Why it is awkward to say "I love you"

[Katy]

I usually say "uh-voo." I'm not sure why I can't say the words, but somehow replacing them with nonsense makes it easier (even though i know how they'll take it) - also like Cory I say "you too" a lot. I've occasionally wondered if it's to avoid lying.

[Laird]

I understood that the kind of love we are talking about in this thread was the kind of love a man feels for an attractive young woman

I'm interested in exploring different contexts in which the statement can be made. I'd like you to consider, for example, whether, holding an attitude in your mind that all of humanity deserves love equally and being intent on manifesting that attitude, it is loving to walk up to a random stranger, look that person in the eye and say simply and directly: "I love you".

[sschaula]

Only say it when you mean it. Don't pay attention to people who demand it from you. If you are in a role where you're supposed to love them, but you can't bring yourself to say it, you should wonder why you're in that role.

It's easy to take the things we love for granted. When they're taken away from us, we finally realize how we felt. When they're in front of us, they can seem really annoying. It's wise to take nothing for granted.

[Laird]

I usually say "uh-voo." I'm not sure why I can't say the words, but somehow replacing them with nonsense makes it easier (even though i know how they'll take it) - also like Cory I say "you too" a lot. I've occasionally wondered if it's to avoid lying.

Katy, what about it would be lying? Is it that you're not confident that your actions match your words?

[Katy]

Katy, what about it would be lying? Is it that you're not confident that your actions match your words?

No, my words and actions match.
I question whether my feelings and thoughts match those though.

[Laird]

No, my words and actions match.
I question whether my feelings and thoughts match those though.

What if you were to view the word "love" in the sentence "I love you" in the active sense then? As in, "I am doing things to love you". Would that help you to be more direct in expressing it? Do you even want to be more direct?

[Kevin Solway]

Laird, you should define exactly what you mean by "love" before saying anything more about it - otherwise it just sounds like vague gossip and flirting.

[Laird]

Laird, you should define exactly what you mean by "love" before saying anything more about it - otherwise it just sounds like vague gossip and flirting.

OK then, I define love as "that which feels good and the expression thereof".
[edited slightly]

I'm comfortable to be seen flirting; where does gossip come into it?

[Katy]

What if you were to view the word "love" in the sentence "I love you" in the active sense then? As in, "I am doing things to love you". Would that help you to be more direct in expressing it? Do you even want to be more direct?

It seems a bit like spin. Love, to me, is primarily emotional - the weird thing is I'm not sure it's an emotion I'm capable of in the sense most people mean it.

I define love as my life is better because you are/were in it, and I hope the same is true of you - but that applies to my friends as much as romance, if not moreso. So it's not that I don't love my boyfriend, it's more that I don't differentiate the type of love; maybe the difference isn't quite there. And though I do love him, I doubt it is what he means by "I love you" which is why I think it may be a lie.


I'm not comfortable with your definition though. "that which feels good" sounds too sexual or maybe too emotional for me. That's another thing I guess with the words as lies. I'm pretty much flat out asexual. The closeness of "I love you" and "I want to make love to you" makes me very uncomfortable.

[Dan Rowden]

I'm at a loss to explain the distress I felt when my mother first tried to indoctrinate me into the 'I love you ritual' before bedtime

When real love is felt expressing it is very difficult as there's a great deal more to lose.

It was a bit confusing for you to have quoted things this way Cory as I was actually replying to a point about infatuation made by Trevor.....

So are you implying that we are actually protecting ourselves from consciousness when we get anxious and rigid about expressing our love?

No, I'm saying we protect ourselves from things like hurt and disempowerment. When you are really in love you know what's at stake. I'll expand on these themes a little further down...

Your comment also implies that mothers, who deal out the 'I love yous' so readily, do so because they don't really love, at least not as much as the fathers.

Well, my point was specific to the difference between infatuation and genuinely felt love. Some would probably argue that no such difference exists but I think it does in that infatuation is more tenuous and whimsical; it doesn't withstand any dose of reality because it is usually entirely ideational. In short, infatuation usually occurs at a distance.

I think this comes down to women being less consciousnes, more comfortable and built to live in the world of emotions. Fathers I think are generally much more aversive about expressing their love, is this because they love more? Or is it because they are simply built to find it threatening to their ability to be independent?

