Wuv, Twue Wuv -- and Mawwiage!

[narnian_at_heart]

With unrequited love, something to keep in mind is that it is oftentimes more painful for the target of unrequited love. They will oftentimes feel guilt that they cannot return such feelings and that they have hurt the other person, or start being more reserved in fear that they are "sending signals", or may even reject any sort of a friendly relationship with the person that likes them for various reasons.

Oh indeed! This past semester, I had such an experience. A guy liked me and I didn't like him like that. He was a good friend and we often ate dinner together (not for romantic reasons: we both lived in the same dorm and often ran into each other at the cafeteria and sat together because otherwise, we'd be eating alone). When it became very clear to me that he liked me, I eventually had to confront him and tell him that I was sorry but I simply wasn't interested.

It's very hard and I did feel guilty. I felt that if I had done things differently, maybe I wouldn't have had to say anything. Maybe I should have ate dinner with him less. Maybe I should have hung out in the dorm lounge when he was there less. Maybe I should have acted differently around him.

I liked the guy. He was nice and a good friend. But I wasn't interested in him and also he didn't have some of the same morals and values as I did and it's never a good idea, Christian or no, to date someone who doesn't have most of your same morals and values.

And it still is a bit awkward. I still say hi but we didn't hang out at all for the rest of the semester.

One thing though, it's MUCH better to tell the person straight off! DON'T lead anyone on. I agonized for weeks about whether to tell him or not and it felt so good once I'd told him even though it was freaky while I was actually doing it.

[The Old Maid]

"Is it better to have loved and lost, then to have never loved at all" ?

Ah, my. I’d ramble about taking a quote out of context, but Ithilwen already dealt with that in “it depends a good deal on what the person saying it is actually trying to say by quoting it.”

Good points also to Conina for the time-traveler’s dilemma, so to speak, and stardf29’s excellent post on the difference between “hurt” and “harm.”

Ithilwen wrote:
Or are they just saying that romance is such a wonderful thing, that everyone should experience it whether it leads to tragedy or not? This seems to be the most common usage of the phrase I've seen, and it sounds a bit like idolatry. As if romance is more holy than any other human experience.

Verily. To borrow another phrase from Shakespeare, some “jest at scars who never felt a wound.” It sounds like something that a winner at love would say, which in turn makes the recipient (of the comment) sound like the loser thereof.

I call it Klingon thinking. In the Star Trek DS9 episode “Blood Oath,” three Klingons are compelled by their honor to pursue an old feud even unto death. Their non-Klingon friend Jadzia agrees to join them, but not to do it their way. ”I think you Klingons embrace death too easily. You treat death like a lover. I think living is a lot more attractive. I think an honorable victory is better than an honorable defeat.” At this point she finds a way to solve their weapons problem, resulting in (from the Klingon point of view) an honorable victory. (They still die, but victoriously.) A lot of people treat “it is better to have loved and lost” like Klingon honor: you must have romantic love even if it’s destructive.

Part of this may come from the attitudes toward marriage versus celibacy. It’s absolutely true that marriage, and later parenthood, will rock your world in ways you cannot believe existed. Very much a case of “whoa, I had no idea it was this intense.” That’s fine as long as it doesn’t drift into snobbery, which alas is not unknown. The single person, or the childless couple, may hear condescending remarks about how they never will be truly grown up until they have a family. I’m not talking about cruelty, which is a separate topic: remarks to a single whose fiancé/e has just died, or a couple whose child was stillborn. No, just daily pat-on-the-head chatter, which is about one-upsmanship.

Because of this perceived difference in status, I sometimes hear single people lament, “I guess I must be called to celibacy,” in much the same mournful tone as “I must be called to dentures,” which, first of all, thanks for the good wishes ; and secondly, they don’t even have them yet!

