Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Do your emotions dictate how you love?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (21749 points ) June 8th, 2014

That person you are smitten with, or were. If they kept pissing you off, or in some way annoyed you constantly does that effect the way you love them or continue to love them? In other words, would you be as in love with them as when you 1st met them if things they did, or the way they acted vexed you terribly, or would that tarnish or even destroy the love you had for them to the point you would no longer love them?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

61 Answers

Coloma's avatar

HELL YES! Maturity is a wonderful thing, you only put up with that crap when you’re young and stupid.

Unbroken's avatar

People love when they first meet? I thought that was chemistry and physicality. In which case that can sour really fast if a persons temperament is not working with mine.

Personally if I come to love someone romantically someone it deepens as i get to know them better. I am more capable of forgiving them for minor behaviors. Or hard times. But that takes time and I have a good idea they are worth it.

In fact those differences can help bind us together in the longer scheme.

Often in my case it works out we part. But that love is still present. Just in a non romantic caring.

GloPro's avatar

As someone who learned about co-dependent relationships the hard way, my emotions were totally fucked up and definitely impacted the way I showed and felt love. I hope I never love desperately ever again. That sucked and took a long time to get over. My fear of those relationships have caused me to build high walls. So yes, I have several emotions that impact how I show love. It’s sometimes a struggle to show it at all. I’m working on it.

cazzie's avatar

Have you not watched a movie or read a book? Love and promises that turn into resentment and betrayal happens all the time because people lie to themselves and to each other all the time and are selfish and love nothing more than to remain in their own fog of self-deluded, over-inflated state of self-importance and hubris.

ragingloli's avatar

You do know that love is an emotion, right?

DWW25921's avatar

I got divorces a few months back because love turned to tolerate than turned to silence. The silent treatment gives a guy time to think. That was her mistake. Emotional manipulators should never give their victims time to think.

Coloma's avatar

@DWW25921 Here, here…..nothing worse than manipulative types, in any capacity.
Be amn or women enough to express yourself better than a 4 yr. old. haha

GloPro's avatar

@Coloma Most of my dates don’t say more than Me. Want. Sex. The manipulation is only in positioning.

Darth_Algar's avatar

Is this a for real question? Are you seriously asking if ones emotions effect their emotions?

GloPro's avatar

Affect ~

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@ragingloli You do know that love is an emotion, right?
Yes, I do. You do know that true love should not be effected by those other emotions, right?

@Darth_Algar Is this a for real question? Are you seriously asking if ones emotions effect their emotions?
Why would it not? I am curious as to if people really love, or love based on conditions, feelings or something that has to prop that love up. If one really loves it doesn’t matter if the person cheats on you, if they stole and wrecked your car, if they were rude and obnoxious, you could not help but love them anyhow. If your dog chewed up your newest and best pair of Jimmy Choo shoes, you are not going to hold a grudge against the mutt, are you?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

You are delusional if you think that love is some unwavering, unchanging emotion. You actions will have an effect on another person’s love for you. Love is not unconditional, no matter how romanticized that notion may be. You can destroy another person’s love for you just as sure as you earn that person’s love.

Bill1939's avatar

“Lust is an emotion or feeling of intense desire in the body” (see) that usually precedes the emotion of love. Psychological needs are often projected upon the object of one’s lust. As lust is satisfied, the reality of the relationship becomes increasing apparent. Because memory of pleasure last longer than pain, an emotional attachment to the other person often persists after the relationship ended.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Darth_Algar You are delusional if you think that love is some unwavering, unchanging emotion.
I think the delusion, myself, is when people believe it is true love if tied to something the other person does, doesn’t do, or is. The way you speak of it makes be believe that if your child does something really butt nuggetish, you have to kick them to the curve and stop loving them until they do something worthy enough to earn it back; your pet as well. Why treat the love for people different than the love of wine or food?

