A few days ago DR said that in long term relationships it is more important to like the person than love them. She mentioned an incident where an old boyfriend came home drunk and slapped her. The next day she discovered that she really loved the guy but didn't like him and ended the relationship. She then went on to say that both of her husbands were friends first and then husbands. I've been thinking about this a lot and thought it might be a really good discussion subject.
First there is love. Strong passionate love. The kind when you hug her you feel the warmth of her body and your whole body becomes an inferno. When she kisses you, you feel like you have been given a gift more precious than the finest piece of crystal. A gift to hold gently. A gift to treasure. A gift that is to be enjoyed every minute you are alive. A gift that just gets more valuable with each passing moment. Fire.
Then there is like. You feel safe with her. You can talk to her about anything. No judgments. When you hug her you feel the warmth of her friendship but your body doesn’t turn into an inferno. She trusts you with her secrets. You want the best for her. If you breakup with the passionate love she is there for you. It really isn’t fire but more like Ember.
Fire can burn out. Ember can smolder and become fire.
Like and love do have a lot of similarities. Trust is important for both. Consideration is important for both. Kindness and caring is important for both. There are times when it is hard to tell the difference between love and like.
Now the question for the day. Do you agree with DR? In a long term relationship, is liking someone more important than loving them? Can you love someone without liking them? Can like turn into love?
About Me
- William J.
- First, I think the birth sign is wrong. 6-21, some papers say Gemini, some Cancer. Guess that means I have so many personalities that I can do group therapy alone. For those that don't know how to read Google profiles I have put what I really mean in ( ). Hot (Good looking enough to be in movies(if I buy at ticket). A body like a God (Buddha). Romantic (Thinks begging is foreplay.) Physically fit (Heart trouble. Put 911 on speed dial before we get initmate.) Good Provider (has good life insurance in case you forget to put 911 on speed dial.) Loyal (has reference letters from Mom and parole officer.) Intelligent (scored 1600 on his SATS but you have to total the scores of the four times that I took the test.) Looking for someone compatible (Be between 30 & 99 and not inflatable.)
18 comments:
For me, there can be no "love" without "like". Anything without like is just passion or lust. "Love", to me, implies and involves the whole package, the whole person.
Hi Mary Z
Hope things are going well with you and John and you are enjoying all the things you both like to do.
I kind of agree with you but I do think that if you really like someone that it can grow into love.
Bill
I definitely agree with that, Bill. I just don't think there can be real love without like.
Hi Mary Z
Looks like we are in total agreement!
Bill
I believe there are 3 elements to love: respect, friendship and chemistry i.e. Passion. Without the chemistry or passion you have "like".
I'm going to weigh in with Mary Z (again). I don't think I could love someone that I didn't like, meaning enjoy the company of and feel safe with, among maybe some other things.
I like lots of people but don't love them. At least not in a romantic way. Can like turn into love? Sure, why not? Does it often? Probably not. Can you learn to like someone you're in lust with? Maybe sometimes. Certainly movies and novels are rife with people who hate each other at first and then fall madly in love.
Maybe I need to clarify. Perhaps I had the best of all worlds. With my late husband and with Himself, I liked them -- mostly because of shared priorities and values and such -- but there was also the passion you mention. The like turned into love. The burning fire, sort of going up in flames. But there was also the issue of the smoldering embers hidden in the in-between times, if that makes sense. Maybe the best way to describe it is that the flames are wonderful, delicious, but flames can die out entirely. If the "like" of respect and shared values and priorities and dreams and hopes serve as the basis of embers, the flames will rise periodically and be wonderful, but it's good to know that they won't just die to nothing, if the waters of life try to extinguish them. It's the embers that last that keep the relationship warm and loving and provide light through those times that are less than wonderful, less than ideal, that challenge the strength of the relationship over the long haul. Those embers can flare to flames, if you will, but flames can be short-lived and extinguished, if the strong base of ever-glowing embers aren't there to sustain the fire and periodically leap to flames.
