Can you imagine a love relationship without all the business of being "in love?"?

huhh? gah . sounds like psychobabble to me- I had a horrid addiction – it was just being away from it for the time it took and being able to not worry about stuff and get well- er, it wasn’t a love addiction but I sorta think it works the same way

I disagree very strongly that being in love depends on the idea that the other person completes you. You are nothing without your object of affection. I do not believe that describes love at all, sounds pathological. I think you are reading the wrong books.

I like @trailsillustrated‘s word – psychobabble.

You should look at the wikipedia entry for Limerance or read Dorothy Tennov’s book, “Love and Limerance”.

ha there you go, GA pd

I lost my first two husbands. My current husband and I were immediately attracted to each other, and have been married for 35 years. We consider our relationship to be a partnership, rather than dependency.

I read a book called Co-dependence: The Dance of the Wounded Souls by Robert Burney, which looks at this idea of excessive love as the expense of oneself. I struggle with this too. Ideally I’d like to fall in love with someone and retain my own sense of individuality, but it seems that this gets lost almost as soon as I fall in love…it then gradually dissipates until it is non-existent and that’s usually when the relationship breaks down, because I’m thinking only of them and not of myself. I become needy, insecure, paranoid etc.

Since my last relationship which ended nearly a year ago I have been concentrating on finding a firm foundation of self-love which I don’t think I’ve ever really had at all. I think part of my problem in the past has been that I’ve generally met men just as I’m beginning to feel good about myself (because I guess that’s when I’m most attractive!) but I think it’s always been too soon. I don’t know how long it will take me to learn to love myself and some might think it all sounds too trite and perhaps full of more psychobabble but I firmly believe that this is what I need. If I can love myself I won’t need anyone else to fill that need in me and instead when I meet someone I will love them purely for who they are and not what they can give me.

I also think that first stages of love, I think are very closely related to a natural abandonment of self anyway… the ‘limerance’ or infatuation (which is only human after all) provides a platform upon which our self-love seems to jump ship. Perhaps the key is retaining a focus of self whilst enjoying the tummy turns and excitement of new prey lovers and maybe then we can get past the danger zone.

I don’t really understand your question all that well. I am in a relationship where love isn’t both ways (I think) and it is the best relationship I have ever had. We haven’t had one arguement in 2 + years, we laugh, we talk. I am not saying I prefer the love to be one sided, because I don’t, just that it is perfect now, imagine what it would be like if love was reciprocated.

do you mean friends?

I completely agree with Pia in that you have to love yourself before you can be loved by someone else in order for your love for them be genuine.

@Cruiser who’s Pia?

@lynneblundell She is in part of the question above!

“Pia Mellody, the author of Facing Love Addiction: Giving Yourself the Power to Change the Way You Love, argues that that’s very unhealthy. She says that healthy love depends on people being able to properly care for themselves—including loving themselves (instead of relying on external love in order to feel ok).”

sorry…it’s been a long day.. I’ve Fluthered far too much… must…have…a….break!

I love lots of my friends – But i’m not actually in love with them.

@Dibley I’m astonished that you can feel happy in such a relationship

@Adagio Why wouldn’t I be?

I do not really think that it is sensible to say, for example, that if I feel terrible when my mother dies, then I am addicted to my mother.

That said, if the only thing that matters to you is your being in love with someone, then something is probably wrong.