Would you rather be the one that loves the most or the one that loves the least?

[Circe]

Would you rather be the person who loves the most or loves the least in a relationship?

 

---------------

I think - People love differently. So a question arises whether "love" is even meaningfully quantifiable.

 

However, it seems clear is that a person's "power" in a relationship is related to their level of "need" for that relationship. I.e. the less they need it the more power they seem to have.

 

"need" and "want" are relative terms. You have to ask yourself whether anyone really "needs" anything (apart from air, water and food - and even then - "need" depends on your ultimate goal) ... so need is just "want" magnified.

 

So assuming that you must "want" a person you love - There seems to be a connection between love and "want" and therefore - a connection between "love" and "need". So perhaps without deciding whether love is quantifable, we can extrapolate enough to say that the more you love the less power you have.

 

If that's all true - I'd rather not love the most.

 

Love is an amazing thing for which I am most grateful for in my life - but I have also experienced a loss of control over my life before because I "loved (and needed) too much" and I don't think it's worth being in that position again.

 

Is that a fair call? Or is it failing to live completely? It seems to involve a withholding of trust. It's like saying "i'll always hold to myself, a part of me that I won't give to you. This part of me will be a big enough part - so that if you were gone.. you wouldnt take all of me with you. You'd leave enough behind for me to function properly.

 

Is that a fair way to be in a relationship? Is it optimal?

[anbreeuh]

I would most definitely rather be the one who loves the most. I don't go into anything I think I'm going to half-ass... If I feel that way about it, I probably, honestly won't even start it. I love with all I have, and am not afraid to "put myself out" for someone else I love. I believe that unless you're loving with all you have, then you're not loving at all. Love, to me, isn't a "sometimes, maybe" thing; it's unconditional, insanely powerful, and life-changing, when true, no matter what the circumstance.

 

So, all in all, the one who loves the most.

[Vince99]

I don't quite see where you've related love and need. Perhaps replace the word need with require and see where you get.

 

I do know I am going to try real hard to never be the one that loves more ever again.

 

All these cutesy "arguments" you see where people "fight" over which one loves the other more...total idiots.

[ellandroader]

All I can say is that recently, I was on the end of a relationship with someone who wouldn't commit the emotion and thus the effort needed.

 

She moved on, I am left with the wreckage, a broken heart and having some repairs to do. I don't think it is fair to have a relationship on those terms because the one who gives is going to feel underappreciated and it will cause all kinds of turmoil in their minds as to if they are "good enough" or doing the right things.

 

I would still rather be the one who loves the most and shows it, because that's just how I am and I can't see it changing. I'd sooner chance it on the other person loving me back so that ultimately, I will find somebody who I can spend my life with, and enjoy the fruits we are meant to enjoy.

[Hammerhead]

Come to think of it, I dont think i have ever "loved" anyone. It was lust for sure, i believe as i get older, eventually when i stop thinkin with my penis, maybe then i could look at life and this thing we call love..differently..but for the past and now..i have never been in love..true love is not as simple..and is not, what we think it is..

[Vince99]

Love, to me, isn't a "sometimes, maybe" thing; it's unconditional, insanely powerful, and life-changing, when true, no matter what the circumstance.

 

Humans are not capable of unconditional love. It's a fun idea for the movies. But in real life, there is always a condition under which the love can fade off or be let go.

[Anna.]

I want him to love me more. Period.

[Vince99]

I want him to love me more. Period.

 

Exactly what I think I want now.

 

I used to be ok with being the one that love more. But now I feel like they'll leave me if I am.

[thejigsup]

I want him to be the one who loves me more, though I want to love him also. It is more fun for me when I am the one who is the least scared of the relationship ending. A lot of guys treat a girl badly when they know she love him more than he loves her. When they know that they love you more, they work very hard to balance the equation. I like that.

[circi]

Humans are not capable of unconditional love. It's a fun idea for the movies. But in real life, there is always a condition under which the love can fade off or be let go.

 

I totally disagree with this. The two times in my life that I actually fell in love, it was totally unconditional. I would have never left either of them but they made it crystal clear by their actions that they did not love me and forced me to break things off. Even then, in both cases I wanted and was willing to give them a 2nd chance.

 

Seriously, unconditional love does exist - it's just very hard to find.

[Vince99]

I totally disagree with this. The two times in my life that I actually fell in love, it was totally unconditional. I would have never left either of them but they made it crystal clear by their actions that they did not love me and forced me to break things off. Even then, in both cases I wanted and was willing to give them a 2nd chance.

 

Seriously, unconditional love does exist - it's just very hard to find.

 

How do you know that the condition for you to stop loving was simply never met?