It's a mixture of these things plus a little more besides. Hopefully you'll find a meaningful response in amongst the following:

Reasons why saying "I love you" can be awkward - or not at all:

# Some people, almost always males, intuitively know that love is irrational and this conflicts with other aspects of their nature. This conflict can be seen in the embarrassment such men experience at losing their wits in any sense and situation and becoming overcome by emotions.

# As Elizabeth stated, saying such things makes one vulnerable, or at least can do. This vulnerability has a number of different facets, though all of them involve the ego (naturally). Such a statement opens one up to the potential for either gross or subtle rejection - gross in the sense that one might get rejected outright, subtle in that one might not receive the sort of response one expects or hopes for - ranging from an equivocal return of the sentiment to "Oh, that's sweet, thank you" and a bunch of things in between and around. It also makes us vulnerable in that whilst love empowers: love equally disempowers. Whether we like to admit it or not, when love is expressed to us we automatically feel (consciously or unconsciously) that we are free to influence, manipulate, exploit etc the expressor of this sentiment more than we would any ordinary person. Love in this sense is empowering to the recipient and disempowering to the giver. Any person even moderately awake to the truth of this dynamic will see potential peril in expressing love for another. Love expressed is also, as Laird noted, an appeal rather than a demonstration (though I may be using "appeal" differently to how he intended). The appellant automatically assumes an onus of proof upon such a declaration. This can be a daunting thing depending on the individual presiding over the judgement of the authenticity of the appeal. Some people have rather tough evidential criteria that one is supposed to meet. One reflects upon the sagacity of saying "I love you" because one knows the sentiment "prove it" likely exists as an unspoken requirement for a favourable judgement. If it doesn't in the short term it will in the long. There is absolutely no statute of limitations on this particular law of love. "If you really love(d) me" does not recognise the principle of double jeopardy, nor treble or quadruple or whatever multiples follow from those....

Saying "I love you" to someone also inherently grants potential power to the other by dint of the fact that it acknowledges the power that has already been wielded over us - or, perhaps, more fairly expressed, the enormous impact and influence on our psyches that this other person has managed to effect. This is an incredibly powerful egotistical boost to give someone, and boosting another's ego that much is flirting with danger no matter how virtuous that other may seem to be (not to mention how immoral it is to deepen a person's delusions). For the intelligent and the sensitive it can also be a very uncomfortable realisation that other people can in point of fact actually have such impact and influence on us. I mean, it's bad enough that they do, but to happily and even desperately announce it to them and the world!! Arrhhh! How mad we are!!

# It's undignified. Such a declaration is in many cases, depending on the psychological constitution of the person, an acknowledgement of the tossing aside or passive loss of emotional self-sufficiency, independence, individuality. It is an acknowledgement of a need for another to fulfill us in some way. That's pretty undignified.

# Fear of the commitment implicit in the statement. Saying "I love you" is like making a verbal legal agreement. You get locked into it and if you change your mind (come to your senses?) later you lose half your house, or maybe half your mind, but certainly half your reputation. For a man the commitment can also mean a major change of lifestyle that he doesn't necessary want.

# Without wanting to turn the issue into another gender war style discussion, it must be noted, at least in passing, that men find these words much harder to say than do women, generally speaking. This shouldn't be all that controversial a point since it is a culturally acknowledged and obvious thing. Women throw such words around like confetti. Love and relationship is their domain, it is therefore natural that they would employ its lexicon more readily than men (whether in romantic or familial settings). Men also have a more powerful natural inclination to independence and individuality. Giving away power or placing themselves in positions of vulnerability is not how they are constituted and raised, so when they do, you know it's probably pretty serious (or, they are mentally past the point where they can rationally see consequence anymore). Love is also more ideational for men, more pragmatic for women, so whilst men say such things sparingly so as to retain some purity of the ideal, women use such sentiments whenever the need or opportunity presents itself.

# Passive-aggressive behaviour has been mentioned and it's an important factor. It's not just saying those words that can be awkward - hearing them can be just as bad. One feels pressure to reciprocate, to protect the speaker's feelings; one might feel disempowered by it; some people exploit this for reasons that at times seem hard to fathom as the end result can only be confusion and less than honest communication. One can only put this behaviour down to a kind of sadism. A few, perhaps a very rare few, are aware of the pressure that such a declaration places the other person under and hence there is awkwardness and hesitation in making it. This is perhaps the one and only circumstance in which conscience enters the picture of the love-declaration.

