14 Months Secret Separation: talking mediation

[Accuray]

So, agape is how I've always viewed married love. It's something you have and give even when your spouse farts or embarasses you at a party, or doesn't pick up his underwear off the floor. I didn't realize there was much you could do about the annoyances because I lacked the tools to navigate effectively when my H's actions intruded on my comfort or happiness. And vice versa. We'd bicker or nitpick or tolerate, but there were better tools we didn't know about. But through it all I felt agape type of love.

Thanks CES for the new terms. So agape is how you've always viewed married love -- do you still? Is it still enough? If your H gave you agape, but no phileo or eros, would that be enough for you?

I have some friends visiting us this week, I've known them both since college. I look at their marriage and they definitely have all 3 kinds of love flowing. They truly enjoy each other's company and make each other laugh (phileo), they enjoy having sex with each other and being romantic (eros), and they love each other unconditionally (agape). Because they have all 3, I don't believe that they have to work *as hard* as other couples might. Not to say that they don't still have to work, they do.

I guess what I was saying Ad is that you can have agape with your parents, your kids, your friends, etc., there's nothing about agape that is exclusive to marriage, so why do we need marriage if it's the same as agreeing to agape?

I'm not trivializing agape because it doesn't "just happen" and it's not easy -- it takes work. It's a selfless kind of love that requires maturity to achieve. If you have "nice guy" issues where you make covert contracts and give in order to get, you're not providing agape love.

Providing that agape love requires motivation *because* it is work. What I'm suggesting is that the motivation can either spring from a sheer act of will, OR it can be fueled by phileo and eros. Whereas you say you view married love as agape, I view it as agape AND phileo, with occasional bouts of eros, or at least a very strong memory of eros for fuel.

If your spouse told you they loved you, but really didn't like you that much or enjoy your company would that be enough for you? That's agape without phileo or eros.

If your spouse told you they loved you and liked your companionship, but were not physically attracted to you and had no romantic feelings for you, would that be enough? (agape and phileo without eros)

If your spouse told you that they love you, and are physically attracted to you and love having sex, but otherwise just don't enjoy your company too much, would that be enough for you? (agape and eros without phileo)

See what I'm saying? I believe that if all three are not present in some measure, that you're headed for trouble.

To address StubbornDyke's point, I'm not suggesting that marriage has to be magical with all three types of love always in abundance, but I'm saying that they have to be there a little bit. I'm saying that you can choose to provide agape, but I don't believe you can decide to *feel* phileo or eros. You can work on setting the stage for them, and can make yourself open to them, but you cannot will them to happen like you can with agape.

Acc I did confuse your word attraction for physical or sexual attraction. I don't really understand the magnetic pull or spark you talk about. It seems foreign to me. I have felt a spark for guys in my life but not really like what you described you meant. It sounds sort of mystical and vague and outside your control, and I don't relate with that idea at all. I know I haven't done the reading that you have.

In this case I'm not sharing something I read. What does "attraction" mean to you? Is attraction only physical and sexual? Have you ever seen someone you thought was really physically attractive and then they opened their mouth and just killed it for you? Have you ever met someone who wasn't super physically attractive to you, but they had this great, compelling personality that made you laugh and just feel good to be around them?

I guess if I were to be more specific I would say that attraction requires that someone be physically attractive *enough* to meet your standards, AND have a personality that appeals to you and makes you feel good about yourself and good about them AND complements your personality in such a way that it *feels* like a good match to you. I think initially there also needs to be some element of challenge there -- that this person is worth having by virtue of the fact that they don't just throw themselves at your feet.

What about arranged marriages? I've heard in countries where they are the norm they can be very happy and fulfilling, lifelong partnerships.

I've also heard directly that they can be lifelong torture-fests. I haven't researched or discussed enough to be able to comment on arranged marriages.

I feel like I've taken us way off track from helping you with your sitch and I apologize for that == but I did want to respond.

Accuray