"In love" vs Love. Difference?

[Pengy]

My bestest friend in the whole world and I have been at it for a while now, trying to define the difference between loving someone and being "in love" with them.

Mainly, it was because the two of us have been trying to decipher whether or not we love each other or whether we are "in love." I think I know the answer now, but it was such a fun hoard of conversations we had; I think I want to get some other opinions, too.

So, here goes:

What is the difference between just "loving" someone and being "in love with" someone?

ACTIVATE!

-PENGY

 

[invisible]

i'm not certain of the difference, it seems confusing. it seems that i generally associate in-loveness more with novelty, and love more with stability.

it sounds like you two have a fairly intense friendship!

 

[Pengy]

I think that the novelty would be infatuation. The feeling that is carnal and temporary and intense would be the novel one.

"In love," I think, implies that you want to be with that person in more than a physical way.

At first, I was infatuated with said friend. When I first met her, it was a physical urge. She is, at minimum, a hottie. As we hung out, the sexual urges faded. I began to love her. She was there for me, and I was there for her. We told each other everything. At some point, I realized there was something else going on.

It scared the crap out of me.

But that's not the point.

The thing is, the infatuation started nearly four years ago. The initial sexual urge had worn off before I loved her and trusted her. Then, I started feeling something else.

You can love your mother or brother, but you would never say you are "in love" with them.

And you can have some sexual impulse that doesn't require any connection or intimacy at all.

-PENGY

 

[Feelings]

Lol u nubs. Love is deep care.

"In love" is having a super high level of interest and intrigue in someone, and connecting with that person THAT strongly. The focus and intensity of interest is much higher.

For me, it's pretty easy for me to love, and the requirements for the other person to be are relatively low. If someone opens themselves up to me, accepts me into their life, takes the time to bond with me, then I will love them. For me personally, it's that simple. I love relatively easily, deeply, and for a long time (twhs). But "in love" is very rare, but can and does happen.

 

[Pengy]

Lol u nubs.

Fallacy Ad Hominem. I wasn't aware that my number of posts had anything to do with the relevancy of my questions or the topics that I tried to discuss. ::shrug::

Love is deep care.

Thank you, Webster.

"In love" is having a super high level of interest and intrigue in someone, and connecting with that person THAT strongly. The focus and intensity of interest is much higher.

Ok. I guess that makes sense. Seems like an unpolished definition, but it works. I dig it.

For me, it's pretty easy for me to love, and the requirements for the other person to be are relatively low. If someone opens themselves up to me, accepts me into their life, takes the time to bond with me, then I will love them. For me personally, it's that simple. I love relatively easily, deeply, and for a long time (twhs). But "in love" is very rare, but can and does happen.

I'm not one to love easily. I have issues with trust that make it a bit more difficult for me to get into relationships, even platonic ones.

It might seem a bit selfish of me, but it seems even more selfish to only allow yourself to love someone if they open themselves up to you. It seems like it's all about what they can do for you. Love is a two-way connection, is it not?

Granted, I was married to an INTJ (she thought she was an INTJ, at least... I'm pretty sure she's an ENTJ) for over three years, so there might be a bit of venom seeping into this post for her. If it comes across like that, I'm sorry.

-PENGY

 

[Feelings]

Fallacy Ad Hominem. I wasn't aware that my number of posts had anything to do with the relevancy of my questions or the topics that I tried to discuss. ::shrug::

Ad hominem fallacy fallacy. Just because I call you a nub doesn't mean that I'm using ad hominem. It's only ad hominem if I say that you're wrong because you're a nub. If I offer an alternate explanation, it's not ad hominem. Nub.

It might seem a bit selfish of me, but it seems even more selfish to only allow yourself to love someone if they open themselves up to you. It seems like it's all about what they can do for you. Love is a two-way connection, is it not?

........
....
....
Emotionally open themselves up? Tell you about themselves? There's no connection without that in the first place.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Love: You deeply care about the other's well-being.

In love: You are attracted to the other.

The two are not mutually exclusive, but they are not mutually implied either.

 

[Gaze]

Yeah, I've been wondering about the difference between the two. It's a bit odd.

Once upon a time, they meant the same thing, for people in a relationship. Actually, if you were in a relationship with someone, it was assumed that you loved the person or were in love with them simply because you wanted to be with them and spend time with them.

I'm not sure when "being in love" came to dominate the discourse on love. It suggests more intensity. But it seems to be focused around passion for the person, rather than stable, lasting love for the person and their well being. I think being in love is more about how you feel about the person or how you feel about each other with a feeling of euphoria or "feel goodness" where loving the person is about caring for them as a person deeply and sincerely. Being in love seems more superficial and ephemeral than loving them.

 

[David54]

well as the hopeless romanitic. .
for me they are one and the same.. . I have heard. . "I love you, but I am not in love with you". . really? and just wtf does that even mean? if you love me. . then you are in love with me. . how an you not be "in" the state you claim to feel? remember that love is a verb, not a noun. . love requires action. . everyday. . it is not some static state that we end up in. . it is a state of being with another person. . one that makes you spend your day off retracing the steps of a loving afternooon spent together. . just to retrieve the memories. . then send pictures to your love of what you did together. . oops, . sorry. . sidetracked. . love is very important to me. . it is the driving force in my llife. .
if I am "in love" it is because I love. . I can not, and do not separate the two. . they are one and the same. .

