Is it true?

[lilypadgirl]

That if they truly love you, they would be willing to overcome almost anything to be with you (distance, illness, marriage/commitment/family, religion, politics)?

 

According to the book "He's Just Not That Into You", this seems to be theme...that if he's into (love) you enough, he'd be willing...and if he's not...then he's just not that into you...

 

Is this asking/expecting too much from love?

 

Does this mean that if they don't, they don't truly love you?

[Jd1983]

I agree that there are sacrifices to make for the one's that you love.

 

However, just because someone doesn't sacrifice their very all to you, does not necessarily mean that they don't love you with all they have.

[90_hour_sleep]

i think love sometimes isn't the be all end all solution that it's often portrayed as. there is something to be said for committment. when you have two people that have that desire to be committed to the relationship, and to each other...the love that is created through that will often be strong enough to pull you through virtually any situation. however, there are also those instances where two people can separate in love. for whatever reason, the relationship just isn't thriving in certain ways. perhaps this is related to that idea of committment (true, uncontrived committment). perhaps your ideas on the subject vary too much for you to form that connection. i think a similar perspective in that regard is almost essential for a relationship to last. but you can't expect anyone to share your exact perspective. that's where the idea of give and take comes in.

[lilypadgirl]

jd: I like what you said about if they don't sacrifice it doesn't mean they didn't love you. But they did they love you with all they had? I guess there could be a time where a person is just limited in the amount they can give due to maybe external factors or life goals that are still unmet.

 

90 hour sleep: Yes, I agree...there has to be a foundation of similarity for a relationship to work. I keep thinking about relationships take work and commitment, but up to a certain point when differences become too big, it's not worth it. Still a lot of pain and confusion and eventually heartbreak comes when two people measure that difference differently where one person is more willing to sacrifice than the other. Does that person love more?

[petite]

I am a firm believer if you truly love someone you can overcome almost anything except infidelity, because infidelity to me at least is a true sign of disrespect and no love.

 

To say that someone isn't into you is too harsh. Some people do love, it's just not strong or deep enough to make it work through the toughest of times.

 

Perfect example, I believe my ex at one time did love me, I just think he didn't love me deep enough that he would go through anything to make it work. Whereas I would go trough hell and back for him.

[metafisics]

I am a firm believer if you truly love someone you can overcome almost anything except infidelity, because infidelity to me at least is a true sign of disrespect and no love.

 

To say that someone isn't into you is too harsh. Some people do love, it's just not strong or deep enough to make it work through the toughest of times.

 

Perfect example, I believe my ex at one time did love me, I just think he didn't love me deep enough that he would go through anything to make it work. Whereas I would go trough hell and back for him.

 

Petite, not to be a smart arse or anything,but thats what the writer means by "not being that into you", with "that" being the operative word. What he basically suggest is that he doesnt love you enough (this comes at different levels too) to do the necessary work it takes to make the relationship work.

 

Also, I disagree that if you love someone you can overcome everything except infidelity. I loved my ex-ex like I've never loved anyone before, but refused to marry him because I didnt believe he'd make me happy. I broke up with my recent ex, which I still love because he's a clear commitment-phobe and I didnt wanna be in a relationship with someone whose hedging his bets. Neither cheated on me (at least not that I know of). I guess with me, my mind always take over and my heart succumbs.

 

I also understand that its different for others. Nothing cast in stone really.

[petite]

"He's just not that into you" can mean many things, but I believe it's mostly something associated with people who just are starting to date, not actual couples who are/were in relationships.

 

Loving someone and not being into them are two different things. I don't think you can love and not be into a person.

 

As for loving/not loving enough really it's such an individual thing we ca sit here and debate for years and we will still have different opinions, and that's a good thing because it would be horrible if everyone had the same opinion.

 

And as for what I said about my ex, I know he was "into me", I know he loved me a lot, probably more than any guy ever did. I know he loved me more than any of his past girlfriends but not enough to overcome issues we had. (But this is just my opinion, he might say that he loved me truly/deeply but decided not to fix our issues.)

[DN]

That if they truly love you, they would be willing to overcome almost anything to be with you (distance, illness, marriage/commitment/family, religion, politics)?

 

This is a false alternative.

[lilypadgirl]

petite, meta: I think you guys are saying the same thing? Basically these feelings of attraction -> interest -> like -> love are basically a continuum of feelings rather than yes/no. So basically I see it as where does the issue fall on this line in terms of the cost of emotions and where your partner is at in terms of his emotions and if he just isn't attracted/interested or like/love you enough then he/she won't overcome them for you. But then this suggests that it's just not enough emotions there, (not to say there isn't anything there)???

[lilypadgirl]

This is a false alternative.

 

What are some of the alternative explanations?

[abitbroken]

I think that this is partially true. There are things someone would move mountains on if they loved you and were ready to commit to you. But there are somethings they don't, especially as we get older. We look for someone who is okay with those things or we both fit into eachother's lives. Examples would be if there were kids from a prior relationship - they wouldn't move 10,000 miles away from the kids even for love. If they have a very stable job, they aren't going to quit without really solid reasons.