I think you probably nailed it, when you said fire can burn out, but embers can smolder and then become fire. In my life, over the long haul, the embers have sustained me (and my relationships) over the long haul and the sudden flashes of fire have reminded me of the passion that's equally important but can't be sustained 24/7 for long years when the soft glow of support and love and understanding have made life good.
Hi Red
Interesting comments! If you looked and looked and could only find two of the three, which three would you want? And would just two be enough to sustain a long term relationship?
Bill
Hi Pat
I think I could love someone I didn't like but then I would probably want to change them and that never works.
I like everyone, I really do. I'd probably would have thought Dahmer just had a little eating disorder.
I do think if you are friends first and it turns into love those are the most solid of relationships.
Bill
Hi DR
Bet you didn't think an offhand comment would turn into a full blown discussion on the blog?
So if it starts out with Fire already burning the only way the relationship can go is down?
But if it starts with Embers and not fire it can grow and go upwards?
Bill
Can't have a long lasting love relationship without all 3. If any one of those 3 is missing it won't last as a "love" relationship. I have had where 1 or 2 were missing and it didn't last and wasn't love. Think back on all your relationships to see which was missing or if all 3 were present. There are many forms of relationships but a long term marriage for instance requires and needs all 3.
Hi Red
I've had some really good relationships where passion was missiing.
But I've never had a good relationship where either trust or respect was missing.
Of course I'm still single so that may prove your theory.
Bill
Not my theory but have taken many classes and read zillions of books on the subject. Passion, lust, chemistry, physical attraction, fire or embers--whatever you want to call it - is the engine that pushes a like relationship into place as a love relationship. Even all the elderly couples who have been married forever still get that twinkle in their eyes for their mate.
Hi Red
My mom and dad still held hands when they walked even after 60 years of marriage.
Bill
>> So if it starts out with Fire already burning the only way the relationship can go is down?
But if it starts with Embers and not fire it can grow and go upwards?
I don't think that's necessarily true. In my case, it's been a case of liking, respecting and sharing values as friends and the passion grew from that. I think Red nailed it with her three components. I suspect one can start with a passionate or physical or chemical response to an individual. If one pursues that initial attraction and discovers the respect and shared interests and values are there, you still end up with the critical components for a long term relationship of love. It's the basis of the *relationship* that matters. If you start with flames and they settle into steady embers, that's the basis for the flames to continue. I'm not sure it has anything to do with how the love starts -- flames or embers -- but with what the foundation becomes for the long term.
And, no, I hadn't realized a chance remark would garner so many responses, but I think most of them say much the same thing. Passion is one of the nicest parts of love, but it can't sustain a marriage without the critical elements of friendship, whether you call that respect, liking, shared values or whatever.
Hi DR
I still think you can have solid relationships, even long term ones, without passion.
My brother and his wife have been married since 1963. I've never seen any passion between them. Never. Respect and like is there. They seem pretty happy. They just don't seem to have the passionate description of each other that I would probably prefer.
Bill
>> I still think you can have solid relationships, even long term ones, without passion.
I can't argue the fact, based on your experience. I do suspect passion was at one time an issue, but who am I to know? But it brings us back to the fact that liking and respect and shared values and priorities are the keys. I was fortunate that passion also figured into that equation, but passion alone hasn't been what's kept Himself and I together for 22 years. More important has been the liking, the respect and, something I guess I didn't mention before, but the ability to talk, communicate, share, disagree and resolve those disagreements when the road got rocky, as it has on more than a few occasions, for various reasons. I don't think any of us mentioned communication as an issue but, for me, it's a major component of any good relationship, including marriage.
Hi Dr
Before divorce became socially acceptable I am guessing a lot of marriages lost passion and they stayed together for a number of reasons.
Communication is definitely important and an important part of that is the ability to listen. To really listen to the other person.
Bill
Post a Comment