[Katy]

Well, my point was specific to the difference between infatuation and genuinely felt love. Some would probably argue that no such difference exists but I think it does in that infatuation is more tenuous and whimsical; it doesn't withstand any dose of reality because it is usually entirely ideational. In short, infatuation usually occurs at a distance.

But this was in response to a question about mothers and fathers? I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that parents only get infatuated with their kids. I mean, I suppose it is possible, but certainly not common.

Can you define love for me, Dan? Or infatuation?
Is there a difference between your responses to parent questions vs romantic or peer responses? What?

For a man the commitment can also mean a major change of lifestyle that he doesn't necessary want.

Both partners are expected to change their lifestyles in ways that they do not want. This is not a gender thing.



I'm sorta threatened by the words themselves. I mean, my roommates (are both straight girls and both have boyfriends) always say they love eachother. It's probably closer to what I mean by love, but it makes me uncomfortable to hear repeatedly anyway. I think maybe love is one of those feelings that should not be public. It should just be obvious.

[Laird]

Love, to me, is primarily emotional - the weird thing is I'm not sure it's an emotion I'm capable of in the sense most people mean it.

If you want to conceive of yourself as loving then perhaps you could define it more practically. But perhaps you don't feel the need for such a conception.

I define love as my life is better because you are/were in it, and I hope the same is true of you

I would prefer to associate a perspective like that with "value" but I can relate to your view.

And though I do love him, I doubt it is what he means by "I love you" which is why I think it may be a lie.

It's a lie because you use a different definition than he does?

I'm not comfortable with your definition though. "that which feels good" sounds too sexual or maybe too emotional for me.

To me, seratonin, heroin and endorphins are forms of love. I don't know the full mechanism behind love but I can guess that, say, to make a sweet gesture towards someone that lets that person know that another person values him/her in some way causes a transfer/stimulation of energy that plain feels good. That transfer of energy is an expression of love. In another thread I suggested the possibility that will is a fundamental universal force; here I'll suggest the possibility that "love energy" is a fundamental universal force.

I'm pretty much flat out asexual.

You don't find pleasure in the experience or you simply prefer other pleasures?

[Jason]

Men also have a more powerful natural inclination to independence and individuality. Giving away power or placing themselves in positions of vulnerability is not how they are constituted and raised, so when they do, you know it's probably pretty serious (or, they are mentally past the point where they can rationally see consequence anymore).

There is a general cultural and social expectation that men should project a tough exterior image, no matter how dishonest this projection may be. The degree to which a man considers himself to have lived up to this expectation is partly based on how he is perceived by others, and partly on how well he considers himself to have fulfilled the masculine stereotypes that he has integrated into his psyche from his particular culture.

Any show of vulnerability or weakness can be seen as a potential threat to the masculine self-image and social-image, and also potentially threatens his current position within the masculine hierarchy. The type of behaviour used to maintain the expectations associated with a masculine identity, often includes habitual defensiveness, denial and lying, and thus can be destructive towards authenticity, self-honesty and self-understanding.

-

On a related note, I think these traits, which seem to be pretty widespread throughout the male population, can be very damaging to philosophical development and I find it problematic that QSR seem to avoid facing these core faults with the "masculine" as it is commonly defined.

I know I've found it difficult facing these stereotypes myself, and I rebelled against some of them, with the result being called a "girl" and a "pussy" at times, and attempts made to emasculate me. Also, at times feeling I had failed to live up to some of these masculine expectations was tough.

[edit: minor changes to try to make this more readable]

[David Quinn]

Laird,

I'm interested in exploring different contexts in which the statement can be made. I'd like you to consider, for example, whether, holding an attitude in your mind that all of humanity deserves love equally and being intent on manifesting that attitude, it is loving to walk up to a random stranger, look that person in the eye and say simply and directly: "I love you".

