the strength of love?

Love isn't a contest.

I think it's probably true, in that the person who is more emotionally removed will be able to manipulate the relationship better.

I just think it's a false premise when it comes to a good relationship -- one that is being successfully manipulated by one party is rarely strong. It's just a way for one person to get his or her needs met until the other person wises up.

So, I think it's a terrible reason to not love the person more than he/she loves you. I think even entering that mindset -- controlling one's degree of love -- is a terrible idea. Let the relationship develop organically and see what happens. If love blossoms, great. If it doesn't, oh well.

Yes Bella, I agree.

And yes Sozobe, I also agree that it is a terrible reason not to love the person more than he/she loves you.

But I think that there is such a fear of being used out there that if a person finds himself/herself loving more, the feeling will be oh oh, I better back off because I'm not getting a good return on my investment!

People need to learn how to love without allowing themselves to be used. Why must love make you weak and completely selfless? It should do the opposite. Love should make you strong.

You know what, I actually disagree with the statement completely.

Yes, the one who loves less will be better able to manipulate.

But the one who loves (real love that doesn't require going blind and dumb) becomes stronger by growth. It is just difficult to see it, because that is the person who has more on the line to lose.

The one who holds back weakens themself by denying themself the experience of love.

Basically, I agree with eoe.

So, eoe and flushd, are you saying that the one who loves less is the weaker?

If the relationship goes to heck, wouldn't the one who loves less be
less affected (hurt?) then the one who gave his/her all?

If the feelings were true, both parties are going to walk away hurting. Besides that, knowing that someone is in pain because of you is no picnic.

Being in love is not a choice. You can of course withdraw or hold back from a relationship, but that is not the 'love' part. that's the control part. the extent to which we love is not readily controllable.
whether or not the one who loves less is stronger, that depends on what is meant by stronger. stronger in the relationship? stronger emotionally? stronger in terms of emotional experience?
without the context of the novel it's really kinda impossible to tell one way or another.

You've brought up a good point dagmaraka!

Taking the context of the story into account, I would have to say
the author means stronger emotionally.

The one who loves less is stronger emotionally? I don't believe that at all. Under those circumstances, the one who goes through life loving less is usually the one who ends up alone and empty.

in that case i'd say absolutely not. it's a learning experience. it makes you richer in the long run, even if you suffer in the relationship.

which short story were you reading?

The story is called "About Love" written by Alexander Fadeyev in 1924.

Ring a bell?

Does the character in the story know, is consciously aware, they are loving less or is it just a matter of the person not being in love to the same degree as the other?

hmmm....funny, when I read the initial post I got a different gut take on it.

I didn't see it in terms of manipulation, but strength in terms of endurance.



If there's a crisis, the one who loves just that little bit less is able to be just that much more rational about what needs to be done in that second.

Yes Blaise, I would say that the character (his name is Old Pim, don't ask)
is definitely aware that he is loving less, until he meets that special one, then he is aware he is loving more and THAT'S when the "trouble" starts.

Yeah Chai, I think I would agree, loving less might give give you a
stronger sense of rationality about the whole situation.

However, would you say that loving less would also give you an edge
on being stronger emotionally too? Do those fit together somehow?

Qu'est-ce que tu penses?

I see loving less as being an investment issue with the less one loves the less one has invested and the easier it is to walk away... now whether the ease with which one can walk away equates with emotional strength I don't know.

I'm leaning towards thinking the loving less thing just means you didn't open up and let yourself go; it might to be easier to shine the whole relationship on but how does that equal strength?

It really depends on how you define love.

Much of what's understood to be "love", judging from own observations, is actually inter-dependence. For whatever reasons, good & bad, or a mixture of the two... . I personally know of very few relationships where 2 people selflessly, whole-heartedly commit to each other, "for better or for worse". When that sort of whole-hearted commitment to the whole is not present in both partners, the person who cares more about the nature & survival of the relationship is definitely in the more vulnerable position. They will most likely invest more of themselves & therefore have more to lose than their more detached partner. They will also suffer more if/when the relationship ends.

(But don't misunderstand. I have nothing against love. It's just what most of us confuse for love that's the problem. )

Thinking....I'm not sure then if the term "loving less" is really acurate then. Maybe it's more like being able to hold a part of us emotionally away from the situation at hand.

I don't equate that with the inability to give one's self over completely. The part you do give can be given completely, but there can/should be a private reserve of emotion that remains apart and observing.

Both parties should hold that part in reserve, then there would be no need for a stronger one.

I think that small part you're referring to Chai Tea, is self-respect. At least, IMO.