Not that confirmed celibates are incapable of walking around with their noses in the air. There is a certain attitude in being “married to God” because none of your friends can top it. He’s the greatest, the beloved, crazy about you, loved you enough to die for you, lives in your heart, is faithful and true, and is home every night. As if mortal suitors aren’t nervous enough already without being held up to that standard. On the other hand, He is perfect, which means that if there’s an argument, you are the one in the wrong. Try being “married” to someone that perfect. But there can be pride right there as well, in pity-party martyr points mostly.

I think James Martin’s Jesuit’s guide to (almost) everything put it more graciously. The confirmed celibate isn’t immune to love, either given or received. But the call is stronger. And it takes a certain type of person to follow that call. The celibate may leave many beloved relatives and friends at a gravesite, but it never will be the same as for the family man or woman. Being celibate, says Martin, means being at peace with the realization that you will never be the most important person in anybody’s life.

If that sounds horrific to you, my guess is that celibacy isn’t your calling. It might be your status until your love comes along, but that doesn’t make the calling bad. Celibacy and marriage are both holy and beautiful callings. My thinking is, do you feel called to be married? Then you are called to be married. The majority of humans are. They are just confusing their calling with their status. That's why they get scared.

It is a good thing in life when a person’s status matches their calling. But people whose calling and status aren’t the same have to deal with attitudes from others as well as fears from inside themselves. Those attitudes make people feel badly about themselves, and that confuses their perceptions. Some of the loneliest people I’ve ever met were married.

As for unrequited love … I can’t make up my mind if it motivates people to improve themselves, if it’s excellent fodder for literature/poetry/the arts, or part of the Fall. Sometimes as with Eowyn/Aragorn, or Tighten/Roxanne Ritchi, it seems like there's nothing you can do about it, and then they take it badly. I don't see it as the sort of thing that would have happened in Eden.

Then again, I've heard theologians say that maybe the Bible doesn't record Adam and Eve being in love because when you're the only people in the world, love doesn't matter. Thoughts?

[IloveFauns]

With unrequited love, something to keep in mind is that it is oftentimes more painful for the target of unrequited love. They will oftentimes feel guilt that they cannot return such feelings and that they have hurt the other person, or start being more reserved in fear that they are "sending signals", or may even reject any sort of a friendly relationship with the person that likes them for various reasons.

Oh indeed! This past semester, I had such an experience. A guy liked me and I didn't like him like that. He was a good friend and we often ate dinner together (not for romantic reasons: we both lived in the same dorm and often ran into each other at the cafeteria and sat together because otherwise, we'd be eating alone). When it became very clear to me that he liked me, I eventually had to confront him and tell him that I was sorry but I simply wasn't interested.

It's very hard and I did feel guilty. I felt that if I had done things differently, maybe I wouldn't have had to say anything. Maybe I should have ate dinner with him less. Maybe I should have hung out in the dorm lounge when he was there less. Maybe I should have acted differently around him.

I liked the guy. He was nice and a good friend. But I wasn't interested in him and also he didn't have some of the same morals and values as I did and it's never a good idea, Christian or no, to date someone who doesn't have most of your same morals and values.

And it still is a bit awkward. I still say hi but we didn't hang out at all for the rest of the semester.

One thing though, it's MUCH better to tell the person straight off! DON'T lead anyone on. I agonized for weeks about whether to tell him or not and it felt so good once I'd told him even though it was freaky while I was actually doing it.

My friend has the same problem, this guy asked her out and she said no. Now he sits with us at lunch and everything and she isn't interested.

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Narnian_at_heart, I believe you did the right thing. It would hurt both parties more to beat around the bush and keep the guy guessing as to your intentions. As a guy, I greatly fear rejection but would also hate to be led on because the girl was trying to 'protect' my feelings. Guys want it straight, even if it hurts (especially if it hurts). Honesty and integrity go a long way. Good on you!

[stardf29]

narnian_at_heart: Yeah, being the target of unrequited love can be a tough situation to deal with.

However, keep in mind that ultimately, you are not responsible for other people's feelings. Even if you never "lead on" another guy, any given guy can still develop feelings for you for all sorts of reasons. (Same goes for girls toward guys.) You are only responsible for your own feelings, and what you do with another person's feelings.

