In a Relationship but Not in Love?

Sharlord

I used to be. It was convenient, really. We were living together and fully aware that as soon as the other one met someone who gave them that 'spark', that would be the end.

Sure enough, after two years I did. After one date, I sat down with the ex, told him the full story and moved out the following week. All still friends now two years on, and my 'spark' and I are in a wonderfully loving relationship

Troutwrestler

pigpen wrote: »

I don't believe OH and I are 'in love' .. I love him, I care about him very much and I want him to be in my life.. but as for 'in love'... I've been there and done it and it was a total waste of 20 years of my life when he forgot to keep his worm to himself.. I'd prefer to have someone I know will never want to get married to me but who I know will be with me if I need him, will help me when I need help and will support me in my decisions.. much better than someone hanging on my every word and wanting to be in my knickers every 5 minutes.. that just suffocated me.

We don't 'put up with' one another, we are comfortable with each other and it is actually really nice and comfortable and non-stressful and a very easy relationship... not perfect but I doubt any relationship is perfect.

Do you not feel like your missing something though? Not judging btw, I think being in love is overrated anyway, but it is nice to have that spark. Although I think with time that fades anyway, what you have described sounds a lot more long lasting

GoldenShadow

What is 'in love' though? It seems to get construed as excitement that comes along with spontaneity, butterflies etc. I think people have wildly differing opinions. For some wanting to share their life/have companionship is all they want and need, no more no less.

cats2012

GoldenShadow wrote: »

What is 'in love' though? It seems to get construed as excitement that comes along with spontaneity, butterflies etc. I think people have wildly differing opinions. For some wanting to share their life/have companionship is all they want and need, no more no less.

I think this is very true - and also that it often changes over time, for example in long marriages. Doesn't mean they're not in love any more.

Having said that, I've been with my husband for 6 years and have all of those feelings and more. I would literally do anything in the whole world for him. I definitely don't think that is "overrated" as per some of the other comments.

pigpen

Troutwrestler wrote: »

Do you not feel like your missing something though? Not judging btw, I think being in love is overrated anyway, but it is nice to have that spark. Although I think with time that fades anyway, what you have described sounds a lot more long lasting

not at all.. though I don't think being 'in love' is over-rated though.. it is just different needs being filled for others.. I just don't think it is necessary for a successful loving relationship.. you can love people without being in love with them which is what I have..

Dunroamin

Loving someone is what matters, not being in love.

Lots of people break up perfectly good relationships because they want to be "in love" rather than caring deeply for their partner.

Pee

Good point, Dunroamin.

I was going to say that my late mother in law and her partner were together for twenty plus years until she died and I don't think they were ever in love. However they did clearly love one another, more in a family type way, and spent lots of time together.

I've had a few relationships where I wasn't in love, three, I think, and after a few months I ended it. Nice men, but life is so much easier when you love someone, you don't get annoyed so easily, IMO.

geoffky

Marriage of conveniences are a lot more common than we realise as many people put up with things they should not and very very many are living in economic fear,
What a way to be a human...Not for me...

Gillyx

One of my favourite ever quotes from Captain Corelli's Mandolin, and pretty much sums up how I feel about it

"Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident. Your mother and I had it, we had roots that grew towards each other underground, and when all the pretty blossom had fallen from our branches we found that we were one tree and not two.”

bobthebuilder2006

you always want what you can't have....