart wants... or my mind wants- but not both at once.
It takes me a very long time to say "love" - even too friends- because they have to be just as deserving. I have some friends who fall in love every week- and its never real- is that crying "wolf" - you say it too much you never know when you are truly in love?
Just because you become an adult and understand that love is not freely given anymore- that it must be earned-the same as food and water... doesn't mean you don't need to be loved.
Now- whether that need is met through romantic, friendship or family love- the needs itself is satisfied- so if someone uses a relationship as a crutch because they aren't getting their needs met anywhere else- then THAT is when they need to see the shrink.
Just like over-eating can cause obesity- "neediness" and the stalker crap is the equivalent to a big mac and fries vs. ordering a sensible salad.
I can't help but think that their are millions of unloved people who survive childhood and become adults. These are simple proof that love is not a necessity. "Need" implies the "lack of ability to survive without". It is demonstrably provable that as long as a person is fed and watered they can and will survive. In fact, if you take away society's urge to demand that you require to be loved, a person would never even miss it. Sure, as you say, some might die (re the unethical study.. lol) but that's nature again sorting the weak from the strong.
For myself, an adult, I know I don't need to be loved. I might want it... but frankly i'd rather be just accepted as me, or even acknowledged as me, rather than loved. If I get both.. thats a bonus! What tends to happen in relationships is people create a version of the person they claim to love, (or hate, for that matter), and love that, rather than the actuality. Then when finally the illusion is broken, they blame the "loved one" for changing, rather than themselves for self delusion as a psychological defence mechanism. I'd rather not fall into that trap.
Overeating can cause obesity.. its a symptom. Neediness is a symptom too. Of a psychological problem constructed along the reasoning that, one person is not capable of surviving on their own in this world. This is why many people turn to the idea of a religion sporting an All Loving God. Again, it's a dependency problem, solvable more by the individuals urge TO solve the problem, (after of course, recognising there IS a problem), than by the local therapist.
I'm put in mind of two jokes.
How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?
One.... but it's really got to want to change!
How many computer programmers does it take to change a light bulb?
Can't be done, it's a hardware problem!
Alter the parameters, change the mindset, and an individual is capable of anything they want. Love is an emotion, a mental affliction, affecting each individual differently. But like anything else of this ilk, we can, and do, survive without it. Some of us have done it more than others. Some choose this as a way of life.
Who needs a light bulb anyway? We can make fire which provides light AND heat. The urge for companionship brought on by our own upbringing just means that, the afore mentioned fire is more attractive if its on a hearth, and we're on a rug in front of it, with a glass of wine, and a loved one to share it with.
"A selfish love is loving someone because you need them, and unselfish love is needing someone because you love them."
I have always been of the opinion that I would rather be wanted than needed. I would rather be respected than loved. Anyone who knows me understands this. I have to agree that the word love is over used.
I never said "I love you" to Chris, and sometimes I wish I had. But I did say "I want to be with you" to him. I know that my actions showed what I felt, and what I said supported those actions. I'm sure he knew I love him. Now I have to wonder if I was wrong not to say it that way. Or was it enough for him just to know? I will never have that answer now, and I hope that it doesn't become a regret.
"I want you" isn't always physical, as you said Alistair, and I think you have made a very good point. Thanks for posting.
so perhaps the definition needs more clarification- what exactly is survival? Animals are animals because that don't need that emotional connection to each other- they have instinct to raise offspring and survival- but I've seen affection in animals for one another..
So i will concede that it is possible to survive physically without love. But that in order to have a successful, happy, well rounded, etc etc etc LIFE - you need to be loved. its much stronger than a "WANT".
I can tell you right now that if i didn't have love in my life.. i wouldn't want to be living it. If i had no money, no food, no home, no water but I had love... I could get those things. But if i had all the money in the world and every "need" met and no Love.. what would be the point ?(again- i'm not talking about "romantic" love only)
As a side issue, pointed out by my other 3/4s... lol... one love which is really handy to have, is love for ones self. But.. that is another issue.
so... if our only point in life is to forward our genes to keep the species alive- why do you write about love at all- or wants or needs...
why not go out to try to screw every female that moves? Why worry about relationships or anything like that.. everything you do in life should be in the pursuit of procreation. I've read your blogs before - i know you to be an insightful man who has had dealt with a lot of issues over the years which you've been brave enough to share.. but if you truly believe that I'm the one who is romanticising the species- then prove how you haven't done the same thing.
