From: stef@Apple.COM (Stef Jones)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Re: How Important Is Being IN-LOVE?
Keywords: Love,Romance, Relationships
Date: 14 Oct 92 19:02:28 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

allisson@turing.toronto.edu (H. Allisson Roome) writes:

>      How important is "BEING IN-LOVE" with someone you're involved
>      with for the duration and course of the relationship?

>By 'in love' I mean all the warm, squishy romantic feelings [...]

>So to rephrase the question:  How important is ROMANCE for a relationship that
>you have?  

I think you're talking about two different things here. Being in-love is a
feeling. Romance is an action, a communication to the other person about
how you feel about them, or about your commitment to the relationship.

People have different attitudes and needs when it comes to being in-love
and wanting romance. Some people want to feel 'in-love' and want to feel 
that their partner feels 'in-love.' So the romantic actions must communicate 
that, or else the person will feel that the romantic actions are fake. 

Some people don't particularly want or need the 'in-love' feelings. They
just want a strong connection to their partner based on 'love' or
friendship. Such people would want romantic actions that emphasize the 
continuing connection between the partners.

I have a strong desire to feel the 'in-love' feelings, and I want to feel that
they are returned. If I think that my partner's romantic actions are coming 
out of that feeling, are coming from the heart, then it thrills me more than 
if I feel that the romantic actions are conscious and deliberate and that
my partner's feelings for me don't have that 'in-love' edge.

However, it's also important to me to have a balanced life that includes
people and activities other than romance. So I don't spend all my time 
pursuing that desire, and I am satisfied when I find someone who seems 
sometimes to be 'in-love' and who often acts romantic, even if they sometimes
act out of a more pragmatic and conscious place than I do. 

Furthermore, I've noticed that I prefer partners who are more pragmatic 
and conscious than I am...people who are emotionally very similar to me 
tend to scare me off in the long run...I feel the relationship is out of
balance. Also, I prefer to be "the emotional one" in a relationship more
often, although I can also be "the pragmatic one". (An oversimplification 
of the dynamics, to be sure.)

Those seem to be contradictory, my desire to have 'in-love' feelings
returned, and my preference for pragmatic partners. But they really aren't.
It's thrilling when a mostly pragmatic person acts from the heart. And
also, I believe the best relationships are ones in which the partners have
some complementary differences.

If you only want the 'in-love' feelings, then you are going to be tempted
to break off relationships as soon as those feelings begin to wane in
strength, or as soon as you reach the stage of the relationship where the 
two of you start to remember that you have differences. (In the beginning 
of a relationship, people tend to focus on their similarities more than
their differences.) 

In order to keep a relationship going, sometimes you have to consciously 
maintain the connection, even if you don't feel it from the heart as often
or as passionately as you did at first. Being committed to the relationship 
and respecting and liking each other helps here. Also, knowing ways to 
re-awaken the passion by planning romantic activities together.

>Do you need to have [in-love feelings] for a relationship to progress from the
>stage where you go out on dates/do things with a person to *only* going on
>dates/doing "couplish" things with that special person (from dating several to
>perhaps dating just one)?  

Absolutely. 

>Do you need to be "in-love" versus just loving them
>with the significant other to be physically intimate with them 

No. What I need is to feel an intellectual/emotional/physical connection 
and to feel safe. 

>if you find yourself in a relationship where
>you do love the person but either a)have no romantic/in-love feelings for them
>and never have or b) find yourself no longer in-love is that a cause for
>ending the relationship or looking to enter another one?

I would not enter into a primary relationship with someone with whom I had
never had any 'in-love' feelings. (I've done it before and I felt trapped,
because those feelings are important to me.)

If I found myself no longer 'in-love' with a person, I would wait a
significant amount of time to make sure it was a permanent condition. 
For me, feelings of 'in-love' come and go when I am in a primary
relationship. If the relationship were a good and solid one, I would expect 
the no-longer-in-love feeling to be only temporary, and I would stay in 
the relationship.  (And I would probably talk to my partner about it to see
whether there might be something we could do to bring the feelings back.)

If I knew it had definitely disappeared forever, I'd probably leave. At
least at this stage in the game. If I had financial/legal ties and kids I
might behave differently.

>I will say this, I do believe that there is a distinction between "BEING
>IN-LOVE WITH" and "LOVING" someone.  What I wonder about is the relative value
>is for each (i.e., how important one is vs. the other) and whether others see
>the distinction as well or not.

I think they are two different feelings. A relationship might have both of
them or only one of them. I would define a relationship that has 'in-love'
without 'love' as infatuation. I would define a relationship that has
'love' without 'in-love' as friendship. 

Stef
stef@apple.com
--
It is because of your disillusionments that you fly. -- Esther Rochon
Newsgroups: soc.singles