If you came up and did that to me, I would feel insulted and not a little degraded. For it would mean that you weren't loving me for who I am, or what qualities I have. Instead, you would be lumping me in the same box as the rest of humanity - effectively turning me into a faceless cypher - and indiscriminately projecting your own emotional needs onto me, for no other reason than I happen to be there at the time.

In other words, you would simply be using me as an object of gratification and pleasure, not unlike how some men indiscriminately use whores.

-

[Laird]

I'm interested in exploring different contexts in which the statement can be made. I'd like you to consider, for example, whether, holding an attitude in your mind that all of humanity deserves love equally and being intent on manifesting that attitude, it is loving to walk up to a random stranger, look that person in the eye and say simply and directly: "I love you".

If you came up and did that to me, I would feel insulted and not a little degraded. For it would mean that you weren't loving me for who I am, or what qualities I have. Instead, you would be lumping me in the same box as the rest of humanity - effectively turning me into a faceless cypher - and indiscriminately projecting your own emotional needs onto me, for no other reason than I happen to be there at the time.

Thank you David, that was an interesting response. You've crystallised my thoughts. It's as I wrote in my initial post: "I love you" can be viewed as a base statement that in its formulaic staidness refuses to recognise the unbounded creative potential of real love but that masquerades as such (real love being characterised by rich, multi-layered complexity). This is why, as Katy puts it, it is "a lie". It pretends to be that which it self-evidently is not, given the possibilities at this point in evolution. It can be seen as a regressive statement.

That said, I do like to find balance, so to present a balanced view: "I love you" when justifiable (earlier I presented a couple of questions that I would ask myself when attempting to come to a judgement on justification) has a pure honesty that can be touching in the right context. I would agree with you though that in general, approaching a stranger in this way is not loving.

In other words, you would simply be using me as an object of gratification and pleasure, not unlike how some men indiscriminately use whores.

I can relate your sense in which I would be gratifying myself to my earlier assertion that "it feels good to love": it might also feel good to simply believe that one is loving even when one is actually having no effect or a negative effect.

Given that this would arouse feelings of insult in yourself, it clearly would be an unloving gesture to make towards you. I wonder how true this is in general: is there any person in the world who would be touched or positively affected by such a gesture?

[David Quinn]

I'm sure that once they get over the shock of being approached in such a fashion and they aren't overwhelmed by the perception that you are a madman, a lot of people would be touched by it. For example, I'm sure many women would be tickled pink by that kind of directness from a man, almost invariably perceiving it to be sexual behaviour on your part.

-

[Jason]

Any show of vulnerability or weakness, especially to another men, can be seen as a potential threat to the masculine self-image and social-image, and also potentially threatens the current position within the masculine hierarchy.

Continuing on....

The principle of transfer of power in "I love you", as it relates to the masculine image, can lead to more extreme forms of emotional inauthenticity and suppression. At the upper end, some men find it difficult to give any compliment to another man, because of the transfer of power it represents.

Sometimes, in an attempt to disguise the transfer of power, there is a contradictory partial negation of overt compliments or statements of endearment: "How are you going you old bastard?", and the use of sarcasm "Can't you score some more goals mate!?" This allows some relief from the suppression of emotional authenticity by implying the truth, but still manages some covertness.

Suppression of emotional authenticity, which is often a lifelong activity, likely creates a near constant background of anxiety, which results from the necessity to stay on alert for threats to the masculine image, the need to constantly monitor the outwardly projected identity and guarantee that it always matches the desired masculine social image.

Alcohol can weaken this constant self monitoring, which may also partly explain why it is associated with relaxation. With the lessened inhibitions it then becomes possible for the "I love you mate" to be exchanged between those who may normally be incapable or unwilling to express anything beyong the "old bastard" exchange.

However, as with the sober covertly implied endearment or compliment, the drunken state can be largely dismissed, excused and subsequently repressed as a transitory and inauthentic state of being, which then in turn negates or lessens its impact on the masculine identity of the sober-version of that person. This may explain why "having a beer with the guys" is considered such a stereotypically and defining male activity.

Edit:
(The fact that beer naturally tastes horrible to most/many people upon first drink, could also set it up as a sort of initiation ritual, which allows the men to prove that they are strong and willing to endure pain in order to be considered part of the group. Note the fact that sweet relatively pleasant tasting alcoholic drinks are considered suitable only for women by some groups, and therefore seen as emasculating for men to drink.)

[Laird]

Jason,

My interpretation of your point is that the nature of man is to desire to be the best, but that in his lovingness he recognises and affirms in his fellow men the possibility that any one of them could at any moment assume this responsibility.

Laird

[Laird]

Some people, almost always males, intuitively know that love is irrational

I have found a lot of satisfaction in rationalising love. It seems to be as amenable to rationalisation as any other aspect of reality.

Love expressed is also, as Laird noted, an appeal rather than a demonstration (though I may be using "appeal" differently to how he intended).

I think that we are pointing to the same thing: that there are good and better ways of accomplishing a purpose and that merely stating an intention is far from the realisation of the goal.

Saying "I love you" to someone also inherently grants potential power to the other by dint of the fact that it acknowledges the power that has already been wielded over us

What if you viewed your honest assertion of love (when justified) as self-empowering rather than disempowering in that it is a rare expressive trait and that rarity is precious?

For the intelligent and the sensitive it can also be a very uncomfortable realisation that other people can in point of fact actually have such impact and influence on us.

I relate this to what I mentioned earlier about trust. You can take an optimistic view of life and believe that other people want to help you as much as you want to help them. Then the only doubt is in ability, however you can draw comfort that two are greater than one.

It is an acknowledgement of a need for another to fulfill us in some way.

I prefer to view it as acknowledgement of a desire to fulfill another in some way.

Fear of the commitment implicit in the statement.

It can be instantaneous - why not view the statement as equivalent to "I love you in the present moment"?

Men also have a more powerful natural inclination to independence and individuality ... so ... men say such things sparingly

Men in my opinion say such things sparingly because they are concerned with being justified in the assertion.

One feels pressure to reciprocate, to protect the speaker's feelings

You've in my opinion identified a tricky one here, Dan. It's a balance between self-integrity and other-love. In my opinion the wise yet compassionate person would balance the insight that silence might bring against the pain that unresponsiveness might cause in coming to a determination for action.

[Jason]

Jason,

My interpretation of your point is that the nature of man is to desire to be the best, but that in his lovingness he recognises and affirms in his fellow men the possibility that any one of them could at any moment assume this responsibility.

Laird

Uh I think I agree with that, if I'm interpreting your writing properly. But I'm not offering my analysis as the sole explanation, it's more complex than that, I also agree with some or all of the reasons that Dan listed.

[Cory Duchesne]

I'm at a loss to explain the distress I felt when my mother first tried to indoctrinate me into the 'I love you ritual' before bedtime

When real love is felt expressing it is very difficult as there's a great deal more to lose.

It was a bit confusing for you to have quoted things this way Cory as I was actually replying to a point about infatuation made by Trevor.....

heheh - ok, sorry. I just thought that when you replied to Trevor you were actually trying to establish a difference between 1) infatuation and 2) a non-romantic, non-sexual love - which would have made your response to Trevor applicable to my problem about why some children find reciprocating to a parent anxiety arousing/emotionally difficult..

But I was perhaps a bit misguided in my approach. ;)

[sue hindmarsh]

Jason wrote:

Alcohol can weaken this constant self monitoring, which may also partly explain why it is associated with relaxation. With the lessened inhibitions it then becomes possible for the "I love you mate" to be exchanged between those who may normally be incapable or unwilling to express anything beyong the "old bastard" exchange.

I reckon the male drunken cry of “I love you mate” isn’t a soppy emotional outpouring - instead it’s a bloody-minded challenge. He expects the other bloke to return his ‘love call’, for if that call isn’t returned in a positive way the caller feels offended and then wants revenge. A few punches are thrown, and the two men are separated and then dragged away by their mates.

For men, challenging each other, and themselves, is a positive emotional experience. Because of this, "having a beer with the guys" is a far more natural state for men to be in than, for example, sitting at home surrounded by the wife and kids. In that environment, men are aliens who are expected to interact emotionally on the wife and kid’s level. This, in turn, explains why married men much prefer to ‘interact’ with the TV and their computers than with their own family.