I am not attacking- i just can't see how you can divorce human emotion from human surival. And maybe love the way i refer to it should be rolled up into emotional need in the general sense.
Now i do agree with a lot of what you said in your other past blog about the romantic love- being able to love more than one person at one time- etc... we don't need romantic love- especially not to procreate. or even practicing at it hehe :)
It's a choice.
I don't deny what i started out as...a walking sperm maker created by my father to forward his genes. (ok.. so the walking and sperm making took a few years .. but you get my point.. ) I recognise it, and have created a me which wants to be wanted, and to want someone else, as an extension of that original. I have become more than the sum of my parts... if you'll err.. pardon the expression. But... I am aware that this is my choice. My creation. My illusion, if you will. I don't need this persona to survive. I can be as cold and as calculated when I need to be, to allow me to survive. I believe that, in certain times in my life, if i'd have been unable to separate my wants, from my needs, (re : above mentioned issues), I'd not be here to type this right now. So in effect.. your idea of what people NEED to survive, were I to have been of that state of mind, would've been the death of me.
There's a paradox huh? But.. what doesn't kill us, makes us stronger. I think that, in being able to categorise, and therefore deal with, emotions in this way, allows me to feel them, while not allowing them to govern me.
And why do I write about Love? Chuckles... you know the answer to that. To evoke reactions. And also, perhaps, to show that, when people talk about a love for someone.. be it a child thousands of miles away, or a woman who claims they're cute (humbug.. lol), they should be talking about a conscious choice, rather than a necessity. A need for something means its required. Love isn't a requirement. It's a gift to be given and received.
Which, I think, makes it far more special than the food and water which are requirements.
If anyone is wrestling with the concept of love - What is it? How does one acquire it? Why do I give so much but rarely get any in return? - I suggest reading "The Art of Loving" by psychologist and social philosopher, Erich Fromm. He discusses in great depth cultural misconceptions about the nature of love in many different forms. And yes, love does come in different forms: romantic "falling in" love, mother's (parent's) love, erotic love, brotherly love, and the slow-burning, long-lasting mature love we develop for our chosen love objects, the people we cultivate long-term partnerships with, the people we marry.
Fromm asks us to consider looking at love in a new way, a way that reduces our confusion. The first step to take is to become aware that "love is an art," just as living is an art. If we want to learn how to love we must take a similar approach to learning any art, be it music, painting, carpentry, or the art of medicine or engineering. One must first master the theory of love, and then proceed to learning the practice of love. People are starved for love; they watch endless numbers of films about happy and unhappy love stories, they listen to hundreds of trashy songs about love — yet hardly anyone thinks that there is anything that needs to be learned about love. You may have felt loved in the past or experienced feelings you thought were loving. Now let's ask ourselves - was I really feeling love? Was I really experiencing love from another person?
Fromm writes in Chapter One: "Most people see the problem of love primarily as that of "being loved," rather than that of "loving," of one's capacity to love. Hence the problem to them is how to be loved, how to be lovable. In pursuit of this aim they follow several paths. One, which is especially used by men, is to be successful, to be as powerful and rich as the social margin of one's position permits. Another, used especially by women, is to make oneself attractive, by cultivating one's body, dress, etc. Many of the ways to make oneself lovable are the same as those used to make oneself successful, "to win friends and influence people." As a matter of fact, what most people in our culture mean by being lovable is essentially a mixture between being popular and having sex appeal."
The second premise in his book pertains to the misguided attempts people make to secure the right love "object", the person who will love them back, rather than directing more attention to developing the right faculty of love. In other words, "people think that to "love" is simple, but that to find the right object to love — or to be loved by — is difficult."
Fromm continues, "Closely related to this factor is another feature characteristic of contemporary culture. Our whole culture is based on the appetite for buying, on the idea of a mutually favorable exchange. Modern man's happiness consists in the thrill of looking at the shop windows, and in buying all that he can afford to buy, either for cash or on installments. He(or she) looks at people in a similar way. For the man an attractive girl — and for the woman an attractive man — are the prizes they are after. At any rate, the sense of falling in love develops usually only with regard to such human commodities as are within reach of one's own possibilities for exchange. I am out for a bargain; the object should be desirable from the standpoint of its social value, and at the same time should want me, considering my overt and hidden assets and potentialities. Two persons thus fall in love when they feel they have found the best object available on the market, considering the limitations of their own exchange values. Often, as in buying real estate, the hidden potentialities which can be developed play a considerable role in this bargain. In a culture in which the marketing orientation prevails, and in which material success is the outstanding value, there is little reason to be surprised that human love relations follow the same pattern of exchange which governs the commodity and the labor market."