You actions will have an effect on another person’s love for you.
Not if they truly loved me. I have known women who loved their man even when he cheated on them, pilfered money from their purse, ran up their credit card and did not offer to help pay any of it off, took their car without permission and either got it towed or wrecked it, etc. they would get angry at him but they could not stop themselves from loving him and thus sticking around and staying in the relationship. Others felt they were being used and abused, (in some cases they were getting slapped around some), but they felt such a deep love for the guy, they could not walk away.

You can destroy another person’s love for you just as sure as you earn that person’s love.
One cannot make or create love in anyone, all they can do is set up the condition where the person crates for themselves the feelings of love for a person or not. If being around _”Betty Jane” or “John Smith” makes a person feel happy, content, etc. THEY will equate their good feeling to that person and love can grow from that. John Smith is not going to get Betty Jane to love him simply because he bought her 12 dozen long-stemmed roses, a house and a fancy new car.

ragingloli's avatar

To paraphrase David Mitchel, the one true God of the Hyperverse, love is being delusional in each others’ favour.

GloPro's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Your response to “Your actions will have an effect on another person’s love for you.” is describing co-dependency, not love. In addition, it is possible to feel love for someone and walk away because their actions are intolerable.

Bill1939's avatar

@GloPro is correct. @Hypocrisy_Central‘s contention that one stays in an abusive relationship because they love their abuser is false. This is not love, but a dependency arising from a childhood that likely was abusive and lacked love.

Regarding the question: “Why treat the love for people different than the love of wine or food?” One may call satisfaction, security, pleasure or their desire for a significant other in their life love, however this is not the same as the bond that can exist between people or their pets. While a dog may appreciate being fed, petted, housed and played with, even when another person provides these things they will display sadness when their favorite human is absent.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@GloPro Your response to “Your actions will have an effect on another person’s love for you.”is describing co-dependency, not love. In addition, it is possible to feel love for someone and walk away because their actions are intolerable.
The co-dependency aspect I guess one can attach to other forms of relationships as well. To cohabitate and not marry can be seen as co-dependency. Even if someone’s actions drive you away, that in itself doesn’t mean the love stops and hate or something else replaces that love. Parents put kids out of their house because of the destructive behavior but they still love their child and worry about them. Walking away even from a spouse who physically abuse you doesn’t mean you cease loving them in every instance; just as sticking around because you feel trapped doesn’t mean you love being slapped around if he comes home in a foul mood.

@Bill1939 While a dog may appreciate being fed, petted, housed and played with, even when another person provides these things they will display sadness when their favorite human is absent.
How and what a dog thinks I don’t know, and for the most part I could care less what the mutt feels. I do know many people who have a love for their pets that no matter what the animal does, it can never shake the human’s love from them. Even if it cost their human masters tons of money or destroys something irreplaceable; it is always forgiven. There is not a time I have found an owner say ”This is the last straw, you are off to the pound”. Nor have I seen anyone who loves cheeseburger ever swear off them forever just because they got food poisoning from a burger not cooked well. They figure it was just that burger from that location they did not impute that as a dislike of all cheeseburgers for all time.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central “The co-dependency aspect I guess one can attach to other forms of relationships as well. To cohabitate and not marry can be seen as co-dependency.

Only if you have absolutely no understanding of the term at all.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Only if you have absolutely no understanding of the term at all.
If you know better, elucidate, explain why it is not a form of co-dependency and staying in a busted relationship because of the love you have for another, even though not returned, is?

GloPro's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I absolutely agree that you can love someone an not tolerate their behavior. Thanks for reiterating my point, though. It’s so rare that we agree!

As far as how that relates to how one loves… It is much more painful to love yourself more than the person causing you pain. The love you feel for them becomes deeply aching. It’s still there, but it is tinged with great sadness.

rojo's avatar

I think your emotions more directly dictate who you love.

