I just recently had an interesting discussion about this subject with a group of friends and and we couldn’t come to any real conclusion…
Um… I admit to not always using it in this sense, but I think:
A loves B means exactly that, while
A is in love with B means the feelings are mutual.
I think that there are several different, but similar, emotions which we refer to as “love”. There’s Romantic Love, which is what we refer to as “in love with”, and there’s Comradely Love - the love one has toward his friends - which is what you meant with “Love”. Besides those, there’s the love a child feels towards his parents, the love a parent feels towards his child, the love a follower feels towards his leader, love of God, love of country…
These things can overlap, of course. You can love someone as well as being in love with someone.
Personally, I’ve always felt that ‘love’ is one of the most overworked words in the English language, for precisely the reasons Alessan notes. I mean, if Eskimos have 200+ words for snow, you’d think we’d have more than one word for all the various kinds of love there are…
Here are my definitions:
In love: strong romantic feelings for someone which infect all parts of your life. You walk around feeling happy solely because of the existence of the person you’re in love with. You annoy your friends with long boring stories about why this person is the greatest thing since flouridated water. You write poetry, and try to think of wild romantic gestures. Sometimes confused with infatuation (when you’re “in love” with someone you don’t love.)
Love: caring about someone deeply, and having strong feelings for them. You can love someone very much and not be in love with them.
My goal is to be in love with someone my whole life. May not be realistic, but I’m still gonna try to make it happen.
::runs off::
jmullaney, you state it exactly as I would. Neat 
But see, in regards to the “Eskimo Love” possibility, IMO there’s only one kind of “love.” Its all the same to me. The only difference is in how its applied, not in the actual feelings. There are other feelings that get lumped with love, like sexual attraction for “romantic” love. That is, so long as we are talking people. I don’t think loving a pet is the same as loving any person. But, I cried my ass off when my cat of 19 years (no shit) died. So, who knows?
Refer to “The Five Love Languages” by Gary Chapman. He talks all about “love” vs. “in love”.
And yes, he also talks about the word “love” being one of the most overused/confusing words in human languages.
“In Love” is a crock of shit. It’s one reason why the divorce rate is so high. It’s a Hollywood movie, romance novel idea. Being “in love” is nothing more than raging hormones. Most couples are “in love” at some point in time, those that stay together more than a few months, but eventually “in love” wears off. Then the idiots start feeling deprived. They’ve lost that hormone rush they’ve become addicted too. Next thing you know they’re casting around for someone to make them feel that way again only to start the cycle over again. Love isn’t something you “fall” into. It’s something that takes work. It takes communication, respect, and compromise. Being “in love” is lust or infatuation or some other selfish emotion. We’ve romanticized it to the point where we think that is what we need to achieve in order to be happy. Then many of us spend the rest of our lives wondering why we can’t find love that lasts. It’s because we aren’t really looking for love we’re looking to star in some Hollywood adaptation.
Needs2know
I love ice cream
but
I am not in love with ice cream
I love my SO
and
I am in love with my SO.
You can love your dog
but
You can not be in love with your dog.
[sub]well, some people can be I guess, but we won’t go there…[/sub]
As much as needs2know’s post rubbed me a bit the wrong way, I agree with most of what he(?) said. The part I agree with is the description about the hard work to develop a loving relationship: the communication, compromise, mutual sacrifice, kindness, respect, etc. I also strongly agree that the general misunderstanding regarding love and what goes into a loving relationship to make it be successful is what has greatly pushed up this skyrocketing divorce rate.
I think that love is just a very strong affinity or positive inclination towards one thing over many others. Whatever you love is something that will receive your attention and energies, and very possibly your affection (if it’s a living thing). Being in love is what takes in all those elements I listed above and needs2know listed. In Love takes a lot of hard work and patience on both parties involved. I like jmullaney’s simplistic description, too.
I love my kids beyond description.
I’m in love with my wife, still, after 10 years and counting.
Don’t know what Hollywood has to do with any of it and I sure can’t find any reason to blame the movie folks for people’s real life failures at love and happiness.
Needs2know, I think many people mistake infatuation, that giddy rush of newness and excitement at the beginning of a relationship, with being “in love”. And I think that you can have a great, loving relationship with someone, without being “in love”. Most relationships settle into a slower, more comfortable period at some point. I agree that it’s a mistake to give up on these relationships, just because you aren’t constantly giddy.
However, I also think that you can be in love long-term. I think it has to do with not taking each other for granted, and reminding yourself (and your partner) why you are thrilled to be with them.
I tend to separate love the emotion/feeling and love the will you have toward someone. Love the warm feeling, whether romantic or towards friends, kids, etc., is one thing.
Love, as in “love your neighbor as yourself”, is wanting for someone else what God wants for them (or wanting good for them) and may or may not be accompanied with emotional love. You may love someone even if your actively dislike them; you still want good for them even if you don’t have warm feelings toward them. Love for yourself and your neighbor is inspired by the love of God, which is not an emotion. You may feel a warm emotion in thinking about God, but love of Him is wanting His will to be done.
Well I’m glad you’re all so well adjusted. I’m sure we all are here on the SDMB. But I contend that most people don’t know shit from shineola when it comes to what love is really all about.