"The third error leading to the assumption that there is nothing to be learned about love lies in the confusion between the initial experience of ""falling"" in love, and the permanent state of "being" in love, or as we might better say, of "standing" in love. If two people who have been strangers, as all of us are, suddenly let the wall between them break down, and feel close, feel one, this moment of oneness is one of the most exhilarating, most exciting experiences in life. It is all the more wonderful and miraculous for persons who have been shut off, isolated, without love. This miracle of sudden intimacy is often facilitated if it is combined with, or initiated by, sexual attraction and consummation. However, this type of love is by its very nature not lasting. The two persons become well acquainted, their intimacy loses more and more its miraculous character, until their antagonism, their disappointments, their mutual boredom kill whatever is left of the initial excitement. Yet, in the beginning they do not know all this: in fact, they take the intensity of the infatuation, this being "crazy" about each other, for proof of the intensity of their love, while it may only prove the degree of their preceding loneliness. There is hardly any activity, any enterprise, which is started with such tremendous hopes and expectations, and yet, which fails so regularly, as love.
Fromm's book can be summed up in three sentences. One: Love is not as easy or straight-forward as we think. Two: We need to understand the inherent problems in confusing heart-thumping, butterflies-in-your-stomach love for actual love. This surge of emotion (and libido) is only a temporary infatuation with your constructed image of another person, not love for who they truly are. Three: Love in its most pure form is an art that requires practice and understanding. Part of that understanding is that our current notions of love are misguided, and we must relearn what real love is.
Well, Mr. Fromm, will you kindly explain what love really is? His answer is simple, and points back to the quote at the start of this discussion. "Love is union with somebody, or something, outside oneself, under the condition of retaining the separateness and integrity of one's own self." Our first lessons on love happened when we were cradled in the arms of our mother as infants, fed at her breast, and comforted by her when we woke, crying and alone in the middle of the night. A mother's love should be the closest thing to unconditional love that we have ever experienced. Of course, there were times when our mothers couldn't manage this, when they were distracted or stressed or tired or sick of listening to our crying, but we were still able to construct her in the image of a "good enough", responsive enough, mother who was able to meet our needs for food and comfort and security most of the time. Mother is the first love object in our lives, she was the primary caregiver we attached to in a loving relationship. Her love and nurturing, and the degree to which she was able to provide it during our early years, lays the blueprint for the kinds of love relationships we seem drawn to later in life. This is also influenced in part by our family and individual experiences, but research on primary attachment does seem to indicate that the way we experienced mothering in the first 3 years of life will significantly influence the patterns of attachment we have in romantic relationships as adults.
Mothers and fathers give us what we need as infants, all along knowing that the love, nurturing, and attention they give us as children should facilitate us in growing up and becoming separate from them. It is an unselfish kind of love to give of oneself fully, always remembering that the love object is his or her own person, and as this is how parents are intended to love their children, so do we see how that should be mirrored in our adult love relationships. Love for a significant other sometimes gives the illusion of fusion with the other, the sense of dissolving into one person, with the danger of losing one's sense of self in this all-consuming romantic union.
Fromm argues that one must maintain his or her separateness and integrity in a love relationship in order for love to be present. This is the practice we must do, to know ourselves well, to learn about our strengths and our ego defenses, to discover our personal needs (yes, we are allowed to need love and nurturing from our partners), to find ways to ask others to meet our needs but to satisfy these needs for ourselves when appropriate. If there was some disturbance in our infancy or childhood that prevented us from fully experiencing either love or separateness from our mothers (or primary caregivers) then we might explore how to regain that nurturing and integrity and reinforce our own boundaries in psychotherapy.