Now, that said, you mention that the two of you often sit together at the cafeteria because you run into each other and you'd otherwise be alone. That, in and of itself, I don't really see much problem with.

However (and the following might not apply to this particular situation), there are cases where a guy and a girl who are friends, because they feel that they would otherwise "be alone" in life, either pursue a romantic relationship out of that loneliness, or otherwise try to draw from their friendship things that should be left for romance, thus "leading on" the other person. In both cases, the relationship is in an unhealthy state. Usually, the best way to avoid this is to have a good community of friends (particularly same-sex friends) with whom you are connected with, so that you never feel that you'd be "alone" without a particular person's love.

And yes, once you do decide in response to someone's feelings that you don't want to pursue a romantic relationship, it is better to tell that person early on, so he/she can get a start on the grief process to move on. Don't be worried about hurting his/her feelings, because... well, you will. But that is their responsibility to deal with, and if they deal with it well, it'll pass in due time.

Part of this may come from the attitudes toward marriage versus celibacy.

Ah, this little conflict.

Certainly, there can be some, well, "snobbery" in both positions. On one hand, the "pro-marriage" people, many of whom are unmarried, feel that marriage is a better position over singleness. Sometimes it is a belief of status, sometimes it is a belief that marriage will make their lives better or fulfill their lives. (Never mind that unfulfilled single people who married will just end up becoming extra-unfulfilled married people*.)

On the other hand, the "pro-celibacy" people (most of which are unmarried, though I fathom some of them are married people who "regret" marrying) wave around 1 Cor. 7 where Paul says "it is good not to marry" and say that getting married limits your ability to serve God. Some go on to say, like Augustine, that marriage "makes something good out of the evil of lust": that married Christians somehow are "too weak" to control their sexual desires. (If every Christian were to hold to this belief, I have to wonder how we'd keep up the human population down the generations...)

Ironically enough, while they argue different positions, both ultimately fall victim to the same assumption: that marriage is somehow a... benefit, I suppose I can say. It is something that is purely a human desire, only to fulfill something like status, love, family, or sexual desires.

But, and I'm sure the married people here can support me on this, I see marriage as more of a... mission. It is a challenge to serve God in a particular way, and in the process, you can expect to be thrown through the fire... and experience some major growth in the process.

In his book Sacred Marriage, Gary Thomas says, "If you want to be free to serve Jesus, there's no question--stay single. Marriage takes a lot of time. But if you want to become more like Jesus, I can't imagine any better thing to do than to get married. Being married forces you to face some character issues you'd never have to face otherwise."

Now, neither he nor I is saying that marriage is better than celibacy. They are both missions, both callings, as The Old Maid put it. The only extent to which one is "better" than the other is that in any given person's life, one is what they are called to and the other is not. Certainly, our desires will play some part in this, and to desire marriage is not a bad thing. But, marriage isn't that item that you acquire that will make the rest of the quest easier. It is that new area that is likely going to be very exciting... and more challenging than anything else you have ever faced. At least, that's how I see it.

*Fun fact: marriage is often described, including in the Bible, as two people becoming one. Mathematically, the way one (person) and one (other person) can become one is not through addition, but multiplication: 1 x 1 = 1.

Now, many people describe their search for a marriage partner as "finding their other half". In other words, they try to make out marriage as addition, that 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. However, in truth, since marriage is multiplication, 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4. In other words, if two incomplete, unfulfilled people come into a marriage, their incompleteness and unfulfilled-ness will only increase exponentially. Something to keep in mind.

[Ithilwen]

Then again, I've heard theologians say that maybe the Bible doesn't record Adam and Eve being in love because when you're the only people in the world, love doesn't matter. Thoughts?

I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve were in love, or at least fell in love at some point. Even people in arranged marriages who don't love each other initially can fall in love pretty easily, since they're thrown together so much. I mean, think of all they must have gone through together.

They were the only two people on earth. Nowadays, if you have a problem, you can talk with this friend, that friend. You can get a new friend and say goodbye to old ones. They only had each other.