 

"He's just not that into you" can mean many things, but I believe it's mostly something associated with people who just are starting to date, not actual couples who are/were in relationships.

 

I agree with this. the "he's just not that into you" book had examples like "if he told you that he was swimming in the ocean and a shark ate his phone" and that's why he hasn't called in a month, he's probably just not into you. It doesn't relate really to once the relationship has been established.

[DN]

Loving someone does not mean that other aspects of your life; friends, family, career, social activities are excluded. That person should be the top of your priority list most of the time but that doesn'r mean that all those other aspects have no priority at all. A good life needs balance in all things to be healthy.

[FoxMulder]

That if they truly love you, they would be willing to overcome almost anything to be with you (distance, illness, marriage/commitment/family, religion, politics)?

 

According to the book "He's Just Not That Into You", this seems to be theme...that if he's into (love) you enough, he'd be willing...and if he's not...then he's just not that into you...

 

Is this asking/expecting too much from love?

 

Does this mean that if they don't, they don't truly love you?

 

If thats the case then it should go both ways. If the girl loves the guy she should be willing to overcome all those things aswell. Sadly though most women have double standards with that thing, they expect the guy to do everything to show their love but the women themselves won't do anything.

[girlfriday]

Yes but no.

Sacrifice should come as someone wishes to give it to someone out of love. Not from someone expecting the sacrifice. It has to work both ways as well, both partners have to equally be able to sacrifice the same.

 

There is nothing wrong with expecting smaller things but to expect your bf to give up his religion to be with you is borderline abuse.

[lilypadgirl]

If thats the case then it should go both ways. If the girl loves the guy she should be willing to overcome all those things aswell. Sadly though most women have double standards with that thing, they expect the guy to do everything to show their love but the women themselves won't do anything.

 

Funny, from the stories I hear, it's the opposite. The girl always has to move to where the guy is and give up her career. I think in terms of sacrifices, it's probably close to equal.

 

In my case, my ex hoped that I would move to where he is to support his career despite a good, budding career of mine, give up a future with kids, and fit into his vision of future/lifestyle. I'm more than happy to move for a guy if he really loves me and I really love him, but I'm hurt that he can't even sacrifice for me to try to incorporate my life wishes just makes me wonder if I ever really mattered that much. I'm sure he cares about me. But kids and distance are pretty big issues so I don't really blame him, just wonder if these are issues that fall into the categories of he's just not that into (love) me.

[lilypadgirl]

Yes but no.

Sacrifice should come as someone wishes to give it to someone out of love. Not from someone expecting the sacrifice. It has to work both ways as well, both partners have to equally be able to sacrifice the same.

 

There is nothing wrong with expecting smaller things but to expect your bf to give up his religion to be with you is borderline abuse.

 

Yeah, religion and culture are heavy issues. Still if they loved you, they would be willing to work out compromises? Not necessarily give up their religion, but be willing to incorporate yours rather than to say you're not Religion X so I can't be with you.

[90_hour_sleep]

This is a false alternative.

 

false from some perspectives. unfortunately the world is likely full of infinite perspectives.

[FarthestEdge]

Love does not conquer all.

 

IMO a big part of enduring love is shared values. So a lot of issues can get in the way if your values aren't in sync. The only solution then, is for one or both of you to sacrifice your own values for the sake of the relationship....this is not a good long term plan. Eventually one or both of you will resent the personal sacrifices, and wonder who you've become...

 

If either of you have young children, then I am sorry, but those kids come first, no matter what. If you don't respect and get on board with your partners child-rearing philosophies, then the relationship has a limited future. If you simply don't like their children and/or look at them as competitors for your partners time (I see it on here frequently), then you are going to lose that competition, as you should.

 

If 'conquering all' requires that you violate your own principles, betray who you are or what's important to you, then it shouldn't 'conquer all' should it?

 

Being in a loving partnership certainly can overcome a LOT of challenges and obstacles. My own personal experience taught me that. But there are some things that simply cannot be 'conquered', and IMO, some of those things shouldn't be...

 

Because long-term, you'd both be better off, and find more fulfillment with someone else who would not require that you sacrifice your principles, ideals etc., for the sake of love.

[stormgurl10]

i do believe some people wont go through anything to make it. that doesnt mean they dont love you. its just not true love. because to me true love will overcome any obsticale no matter what. an example. my grandparents have been married 55 years. 20 yrs after bein married grandpa cheated. they almost got divorced but grandpa fought to get her back.and theyve been together since. to me thats true love. thats how me and my fiancee are.we overcome anything.

[arcadefire]

When it comes to some very important life changing events (promoted and having to move to another city, political/religious, choosing one farther university but is the better university, etc), then I believe it to be unreasonable to expect that someone who truly loves you would uproot everything and just go with you, especially if you're put in that position of having to choose to forgo great opportunity or the one you love.