It is only after we do our individual work, this notion of finding love within the self, that we may contribute to a fulfilling and enduring love relationship. And though we may be doing our own work, you may discover that your partner has not, and cannot really love you until he or she fully understands the true nature of love and feels motivated to practice that art with you. Here is another time when individual or couples psychotherapy may help. Remember that beyond our infancy we cannot again expect love to be unconditional, it would be unrealistic to find fault with your partner for placing some conditions on loving. Love should never include physical violence and emotional abuse, for example. If you would like to explore these ideas further, I highly recommend Fromm's "The Art of Loving", or you can contact me directly to help identify someone who can guide you along the path to discovering love through the self.
we cant expect love to be unconditional?
and although my mother raised be to be a "normal" functioning human being, I cannot say that her love for me is unconditional...unfortunately...it has limits
So.. maybe I do impose one condition. That is for the person to be themselves. Who they are. Not who they might think I want them to be.
As for Georgie's analysis... I am put in mind of dead poets society, and the analysis of a poem. I suspect Fromm's book would have pages missing by the time I'd finished with it. lol That word "need" is mentioned again. And then it is re-enforced by stating that, yes it's OK! Well, I guess an alcohol addiction, gambling addiction, or a heroin addiction is OK too.... right up to the point where it shuts down your organs (or your funds re gambling) and you realise you have developed a dependency problem. Follow that up with cold turkey, suicidal tenancies, self esteem capitulation as you attempt to rationalise blame and instead discover that the only person left to blame is yourself, further increasing the deepness of depression as you spiral on down into the void!
Sounds a little like self abuse when put like that, which, if you choose to "need" something you don't actually need, while knowing that you don't have to need it, technically, IS self abuse. It's a control issue! It's just that, in this case, this is a way to attempt to claim lack of control, and therefore lack of responsibility. A self imposed state of vulnerability.
To love, is a choice. It's cognitive. To need, should be neither. To choose to need, is a paradox. It shows that a persons reasoning is fundaMentaLly floored. Then we wander into psychosomatics, and the problems tied in with it. The gambling addiction is the best example of a parallel. And.. both can result in the result of the loss of all we figuratively possess. It's just that... money, possessions, can be replaced. Sanity is rarely so easily regained.
Curiously, I doubt monkeys have a word for "love" either. They have only instinct. Instinct is a nature nurture aspect in this example, and frankly, has nothing to do with love whatsoever, as love, and all it's parameters, is a purely human concept.
Although... on second thoughts... Mr Harlow is indeed a good example of how one can distance oneself from human emotions when the NEED occurs. How else could he do what he did?
I also feel that any love given with any kinds of strings attached -- with any kind of expectation of return love or other benefit -- is not love at all. Call me an idealist if you will. But I believe that love by its very nature is pure and ideal. If you don't think so, then I would argue that you have not found love. Now achieving a state of love is a whole other matter. It is a very difficult thing for us to do -- as the flawed beings we are. But I think that deep down we all have the capacity for true love.
Georgie -- this book by Erich Fromm sounds very interesting. Thanks for posting that! I have an older friend (well -- more like my wife's friend) who is struggling with love and relationships after having been widowed a couple of years ago. Her approaches to finding love seem completely backward to me, and yet I'm not really in a position to offer my true opinions on the matter. Unfortunately, my wife also feels equally helpless to give the advice she wants to, as it's generally fallen on deaf ears in the past. I'm hoping that this book may have some wisdom that may help her. I'm hoping that she might be more receptive to "Oh -- you should read this book, I found it very interesting.." and discovering these things for herself. I've got a hold on the book from the library (not due until the 23rd, ugh), and will read it as soon as I can get my hands on it. Any other books you may find appropriate for this situation?
"Fromm considered love to be an interpersonal creative capacity rather than an emotion, and he distinguished this creative capacity from what he considered to be various forms of narcissistic neuroses and sado-masochistic tendencies that are commonly held out as proof of "true love." Indeed, Fromm viewed the experience of "falling in love" as evidence of one's failure to understand the true nature of love".
Creative capacity.... I.e something we design ourselves. Narcissistic neuroses and sado-masochistic tendencies.. evidence of one's failure to understand the true nature of love... I stated as much above.
We dont need love. Some of us create what we think is love, then attempt to convince ourselves that this is what we should expect from others, which in turn is never really going to happen, as no two definitions of love will ever be exactly the same. To want love, is fine. To need it... folly.
As for Fromm -- I don't know enough to comment, really. I may have some opinions after I read the book.
I wish I could get beyond self-vindication/validation. Not quite there yet. :-)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/H...4/love.science/index.html
Hey you know AdGuy always gets the last word! ;)