 

[jyrffw54]

Being "In Love" is that "honeymoon" phase of a relationship, where it seems that you two will do anything for each other. It's that euphoria of possibilities. And many people foolishly believe that it is going to last forever. Staying in this phase too long will eventually lead to a shallow feel to the relationship and everything will start to feel fake and rehearsed; The spark is going to burn out, the relationship is going to stagnate, and this is a key reason for divorces.

When reality sets in, the challenge of staying together is called "Loving each other". It's when you two decide recognize that while you both have flaws, you have the choice to either completely overlook them until they blow up in your face years down the road, or deal with them and compromise. You actually have to work at the relationship when you are Loving each other, but you'll feel a deeper connection with your partner as you work to grow and cultivate your relationship. This is called withstanding the test of time and why your grandparents and great-grandparents stayed together for so long, while not so many in your parent's generation did.

 

[Pengy]

Ad hominem fallacy fallacy. Just because I call you a nub doesn't mean that I'm using ad hominem. It's only ad hominem if I say that you're wrong because you're a nub. If I offer an alternate explanation, it's not ad hominem. Nub.

Actually, the very presence of the word "nub" in your post is Ad Hominem. It gives the impression that the person to whom you are speaking or with whom you are arguing is somehow less important or their opinion doesn't matter. Whatever is followed by the insult is all that remains.

All I'm asking for is a little courtesy. Be nice.

Emotionally open themselves up? Tell you about themselves? There's no connection without that in the first place.

That's not necessarily true. I mean, have you never loved someone who didn't "open up?" Someone who was there for you to listen, someone who took care of you in some way but was still emotionally distant--has a person like that never been a part of your life? Hell, I was in love with (and loved) my wife, and she was never what I would call "emotionally available." That may be why the relationship didn't last, ultimately, but nevertheless, I loved her.

-PENGY

 

[DevilDoll]

Being "In Love" is that "honeymoon" phase of a relationship, where it seems that you two will do anything for each other. It's that euphoria of possibilities. And many people foolishly believe that it is going to last forever. Staying in this phase too long will eventually lead to a shallow feel to the relationship and everything will start to feel fake and rehearsed; The spark is going to burn out, the relationship is going to stagnate, and this is a key reason for divorces.

When reality sets in, the challenge of staying together is called "Loving each other". It's when you two decide recognize that while you both have flaws, you have the choice to either completely overlook them until they blow up in your face years down the road, or deal with them and compromise. You actually have to work at the relationship when you are Loving each other, but you'll feel a deeper connection with your partner as you work to grow and cultivate your relationship. This is called withstanding the test of time and why your grandparents and great-grandparents stayed together for so long, while not so many in your parent's generation did.

I think what you described here is the difference between infatuation and love not loving someone and being in love with them. I am head over heels in love with my someone special, but I know he has flaws and I love them as well. They are part of who he is and they are part of what makes him so good for me. On the other hand, I would do anything for him and can see a future for the two of us. I don't think that those feelings have to be left behind in order to have a healthy, lasting relationship. I love him and I am "In love" with him. He is my best friend, he is my lover, he is my life. When we kiss it is almost electric. Just looking at him makes me smile. But, it's not just the physical reactions that let me know how I feel. Sure, You would need a chain saw to cut through the sexual tension, but that's only part of it. It's the emotional intimacy. It's the feeling that we just fit. We know each other better than anyone else. Sometimes I wonder if we are just bizarre. But, I can tell you without hesitating that I am in love with him. I tried not to be. I spent nights awake telling myself it was not true only to roll over and dream about telling him. I know I love him and am "in love" with him. Will it last, butterflies and all? I can't answer that. What I do know is he is the first person I have seen a real future with.

 

[grt$5vb]

I have come to the realization that you can't be in love WITH someone unless they are having the same level of feelings for you at the same time. Really hard to coordinate. This could have saved me a lot of headaches...

 

[magister343]

Actually, the very presence of the word "nub" in your post is Ad Hominem. It gives the impression that the person to whom you are speaking or with whom you are arguing is somehow less important or their opinion doesn't matter. Whatever is followed by the insult is all that remains.

It may be ad hominem, but it is not the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. A lack of courtesy is not a fallacy. Drawing an unflattering conclusion of those making an argument because the argument is decided to be poor (whether this conclusion is stated before or after the refutation fo the poor argument) is not fallacious like concluding the argument is poor because of a negative opinion of the arguer would be.

 

[DevilDoll]

well as the hopeless romanitic. .
for me they are one and the same.. . I have heard. . "I love you, but I am not in love with you". . really? and just wtf does that even mean? if you love me. . then you are in love with me. . how an you not be "in" the state you claim to feel? remember that love is a verb, not a noun. . love requires action. . everyday. . it is not some static state that we end up in. . it is a state of being with another person. . one that makes you spend your day off retracing the steps of a loving afternooon spent together. . just to retrieve the memories. . then send pictures to your love of what you did together. . oops, . sorry. . sidetracked. . love is very important to me. . it is the driving force in my llife. .
if I am "in love" it is because I love. . I can not, and do not separate the two. . they are one and the same. .

So you are in love with your mother and your father? You feel the same for them as you would for a spouse or significant other? How about your best friend? I would assume that your feelings for all of these people are different. I love my parents and I love my sister. However, I am not in love with them. The feelings are similar, but something distinguishes the two. I believe it is the level of intimacy, both physical and emotional. Mostly the physical. The butterflies, sweaty palms, and sexual urges are all things that are part of being in love with someone and you don't feel that for parents or siblings... at least I hope not.

I have loved plenty of people I have known throughout my life, and I have often found myself loving them but not being in love with them. It's no excuse. It just happens.