Plus, experiencing everything in the world for the first time together? Think about Eve being the first person to give birth. Being pregnant and having a baby is scary nowadays, even after knowing lots of people who have gone through it, reading books about it, seeing it mentioned on TV all the time. Eve would have had no knowledge of what any of it would be like until it happened. Everything must have been so new and confusing. And they were the only humans on earth in whom to look for a human friendship and support. Just think how all of that would have brought them together. They may have had a bond stronger than any other couple in history has ever had.

*Fun fact: marriage is often described, including in the Bible, as two people becoming one. Mathematically, the way one (person) and one (other person) can become one is not through addition, but multiplication: 1 x 1 = 1.
Now, many people describe their search for a marriage partner as "finding their other half". In other words, they try to make out marriage as addition, that 1/2 + 1/2 = 1. However, in truth, since marriage is multiplication, 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4. In other words, if two incomplete, unfulfilled people come into a marriage, their incompleteness and unfulfilled-ness will only increase exponentially. Something to keep in mind.

I agree with that to a point. It's good to be sure you are mature enough before you marry, and to not expect your spouse to make you feel completely whole in ways that no person can. But people are not math equations, of course, so you can't always have an exact idea of how people will react using math as a guide.

It also depends a great deal on how the person is incomplete. If they're incomplete in the sense that they have an unfulfilled desire to get married -- a desire placed there by God -- then that's a little hard to solve before marriage.

It's also something to keep in mind that no human being at any point in their lives is ever fully complete. So if someone is waiting to be complete before they marry, they might end up missing out entirely.

And I can't help mentioning... I know some pretty broken and incomplete people who are married. And although they themselves can't fill all the holes in their spouse's heart, they do help them through the tough times. So there's an example where 1/2 x 1/2 equals... well, almost 1.


~Riella

[stardf29]

Yeah, using math to describe people is a bit off, but what I'm trying to get after is basically people trying to use math (badly) to guide their lives. How often do you hear people talking about trying to find their "other half"?

It also depends a great deal on how the person is incomplete. If they're incomplete in the sense that they have an unfulfilled desire to get married -- a desire placed there by God -- then that's a little hard to solve before marriage.

The thing is, an unfulfilled desire should never make someone feel "incomplete". If it does, then they have made marriage an idol.

The key is that our identities should be whole. Our desires are part of that identity (and to be sure, if we deny our desires, we will feel incomplete), but not whether or not those desires are fulfilled. So someone could have a desire to get married that is unfulfilled but still be a whole person because they are in touch with that desire to be married, without treating it as an idol.

The problems come up when someone feels that a big part of themselves is missing and they need someone else to fill that in... and that is the reason they seek out marriage.

It's also something to keep in mind that no human being at any point in their lives is ever fully complete. So if someone is waiting to be complete before they marry, they might end up missing out entirely.

By all means, we won't ever be fully complete. The point is, we should not use incompleteness as a basis for seeking marriage, and we should be growing towards completeness. And we can't be feeling that we are missing so much as an entire half of a person, either...

And I can't help mentioning... I know some pretty broken and incomplete people who are married. And although they themselves can't fill all the holes in their spouse's heart, they do help them through the tough times. So there's an example where 1/2 x 1/2 equals... well, almost 1.

Eh, that's not really what I was going after. "Helping through tough times" does not a complete person make. Being in touch with all the parts of oneself, both good and bad, makes a complete person. And all things considered, it's possible that the couple you mentioned are individually more complete than you have accounted for here.

[Shadowlander]

Since many of us don't have a lot of experience with love and loss, what about unrequited love?

Admittedly I had issues with this for a very, very, very long time. Unrequited love is horrible. It is pining with no satisfaction, an itch with no scratch, thirst with no water. And while there are potentially enjoyable moments (being with the person whom you are in love with, for instance), the knowledge that they will never feel that way for you is horrendous. I've been through it several times and I'm glad I'm married now to the Right Woman. I don't think I could have handled it again. I would rather be physically beaten for a week or two straight than go through the soul agony of unrequited love again, and that's no lie.