Bill1939's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central that “There is not a time I have found an owner say ‘This is the last straw, you are off to the pound’” was not true for my wife and me. We had two cats and a dog when we were given a third cat. This cat was loving and we loved it. However, she kept urinating all over the house. It probably was because she was trying to establish a bit a territory for herself. Because we were going to have new carpets installed, we agreed that she should be given to a shelter where she might be adopted; we explained why we were giving her up to the staff. My wife and I cried, not regretting giving her up, but regretting the need to do so.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Bill1939 This cat was loving and we loved it. However, she kept urinating all over the house.
But I did not hear you say you and your wife hated the cat because she kept urinating over the house. If her pissing on your carpets caused you to hate her (the cat) would you have cried when you were “forced” to remove her from the house for the sake of the new carpet?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central “If you know better, elucidate, explain why it is not a form of co-dependency and staying in a busted relationship because of the love you have for another, even though not returned, is?

Because cohabitating but not marrying is not itself a busted relationship.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Darth_Algar Because cohabitating but not marrying is not itself a busted relationship.
No, busted relationships happen with a ring or not. Staying in a relationship where you are not valued or respected does not co-habitation make if you can leave but you don’t because you feel you love the other person so much in spite of how they treat you.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

To quote you (again) from earlier: “To cohabitate and not marry can be seen as co-dependency.”

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ In the sense that each are dependent on the other for self gratification but not enough to really sell out for it. They are just “renting” each other’s emotions until it no longer suits them, then they are off to the next big romance.

Darth_Algar's avatar

^

Which is not only totally not understanding the term (as I said) but also stunningly ignorant as well.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Again, if you are so astute about it, break it down and we will see.

Darth_Algar's avatar

I’ve explained already. Speaking to you is like arguing with a brick wall, so why continue to waste my time?

Bill1939's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central we did not hate the cat, only her behavior. One can love someone or something that they cannot stand. My father once told my sister that he loved her, but did not like her. Sometimes one has to follow their head and ignore their heart.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Darth_Algar I’ve explained already. Speaking to you is like arguing with a brick wall, so why continue to waste my time?
Oh, don’t be mad. I slept on it, you are right, it is not the same. Therefore I am amending my stance, it is mutual selfish self-gratifying coexistence, which I like much better, way more accurate. Thank you for being so adamant about it.

@Bill1939 [..;we did not hate the cat, only her behavior. One can love someone or something that they cannot stand.
Yes, as you have demonstrated, you hated the actions of the cat, but still loved the cat. I see that as being no different than those women who hung onto those douche bag men who cheated on them and cost them tangible goods; they truly, truly loved them, if they did not truly love them, they would have left in wake of a nasty breakup.

ragingloli's avatar

obviously you loved the new carpet more than the cat

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

“mutual selfish self-gratifying coexistence”

And that’s different from marriage how?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Darth_Algar “mutual selfish self-gratifying coexistence”
And that’s different from marriage how?

Yup, far different. As far apart from each other as the Sun and the planet formally known as Pluto.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Here is the reason marriage is nothing like mutual selfish self-gratifying coexistence, when one make the choice to seal it legally with a ring and all they are in it for the long haul (even if they don’t keep to it later but that is a different story). When you are just shaking up you are free to leave without no hooks or fanfare. Your only motivation for the relationship is what it is doing for you, when the conditions change there is no reason to try to work it out because it is no effort, and certainly no money to just leave, less what you spend on yourself or another place, etc. You can’t just get out of a marriage without some effort and it will certainly have a price tag on it. You don’t go into a marriage with the ideal that it is good for now, but the options are or open for the next or better thing should the current get boring, or in some way don’t work anymore. You don’t have the open options to trade in with marriage as you do just cohabitating; it is akin to buying the car as oppose to leasing it. That is just for starters how they are vastly different. Some people go into a marriage for the wrong reasons or that they didn’t really have the commitment to stick it out, but that flaw is on them, not marriage as intended.

Darth_Algar's avatar

That reasoning is so full of it I don’t even know where to begin.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ If it were that “full of it” I am sure you would be able to jump in anywhere, but…....

Darth_Algar's avatar

Do you seriously think that the recognition of the state is what determines how committed two people are in their relationship? Really?

cazzie's avatar

Marriage is meaningless. An empty symbolic, expensive drama of bollocks.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Darth_Algar
Do you seriously think that the recognition of the state is what determines how committed two people are in their relationship? Really?
No, do you? It encompasses way more than that. Perhaps you are amiss on the true concept of a marriage?