It all comes down to the fact that men’s emotions run deep; not wide and shallow like women’s. Because of this, they take onto their shoulders the weight of their whole lives, and don’t share their troubles and concerns in the way women do. The downside of this is the extremely high number of male suicides, (out of the 2101 people who committed suicide in Australia in 2005, 80% of them were male), but the upside is man’s accomplishments in creating culture and civilization.

So, next time you see a bloke pissed out of his brain, or preparing to jump off of a very tall building, console yourself with the thought that within him lies the seed that built the pyramids, composed The Brandenburg Concerto, and wrote Fear and Trembling. Then order up another round, and make mine a Toohey’s.

-
Sue

[Pye]

.


Love: the degree to which any one thing is permeable to any other thing. It describes the physical universe as well. For Empedocles, Love/Strife; for Newton, Attraction/Repulsion; for Jamesh, Expansion/Contraction. Whereas these dualities describe definitive edges to things, they at least capture some movement, bring them close/move them away; but there are not strictly definitive edges between any two phenomenal things, and each has its own degree of permeability in the ground of exchange. Just as Love is a temporal fusing of beings, so do particles fuse and/or disperse, but the overall condition of motion is the same.

When we love a thing, we have taken it in - become permeable to it, and we assume to permeate its character, too. With people, with things, with ideas, with air. We cannot live around something without in some part taking it on, or experiencing the reaction-away, the rejection of it; the indifference to it/the unnecessity of it. The whole of the world and its particles and people are in this dynamic of toward and away, to infinite degrees and configurations, to saturations, to entropies, to fusings and re-fusings in infinite degrees. The only error is in assuming these things to be impermeable to one another -- to be things at all in the sense of definitive borders. Even the pinball leaves something of itself on the post, and versa. All things are phenomena (and phenomena is all that there is). The character of each is formed by the character of each eternally in permeable exchange. If we tend to think of love as where we fuse (or not) with others or things, then its motion is the ruling motion of everything. And it is small wonder that we should get hung up on this phrase when our greatest experiential knowledge of being permeable usually comes with romance/sex; where we might have experienced the greatest degree of this ground of exchange.

"I hate you" is a permeable condition, too; hence resting in the seat of love.


.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dan,

I'm not sure why you think infatuation makes it hard for someone to say such a thing. I actually think it makes it easier. When real love is felt expressing it is very difficult as there's a great deal more to lose.

I'd find it hard to say "I love you" to someone I was merely infatuated with. I wouldn't say it to someone I loved, either. It's not really an issue, but my reasons in either case would be different.

However, I was mostly just having fun misinterpreting the original question. It's hard to say "I love you" to people you don't love.

[Shardrol]

Wow, it's odd to find myself on the sunny side of a discussion where cynicism runs rampant. I agree with y'all that many & possibly most declarations of love between people are some sort of attempt at manipulation; either to embarrass the person into reciprocating, feeling grateful, thinking more positively of the speaker, setting the stage for further intimacies or whatever.

However. I think real love is appreciation - just that. 'I appreciate your being'. Not wanting something back for it, not using it as a power play, just communicating this sense of appreciation, usually spontaneously - not unlike the way someone might be moved to say, "Your reasoning in that post was utterly flawless!"

I don't say "I love you" much myself because I think the words are hackneyed & cliche'd, but I might express the same enthusiastic appreciation with some other words. I think the "I love you [pause expectantly for reply]" technique is widespread, but that's not the whole picture. If you aren't asking for something back, if you have no thought of imposing some kind of obligation or hierarchy, it can just be a spontaneous expression of enthusiasm.

I don't believe this does anybody any harm. If someone hears it as attempted manipulation, currying favor, dragging one down into an emotional abyss - that's their interpretation & may have nothing to do with what's in the mind of the speaker. It's not the words, it's the intent.

As to the original question of why people find it awkward to say 'I love you', I think a lot of that has to do with it being such a cultural big deal. For people in romantic relationships it's a kind of milestone or achievement. For parents it's evidence that things are as they should be: the baby on whom they expended so much effort is paying off in appreciation (feigned, pro forma or otherwise). People - even children - sense this in some inchoate way & feel subconsciously coerced so the declaration loses its quality as a spontaneous expression of something real & becomes just another requirement of duty. The healthy human being resists this kind of coercion even if it doesn't reach the level of conscious understanding but is just experienced as awkwardness or disinclination.
.