So take it from one who knows. Better to have not loved at all than have to be in love and lose em', although I'll put in a footnote that if they love you back and you still lose them it would be better to experience that...if that makes any sense. Perhaps not...I've been at work all night and my poor addled brain isn't up to 100% .

[narnian_at_heart]

Since many of us don't have a lot of experience with love and loss, what about unrequited love?

Admittedly I had issues with this for a very, very, very long time. Unrequited love is horrible. It is pining with no satisfaction, an itch with no scratch, thirst with no water. And while there are potentially enjoyable moments (being with the person whom you are in love with, for instance), the knowledge that they will never feel that way for you is horrendous. I've been through it several times and I'm glad I'm married now to the Right Woman. I don't think I could have handled it again. I would rather be physically beaten for a week or two straight than go through the soul agony of unrequited love again, and that's no lie.

So take it from one who knows. Better to have not loved at all than have to be in love and lose em', although I'll put in a footnote that if they love you back and you still lose them it would be better to experience that...if that makes any sense. Perhaps not...I've been at work all night and my poor addled brain isn't up to 100% .

I have an entirely different opinion on this. Not only have I had a guy love/like/"have feelings"/whatever-you-wanna-call-it me and not love him back, I've also loved someone and they have not loved me back.

Yes, it's awful (I had feelings for years!) but looking back, it was a blessing in disguise. It taught me alot about myself, it taught me to trust God more, it taught me to pray more, taught me to seek God's will above mine, taught me to pray for not just "please help him to like me back" but "I want Your will even if it that means I don't end up with him", helped me come to my decision that I will NEVER lead a guy on and I will never "steal him away from her" (the guy at one point was dating another girl and the quoted part was another girl's advice to me) because that is just mean. Plus, you didn't say anything while he/she was single so what gives you the right to try to break them up? And if they're together forever, that's your loss. I'm sorry now move on with your life!

So while unrequited love is not the most fun thing in the world, I don't wish that time where I loved that guy back because I would not be the person I am today without it. It made me so much stronger. And also, I would much rather deal with unrequited love then be beat for two weeks.

I wrote this on my iTouch so I apologize for any typos.

[stardf29]

Okay, so I feel like this topic should be brought up.

When this thread series was started, way back many years ago, it was intended as a reading group for the book I Kissed Dating Goodbye by Joshua Harris. That fell through, but a lot of inspiration on the topic came up from the concepts the book has inspired, namely that dating without an eye towards marriage is a Bad Idea. This is mainly a rejection of the typical worldly dating method, and how extreme romantic involvement, as well as various other factors in worldly dating, can cause harm to the soul (again, different from hurt).

For those who haven't read the book, the main problems the book has with dating are:
1. Dating leads to intimacy but not necessarily to commitment.
2. Dating tends to skip the "friendship" stage of a relationship.
3. Dating often mistakes a physical relationship for love.
4. Dating often isolates a couple from other vital relationships.
5. Dating, in many cases, distracts young adults from their primary responsibility of preparing for the future.
6. Dating can cause discontentment with God's gift of singleness.
7. Dating creates an artificial environment for evaluating another person's character.

Now, the book itself never says that it's wrong to date in a not-eyed-towards-marriage way. However, because of these "problems", many readers of the book (including myself back then) have concluded that dating just is not that good of an idea if the possibility of commitment isn't there.

All that said, I'm curious what, so many years later, everyone's view about such dating is. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that my own view of dating has changed, and now I see it as a potentially beneficial activity even if looking towards marriage is not in the picture, as long as there is an appropriate purpose of the relationship and appropriate limits are observed. (To this end, I have a couple different "types" of dating: one between acquaintances, one between friends, a more serious one for growth in teens/college-age people, and a serious one looking towards marriage.)

So, do you think that dating without the possibility of commitment should be "kissed goodbye"? Or do you think there is a good place for dating even when the possibility of marriage is not being evaluated?