Darth_Algar's avatar

And yet that’s pretty much exactly what you’ve said here. People who don’t get legally married are not committed, those that do are “in it for the long haul” (ignoring the great number of marriages that end in divorce).

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ People who don’t get legally married are not committed, those that do are “in it for the long haul” (ignoring the great number of marriages that end in divorce).
Failure rate notwithstanding, they entered the union with the idea of it lasting until death took one of them, if not, then they were frauds deceiving themselves. Why do people insist on being more committed openly to their stuff or jobs than to their relationships?

Darth_Algar's avatar

“Openly committed”? So what, the measure of a person’s commitment is how public they make it?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Darth_Algar So what, the measure of a person’s commitment is how public they make it?
No it is not, just as their freedom is not determined by the lack of commitment to another person. Do you have a car, bought a house? Did you ever buy a car but felt it never necessary to possess the title? You really don’t need the title to possess it, but to openly state that you own or possess it, you have the title. Why care more for stuff and proving you are the official owner than making the same effort in a relatioinship?

cazzie's avatar

Perhaps because people aren’t ‘stuff to be owned’....or ‘possessed’.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

Because I don’t own the person.

Jesus tap dancing Christ…..

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@cazzie @Darth_Algar Of course people are not owned. Your only defense is that? When it comes to ”your stuff” you want to be diligent everyone knows it is yours but when it comes to your spouse, mate, you don’t care if they are seen no more than a FWB, or something less than what you say they are supposed to be in your heart? OK, I think I heard enough.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

My partner is not my property nor my possession. I have no need to claim her as “belonging” to me. And I am not so insecure, nor is my ego so fragile, that I have to broadcast to the world “hey, she’s mine”. I pity you (and any woman who may be with you) if you do.

cazzie's avatar

I don’t need to tag my boyfriend and keep him in some sort of metaphysical cage to know he is in my heart… and he is free if he needs that too, because I love him, unconditionally, whether he is with me or not.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Darth_Algar I have no need to claim her as “belonging” to me.
Neither do I. I am certainly not ashamed to claim I am hers, and if we are together we would not be ashamed to say we are an official committed couple. We are not going to take a hike if things get dicey because there is nothing official holding up to the other.

And I am not so insecure, nor is my ego so fragile, that I have to broadcast to the world “hey, she’s mine”. I pity you (and any woman who may be with you) if you do.
Nope, not me, but I pity anyone (and who they are with) if they are so ashamed and afraid that their ”exit strategy” would disappear if they officially sealed what they say they have because they will no longer have plausible deniability if things get to unsatisfying for one or both parties.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

Whoever said was ashamed about anything? You seem to be the kind of person who presumes much and thinks little. Again, I don’t need the state to validate my relationship. However (before you bring this up again), the state, which for taxation purposes has an interest knowing who owns what property, requires me to have a title to my car, to have a deed to my property, and so on.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ It was a though the same as yours for “insecure”, or “fragile ego”. And we can by pass the evil state uses marriage to fleece people’s pocket or track them straw man. ;-)

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central “And we can by pass the evil state uses marriage to fleece people’s pocket or track them straw man.”

Easily, since that was not at all what I was saying.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ You have your ideal, if I follow it correct, that marriage is needed by some to prove to others that they have a ’real relationship”, that it is all for others and not for the people who are in the marriage. I say the marriage is not because someone has to prove to anyone they have a union but that the people in the marriage are proud to declare publically and officially that they are committed, and in a way they can’t just bounce with things get tough. They are committed enough to remove the easy egress path, which is more assuring to their intentions to their spouse. Look at it this way, what would a child think if the parents simply say we love you and know that you are ours but we did not want to go so far as to place our names on the birth certificate. If you did not have to legally, why would you not want to?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central

I’ll give you this much, you are an absolute master of false equivalencies.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther