"Love" vs "In Love"

[ilovethatgirl]

I've often wondered, what on earth is the difference? I know there is a difference, but I have NEVER been able to put it into words.

 

This is just idle curiosity, but I thought it would be interesting to see other people's views.

[servedcold]

Love is behaving with selfless concern for someone you have come to care about more than you do yourself, wanting their happiness and well-being above your own in all aspects of life, and most importantly taking the actions that demonstrate this concern.

 

"In love" is the state of being chemically infatuated with someone. It can come and go rapidly, regardless of the object, and never lasts forever.

[jul-els]

Love can take many forms and be ascribed to many things, but love for another human being is the strongest chemical reaction of them all. It always changes though and can be labeled in whatever fashion one so desires.

[GypsyMuse]

ServedCold, what an excellent answer.

[Crazyaboutdogs]

Love is behaving with selfless concern for someone you have come to care about more than you do yourself, wanting their happiness and well-being above your own in all aspects of life, and most importantly taking the actions that demonstrate this concern.

 

"In love" is the state of being chemically infatuated with someone. It can come and go rapidly, regardless of the object, and never lasts forever.

 

 

I agree with you but I will also add that you can still be "in love" without having the honeymoon infatuation type of being in love. You can love your partner but also be in love with them because of the deep emotional and spiritual bond you share. That part of being "in love" is deeper than just loving the person and is also deeper than the infatuation "in love" feelings. So I would say that there are two types of being "in love" 1) the superficial honeymoon stage of being "in love" and 2) the deeper bond that goes further than the kind of love you would have for parents, children, friends etc.

[Nixee]

Love is behaving with selfless concern for someone you have come to care about more than you do yourself, wanting their happiness and well-being above your own in all aspects of life, and most importantly taking the actions that demonstrate this concern.

 

"In love" is the state of being chemically infatuated with someone. It can come and go rapidly, regardless of the object, and never lasts forever.

 

I can agree with this answer as well.... but I will also say that it doesn't always have to be so separate.

 

It is entirely possible to be "in love" with someone you also completely and purely love on that very mature, very selfless, very powerful level. And THAT... is one of the most intoxicating, most wonderful feelings in the world. I also think that is what many people who have experienced it would actually refer to as being "in love." Nothing else can compare. Mere chemical infatuation no longer comes close if I can recognize that I do not actually have deeper feelings of connection with the person.

[Roasted Carrots]

I "love" my dog, but I am "in love" with my boyfriend.

 

To be honest, I think that's a cheesy breakup line: "I love you but I'm not "in" love with you". The difference is all in the context.

[servedcold]

Well OP asked what the difference was, and though you certainly have a very deep emotional bond with someone you truly love, and you can (hopefully) experience "love" and "in love" at the same time, so many problems on ENA originate in people confusing the chemicals that make us infatuated, that give us the butterflies, with the actual act of loving someone, which is true love, that I'll stick to my definitions as printed.

 

True love is a choice, a conscious decision that we affirm every day by our conduct, and have complete control over, not something impulsive that "happens" to you in the same way that feeling "in love" i.e. being infatuated via chemicals can. True love is a continuity, the glue that cements a relationship even as the chemicals of infatuation go through their cycles.

 

In essense, IMO, anyone who says things like "I fell in love," is really saying, "I am chemically infatuated," and anyone who says, "I fell out of love," is really saying, "I am no longer chemically infatuated, and in addition, have chosen not to love this person further."

[Daligal83]

I have to disagree servecold. I fell out of love with my ex-boyfriend and did NOT want it to happen. I was definitely not choosing for that to occur. I tried to do whatever I could to make it come back, but it wouldn't. And it wasn't just that the honeymoon phase was over, it was that I realized incompatibilities.

 

By your definition of love, I would be wanting to marry a lot of my good girlfriends. I want their happiness and I will happily put their needs before my own. There is something different when it's romantic though. I agree with the posters who state that there is a honeymoon version of in love and then the real long term version. It doesn't mean that you'll be head over heels for your SO everyday, but that there is a deep connection that goes beyond the relationships you have with other people.

[servedcold]

I never said that true love lasts forever. It's certainly possible to choose not to love someone over time based on your experiences with them, and that includes realized incompatibilities as you say. People are quite capable of doing things that cause us to choose not to love them any more. But it remains a choice. Love is a verb, not a state of being that happens to you.

 

Moreover, unless we are coerced (or subject to an autonomic reflex... sleepwalking), we don't do things we don't want to do. We may wish we felt otherwise, and may feel conflicted or in a dilemma sometimes, but the actions we eventually take in life, are actions that we choose, that we "will" to do.

 

OK switching to marriage and the desire to have an ongoing relationship with someone, marriage usually includes a sexual element, probably absent with your GFs . The OP asked about the difference between the concepts "love" and "in love," a different question altogether from why and to whom to marry. Hopefully, one feels both love and sexual attraction for someone they choose to marry. And sexual attraction, linked up with the chemicals that cause us to become infatuated, may go along with love, but it's very different than love.

[afonselaca]

OK switching to marriage and the desire to have an ongoing relationship with someone, marriage usually includes a sexual element, probably absent with your GFs . The OP asked about the difference between the concepts "love" and "in love," a different question altogether from why and to whom to marry. Hopefully, one feels both love and sexual attraction for someone they choose to marry. And sexual attraction, linked up with the chemicals that cause us to become infatuated, may go along with love, but it's very different than love.

 

 

Please explain the element absent with your GFs. Seems that would be present with the LTR that turns into marriage. I'm not following you.

[novaseeker]

Please explain the element absent with your GFs. Seems that would be present with the LTR that turns into marriage. I'm not following you.

 

I think the response was directed at a female poster -- as in servedcold assumes that she has not had sexual relationships with her girlfriends.

 

On the main topic, I have to agree very much with servedcold's definition.

 

Falling in love is simple brain chemistry, as has been shown in numerous studies. It's not something you have a lot of control over, and you also have no control over when it fades, which it always does.

 

You *do* have control over what to do when it does fade, however. You can then choose to love the person, despite being out of the "falling in love" phase, or you can realize now that you are no longer in the "falling in love" phase, that the person is not someone you can love in a less fireworks-oriented, more everyday way. That has to do with the main compatibilities and so forth, but it also has to do with making that choice, and repeatedly making that choice over a long period of time. That is reinforced by intimacy, physical and emotional, and builds over time to a close connection, but it is always a choice of the person to love their partner.

 

It's very possible to love one's friends too, as well, as we all know. The principal difference between that and a partner love is the emotional and, of course, physical intimacy that help nourish the relationship and help the couple express their love for each other in a more complete way.

[tangi39]

Everyone's definition is going to be different obviously,

 

Here is mine:

 

 

Loving Someone- Caring about them, wanting what is best for them, being there for them more than you would for other people- Best friends, parents, etc.

 

In Love- Sacrificing daily for someone. Putting theirs needs as equal to your own. Wanting to learn, grow and nuture this person on every level possible as if it were yourself. And choosing to put this person above all others over and over.

 

The third state that I identify as "In Like"- This is the state that "feeling" which I think is too often associated with being in love, infatuation.

Being attracted to someone chemically is not a choice. It is the feeling of being carried away without rational thinking. I don't associate mere sexual attraction with love- Yes, it is an important ingredient for being in love- But most of us have been sexually attracted to WAY more people than we have been in love with. I never cared for "I love you but I'm not "in love" with you" that usually happens when the infatuation ends and when true (being IN ) love should start.

 

Being in love- is more difficult and requires more effort than merely loving someone or "in like" with someone because it requires sacrifice.

Those unwilling to make those sacrifices with look for partners just at the superficial infatuation level or merely want to "love" them without having to provide deep care on every level- being truly in love.

[servedcold]

Please explain the element absent with your GFs. Seems that would be present with the LTR that turns into marriage. I'm not following you.

 

Daligal asked the legitimate, kind of tongue in cheek question, why not marry my GFs since I love them? and that's where sexual attraction got brought in.

 

I'm no expert on love (obviously based on my track record in relationships), just was answering back based on issues taken with the definitions I posted.

[afonselaca]

Ah. Thank you novaseeker & servedcold.

[afonselaca]

To me being in love is wanting to appreciate that person for who he/she is, lift them up, support them, endeavor to learn everything about them, care about them in every way. I also think it should be reciprocated in order to achieve longevity.

 

I don't buy the "addicted to a chemical" thing but do attribute that to infatuation, not being in love.

 

I think to love someone is different because the strength of the feeling lies in the depth of the connection. I can love someone I used to be in a relationship with for who they are, then I can love my present BF on a deep mutual level. Kids, parents are on a different love level again.

 

Some people cannot deeply and truly love. They cannot appreciate another person and they then wonder why their relationships don't last. They don't look beyond the physical sexual acts (gives good head) or body parts (ie, has big boobs) toward the heart and actions of the person. The only "love" superficially with their bodies, not their mind, heart and soul.

[Excalibur]

Love - I want the best for you as you determine it to be. I consider it a privilege and honor to affiliate with someone of your intelligence, character, and caliber.

 

In love - I want you, what you offer to my world for entertainment, diversion, distraction and options, my ego, my psyche, and my physical needs.

[Daligal83]

I completely agree with this. I don't buy the chemical concept either. I think the chemical thing is more "in lust" and "in love" is what makes a relationship with an SO different from all other relationships. There is something there that makes relationships last as a romantic one and not just fizzle out. There's a reason why people want to be with someone and it goes beyond just making a choice. If it was just a simple choice, I'd still be with my ex. But I wasn't in love with him and I want more than that from a romantic relationship.

[JeckyllNHyde]

I've often wondered, what on earth is the difference? I know there is a difference, but I have NEVER been able to put it into words.

 

This is just idle curiosity, but I thought it would be interesting to see other people's views.

 

Love= you have very strong feelings and care very deerly.

In love= you want to be in a relationship with them b/c you love them.

[Nixee]

I gotta say... it amazes me how many people seem to have a fairly negative view on the concept of what "in love" is. So many people seem to associate it with something actually very shallow, very deceptive.... rather primal... and well, chemical. Sure... it is powerful.. yet.... not lasting.

 

That amazes me, because I've experienced it differently.

 

I understand that initial chemical rush... the infatuation. To me, that is "in like" or "in lust". But truly "in LOVE" is another level in my experience, and it actually can last much much longer.

 

I do not believe, once genuine love and caring have entered the picture, and you continually choose to remain faithfully committed to a person, that the "in love" feeling has to fade away. The butterflies I felt for my ex never left me in all 7 years I spent with him. The initial infatuation calmed down... the chemical reactions if you will.... sure... they calmed down. But if you asked me at the end, was I still "in love" with him? Without a doubt.

 

I do agree however, that it takes that choice to love and care for someone in order to make the whole loving relationship work. Just being in love or in lust or whatever does not work. Without genuine caring and respect... you have nothing. In the end, my ex and I were still in love, and we (or he) stopped caring.... and it all went kablooie.

[servedcold]

I don't buy the chemical concept either. I think the chemical thing is more "in lust" and "in love" is what makes a relationship with an SO different from all other relationships.

 

Whether you buy into empirical scientific evidence or not is of course another choice you have every right to make.

 

What happens is that oxytocin release infatuates us long enough for more advanced chemical reactions promoting pair bonding to occur, and though it includes what we call lust, there is much more going on in the process. When those "bonding" chemicals fade, the cerebral cortex, where the entire rational decision making process of "love" takes place, has hopefully taken over from our mammalian brain and reptilian stem. The chemicals that promote the eventual pair bond do return in cycles, just not as intensely.

 

There is something there that makes relationships last as a romantic one and not just fizzle out.

 

Is this "something" an observable quantifiable thing? Or purely metaphysical... like for instance... ghosts or unicorns? If the former, please define it more clearly, as I don't understand. If the latter, I'll stick with science.

 

There's a reason why people want to be with someone and it goes beyond just making a choice.

 

How so? You either choose to be in a relationship with someone or you choose not to. You can certainly choose to let emotions (that are admittedly beyond our control) carry sway in the decision making process, but that is a choice also.

 

If it was just a simple choice, I'd still be with my ex. But I wasn't in love with him and I want more than that from a romantic relationship.

 

...and because you wanted more from a romantic relationship, you chose not to be with him. You made a rational decision that resulted from weighing alternatives and reaching conclusions.

 

A tornado didn't just come and blow your relationship away...

[ghost69]

love = you respect them as a person and love how they live life. you like their personality a lot and like being around them

 

in love = all of that but you can't stand to be away from them. you are almost infatuated with their personality and want to be with them at all times. this can be cloudy to some and they think they are in love.

[Taylor527]

Wow, this post right here changed my life.

 

I completely see what you are saying... My boyfriend and I have been together for almost 4 years. There has definitely been some times when I do not have that "butterflies" and crazy emotion when I'm around him - but I decide to stay with him because i love him, as a person. Then eventually I get out of the rut I was in and fall back in love with him.

 

I never thought of it like that but when you got through a couple in and outs you really get true love!!

[Daligal83]

I don't think it always works like that though. I lost the "butterflies" for my boyfriend and chose to stay because I loved him as a person too. But they never came back. It turned into loving him as a friend and nothing more. That definitely was not something I wanted to happen and was devastated that it did. I'm glad it came back for you and I agree that the "in love" feeling is not always there. But I think that there's always a deep love that you feel for the person that you're in a romantic relationship with that is different than your other relationships.

[novaseeker]

The butterflies don't always come back, but they aren't really the basis of long-term love, either. What I mean is that people who are married for 50 years aren't in a constant state of feeling butterflies. If you make the conscious choice to love someone based on who they are, that is what long term love is -- romance is a part of that, but again, that is a choice -- you *choose* to do romantic things to kindle the flames every now and again, but the reality is that a long term relationship or a marriage is much more about choosing to love people through the mundane aspects of life, and choosing to stoke the flames of romance every now and again.