[MoonlightDancer]

I tend to get over unrequited love rather quickly, but that's just me. If a guy rejects me I usually just shrug it off and move on. That said, it may not have been "love" because I don't see how you could love someone without trusting them. And if you honestly fall in love with someone who doesn't love you back...? I don't see how that's possible?

As for, "It's better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all," I would cautiously say yes, but it depends on what you mean by "better." I'm a senior in college and I watched one of my friends "fall in love," when we were freshmen. Both her and the guy shared their first [ever] kiss together, held hands for the first time, and have been pretty much like a married couple ever since they both started liking each other. Now they are engaged, having never even experienced kissing anyone else other than each other. To me, this just blows my mind, because they are both so passive that they seemed to have just settled down together, and they're just going to continue living their life like that.

I suppose this is fine. There's nothing "wrong" with it, but to me it seems just foolish, boring...they've molded their lives together because neither of them had enough individuality to spend their college years becoming independent, unique, and strong, but instead becoming passive and dependent on each other. I do not want a relationship like that!

Which is why I would venture to say that you cannot truly understand your strength and individuality until you've experienced heartbreak of a certain level. It's true that people cannot fully appreciate what they have until they've lost it. I don't think it's possible to truly love someone without experiencing what it's like to lose them. Heartbreak is definitely not something that I'd say is "Great!" and it's not something I'd wish on anyone. I wouldn't want my worst enemy to hurt the way I've hurt. To me it doesn't even seem worth a lifetime of happiness. But I wouldn't be who I am today without it. What I mean to say is that, Cancer survivors might have a greater appreciation for life than non-cancer survivors, but I wouldn't want anyone to have to go through cancer.

[mm1991]

Unrequited love is horrible and harsh and something I wouldn't wish on anyone. But even so, knowledge and lessons were gained, albeit the hard way. I don't regret being in that situation.

My views on dating have recently changed somewhat (not that I made them abundantly clear on this forum before).

What I said about unrequited love, I think that's one reason why the whole "courtship instead of dating is better because you don't get hurt" thing doesn't work. Even if you're aren't in a relationship, you can get hurt. It's just the nature of things. And I'm sure everyone has experienced some degree of unrequited love, whether they admit to it or not.

I now think dating is totally okay. I mean, dating with the intent on the possibility of being serious in the future. And I don't think you have to be friends beforehand but you should at least be acquaintances. I personally wouldn't date someone I had just met (or go on blind dates).

[sweeetlilgurlie]

Interestingly, the quote, "It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all", was written by Tennyson just after a very dear friend of his died. He was torn up about it and wondered if it would have been better for him to never have known the friend than to experience such agony; but he decided that the love he had known from his friend, the joys he had felt from him and shared with him, and the things he had learned from his friend made all of that worth it.

I read the poem in its original context last year for British literature as well as its background, and I think it makes a lot of sense taken that way. I wholeheartedly agree with it in that sense. When people decide to use the quote to their own advantage, however, I take issue with it.

[mm1991]

I have a new question for everyone.

In Josh Harris' book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye", he mentions a story in which a man and woman are getting married. At the altar, many women show up. The groom says something like, "These are girls from my past. I've given part of my heart to each one. You get what's left."

Do we have a limited capacity for love? If love multiplies, is that restricted to everything except romantic love? There are different kinds of love of course, but when it comes to capacity, why isn't it any different between children? Siblings? Friends? Do they also get "what's left" once we reach our "love limits"?

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

I don't know how to answer that but that example from Harris' book makes me cringe. We have only so much love we can give and separate from the Creator it's a selfish love. We have to be restored and renewed daily to continue to love even when we don't feel like it. The source of love is God for He is Love.

[Bookwyrm]

I would ask someone who subscribed to that theory if that means that a mother and father are incapable of loving each additional child as much as they love their firstborn. If we have a finite amount of love and are "giving away" pieces of our love, obviously each subsequent child would receive less and less love. Given people who subscribe to that particular theology tend to have a penchant for having large amounts of children, I would think that would be a real worry.