 

And are you saying you still love them unconditionally? Because unless you still do, then evidently it WAS conditional...on them loving you.

 

It's an untestable theory anyway. Probably shouldn't have said it.

[jul-els]

I never consider who loves who more when I'm in a relationship. If I know I love someone who loves me too then that's all I need. Everyone has their own way of loving and either person could be seen as being the one who is more loving in any given circumstance. What matters is taking the experience of the pain and pleasure that love can bring and being able to use it to the greatest good of both one's self and their significant other.

[meepmeep20]

the one who loves the last, so that i can be in control. and if it ends, less hurt.

[waveseer]

I would most definitely rather be the one who loves the most. I don't go into anything I think I'm going to half-ass... If I feel that way about it, I probably, honestly won't even start it. I love with all I have, and am not afraid to "put myself out" for someone else I love. I believe that unless you're loving with all you have, then you're not loving at all. Love, to me, isn't a "sometimes, maybe" thing; it's unconditional, insanely powerful, and life-changing, when true, no matter what the circumstance.

 

So, all in all, the one who loves the most.

 

Ditto, that was beautiful. The secret to a happy life is to live with passion. All the way, baby!

[greywolf]

Humans are not capable of unconditional love. It's a fun idea for the movies. But in real life, there is always a condition under which the love can fade off or be let go.

 

I agree that humans are probably not capable of it, but I think you can get pretty close.

 

OP: honestly, i can't answer this question because I don't relate 'love' and 'need' together at all. I believe that 'need' is the opposite of love. Love is purely giving. It is selfless. Need is entirely opposite of love. It is about receiving. It is selfish.

 

Going by my definition, I'd rather love my partner more. Of course, I'm just a human and not always capable of completely selfless love, but it is something I strive for.

[oldenoughtoknow]

I don't want to get too philosophical about this, but here goes. I've always felt that I want to be the person that loves the most. The flood of emotions is amazing. But I'm happiest when I'm the person that loves the least. You feel more in control and a little less vulnerable.

 

I think every relationship is (gawd, I hate this cliche) a "dance." Sorry, I heard it from a shrink years ago and it stuck. I think that in good relationships, there is a continual back and forth exchange of who loves the most. That allows for some balance.

 

The reason the dance term works so well is because of the push and pull effect. One person will get stressed/distracted/whatever and will put in less. The other person senses it and pulls back as well. The first person notices this, and refills their effort. The second person notices this and becomes complacent. And so on, and so on.

 

In good relationships, these swings are minute, and serve to keep both people interested, engaged and attracted to their partner. In turbulent relationships, well, they swings are larger and life is usually filled with strife. If that balance doesn't exist and it's always one sided, you're relationship is pretty dysfunctional and destined for problems.

 

Good thread, but I'm not sure I really answered your question...

[Mutley]

I would like to love the least....but still love.

[MsG]

I would rather him love me more. Although I'm always end up loving harder (I'm pretty sure at least...)

 

I'm a taker before I'm a giver. Selfish? Yes, I am. But when I love, I love hard, and I give lots.

[penelope13]

I'm all for a balanced relationship, thus also a balanced amount of emotions (not just love, but also need, desire, obsession etc)

[Anusha]

I would prefer to love less,like the OP said the one who needs the relationship less has much more power.

[Sheba]

A friend said to me once, and I thought it was nonsense at the time, that a man should love the woman slightly more. That is the right balance and makes for a successful relationship because a man is by nature a pursuer.

 

I now believe that there is some truth to this. Seems like in the long term relationships that I've witnessed, the guy appears to love the woman slightly more. Therefore to answer the op's question, I want to love the least (albeit slightly less!)

[quirky]

I want him to be the one who loves me more, though I want to love him also. It is more fun for me when I am the one who is the least scared of the relationship ending. A lot of guys treat a girl badly when they know she love him more than he loves her. When they know that they love you more, they work very hard to balance the equation. I like that.

 

I feel exactly the same..!

[Anusha]

Totaly agree

[Vince99]

I totally disagree with this. The two times in my life that I actually fell in love, it was totally unconditional. I would have never left either of them but they made it crystal clear by their actions that they did not love me and forced me to break things off. Even then, in both cases I wanted and was willing to give them a 2nd chance.

 

Seriously, unconditional love does exist - it's just very hard to find.

 

So it was conditional. It was conditional on them loving you.

[wgq]

When I love, I love unconditionally. If love comes to me again, I would love unconditionally still. Its just next time I will love with not only my heart but my brain. I will be cautious more. I wont invest my time, my energy, and my heart on an unworthy person. I want this love accompany me to ride the rest journey of my life.