In a Relationship but Not in Love?

ciderwithrosie_2

Gillyx wrote: »

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.”

Aww yes, that's beautiful!

C_Mababejive

Define Love..

Pennysmakepounds

LOVE is an emotion. Emotions are not based on science. And if you can't quantify or prove that something exists, well, then in my mind, it doesn't.

G.I JOE....


EDIT:-

Joking aside....

LOVE is an emotion, like lust. Both are VERY strong when you first meet someone, but over time they sometimes fade.

What remains in their place is what matters.

For some people, NOTHING remains………….
And they still stay together…..resenting each other because they can’t see a way out......be it financial reasons or for the sake of the kids…….

In this type of situation NO-ONE actually wins. Both parties just become bitter and cynical….If there are Children involved and you decide to stay together for their sake in this type of relationship….They don’t beneifit….in my opinion.

However, for others……what remains is friendship…..someone you can share things with….someone you are trust…..someone you can relate to……someone you can still have a good time with….and still fancy, even if it NOT full blown ‘LUST’……

Most Marriages over time that last fall in to the Latter category…..

Bangton

It's important to me to be in love. I don't need company or a man around the house for convenience. I would be ok depending on myself if needs be.

The thing is I want him here and I do love him. He's the most attractive man on Earth to me, he's kind, laid back, affectionate, hard working. He can smile at me and make my heart melt...still after 12yrs. I enjoy being with him and want to be with him but I don't feel like I need to be with him. It's a choice we make because we are in love with each other..

If I/he no longer felt this way it would be the end of the relationship for me

catkins

lazer wrote: »

I am very much in love with my husband, but I can fully understand people who stay in relationship but aren't "in love" any more. The friendship and affection they feel for their OH is probably still strong, and if they are married they made vows and intend to honour them.
As long as they are not actually unhappy, then it's fine.

Many couples go through stages when they feel as if they aren't in love but over time the love grows again.

Marriage is for life IMO (although I can understand walking away if you are unhappy).

Other people know their own relationship, if they want to stay together and are happy without the love - thats their business.

Very good post. I have been married over 30 years and am still very much in love with my husband but if I "fell out of love", unless I ended up hating him, I would still stay with him.

As well as being in love with him I also regard as my best friend and I like him (liking is as important as loving, as you can love someone but not actually like them that much). I couldn't see the point of throwing over 30 years away and would not be interested in meeting anyone else.

Me and OH believe marriage is for life although if things had ever been really bad we would have split up but not got divorced.

I also think it is true that over the years, especially if you hit rough times, you can fall out of love with your other half which is when a lot of couples call it a day. I do think though that often that love comes back

masonsmum

I was married before and we had a baby together, I was young and "thought" I was in love but through time we led seperate lives, didnt communicate, do things together and through time a major dislike set in!

He left and 4 months later I met the man of my dreams and now I know what true love is, I wasted 10 years of my life with a man that I didnt love, my new partner is my best friend, the love of my life and the best dad (to both my son and the son we now have together). Life is far too short to stay with someone you dont love, go out and grab love with both hands!

C_Mababejive

Love is a temporary madness, it erupts like volcanoes and then subsides. And when it subsides, you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have 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, it is not the desire to mate every second minute of the day, it is not lying awake at night imagining that he is kissing every cranny of your body. No, don't blush, I am telling you some truths. That is just being "in love", which any fool can do. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident

Captain Corelli

fluffnutter

If by being 'in love' you mean the tummy turning over, fluttering heart stuff, then that's more about infatuation than love. It takes years to really establish the deep bond that you get when you're putting the effort in with the right person. Inevitably that initial excitement fades. And so it should. How can you get anything done if you're mooning about like a love-sick teenager?

Intimacy and the sense of togetherness you get when you've been together a while is worth a million times your tummy doing a flip when someone walks in the room. But people get addicted to infatuation and keep dumping the first in pursuit of the second. That's just emotional immaturity.

lostinrates

fluffnutter wrote: »

If by being 'in love' you mean the tummy turning over, fluttering heart stuff, then that's more about infatuation than love. It takes years to really establish the deep bond that you get when you're putting the effort in with the right person. Inevitably that initial excitement fades. And so it should. How can you get anything done if you're mooning about like a love-sick teenager?

Intimacy and the sense of togetherness you get when you've been together a while is worth a million times your tummy doing a flip when someone walks in the room. But people get addicted to infatuation and keep dumping the first in pursuit of the second. That's just emotional immaturity.

My tummy flips every Friday when DH comes home after his week away.:o. We get stuff done at the weekends too though. I guess by personality I was never all that much of a mooner!

I love the tree analogy. I suppose I'd expand it to remember that each year trees blossom, even as they age.

And contrast it with the brash gaudy ness of short lived annual garden plants......jolly they might be for a season.....but trees become something magisterial that endures. The pleasure of the pansies from three years ago is soon forgotten.

garybarlowsbeard

It's like football. You support a team and you don't stop supporting them because they get relegated. Or buy Suarez. Or whatever. For me there is no love/in love divide. In love is like when you're 8 and you have the shirt. Love is when you're 78 and you don't need the shirt but you still go to the games.