What about the teenage girl that gets pregnant just so she can hold some child hostage in love? Poor kid has never felt loved doesn’t know how to express it herself but just knows if she has a child that child will HAVE to love her. What about the women that stay in relationships where they are constantly brutilized or abused because they LOVE the guy? And these men when confronted with their behavior claim they love these women. Or the poor guy that can’t seem to find a good woman because he isn’t bright enough to come to the realization that a head full of bleached blonde hair, augmented breasts and a good blow job don’t necessarily constitute a good woman?
I’ve been dating this guy for a little over a year. He’s a sweet guy, easygoing, treats me like he loves me. He tells me all the time that he’s “in love” with me. I tell him that I love him. He needs reassurance, he tells me “no you don’t”. I do. I love the guy but I’m not “in love” with him. Being “in love” with him would for me mean that I don’t see the reality of our situation. I know what he means when he says he’s “in love” with me. I know exactly what that means. One day he’s gonna look at me and realize he isn’t quite so “in love” anymore. I know it, he’s done it before. He’s loved a lot more women in his lifetime than I have men. He claims that he loved them all. One of them told him that all he had to do if he wanted to end the relationship was stay out all night. Well a few months later he did just that. Knew that when he went home the next day she just might pack her shit and get. Maybe he isn’t in the mood to move on just this yet. Maybe at his age he’s ready to settle in with someone for the rest of his life. I know he tried it with his wife but not because of love he did it out of a sense of responsibility. I don’t know. But I’m not going to lose sight of the fact that many people don’t have a clue what it is to be “in love” or love someone no matter how much they think they do.
Perhaps some of you are “in love” and have been for years. If that’s what you choose to call it then fine. I’m very happy for you. Love, “in love” for people like that it doesn’t matter, it’s just both. But I still maintain that there are quite a few people out there that have no clue what that emotion is they are feeling that they call love.
Needs2know
I’m not sure what you are getting at, Needs2Know. Seems your OP has nothing to do with your latest post in this thread.
You asked for our interpretation of “Love” and “In Love” and we gave it. Now surely you don’t intend to debate with us about whether or not our interpretation of these subjective terms is accurate or reflective of your own. Who’d win such a debate and how would we know when they did?
As to your latest post… perhaps we should pick that up in MPSIMS. But just briefly, what possible difference does it make to me if some people in this world cannot tell the difference between love and lust? Why should any person’s lack of self esteem (and I’m very familiar with a person in a bad marriage just like you described) confuse my interpretation of “Love” and “In Love”?
Do I feel fortunate to be so sure of and secure with my feelings? Yes. Do I feel responsible for those who are not? No.
My sincerest appologies Needs2know. The OP was not yours. I should have reviewed more carefully before posting that.
Well, that’s why they call you QuickSilver. 
The following excerpted from one of my papers (I can do this because I’m the author :)):
Sigmund Freud is probably best known for his proclamations about sexual development and the sexual energy he called “libido”. In the wake of his theory that almost all
achievements and behaviors are displaced or redirected sexual lusts, it became easy to conceptualize the process of “falling in love” as no more and no less than plain old
sexual desire that has been denied plain old satiation.
The women in the office and the couple who are newly “in love” find this vulgar and reductionistic. There is more to it than that, one says. Some things shouldn’t be
analyzed to death anyway, adds another, and many nods follow. As feminism has moved farther from the attitude that male experiences and male behaviors and attitudes are
normal (and women, in order to be equal, need to be free to be the same way), there are more and more feminists who reject the sexual-liberal expectation that “liberated
women” will be in agreement with men about the irrelevance of love to sex. Instead, there are questions about the long-standing male definition of what sex and sexuality
consists of. Men circumscribe sex, focus everything on the dick and the cunt and the orgasm, the fuck, they say; but although Freud was so wrong about so much, he so
often came so close to being right. It isn’t misplaced or displaced sexuality that goes into all aspects of life – that’s the essence of sexuality. The unnaturally warped form is the form that is confined to genitals, to penilevaginal matters, and which insists on portraying everything else as means to that specifically heterosexual behavior as an end
goal.
Sexual feelings do not come with a guarantee of emotional safety; as the author of the poem (“You ask me why I say stop”) attests, there is far more at stake here than the
mere risk of being turned down. Aroused, stimulated to orgasm, there is the risk of being more open to “falling in love” with one’s partner than one might wish, with
subsequent vulnerability and pain to follow.
And yet, the closeness, the intimacy of sexual sharing and sensing the vulnerability of the other’s appetite and needs, makes sexual interaction for some people something to
be shared not with strangers but only with trustable, known friends. To be so open and intimate with a person you love (and who loves you in return) would certainly seem
far safer than risking such experiences with a stranger. Women, who are not encouraged to be adventurous takers of risks in general, and for whom sexual experience has for
so long been loaded with naturally real and socially constructed dangers and risks, would be expected to prefer a safer format in which to be sexual creatures.
If the conventionally-ascribed “feminine” aspects of sexuality such as love, deep openness, and trust, which are reminiscent of the sensations of afterglow, are also the
results of deferred sexual expression, and if sexual stimulation and orgasm are risky because they leave one vulnerable to falling in love just as sexual stimulation and arousal are risky in the absence of love because of the vulnerability of intimacy with a stranger. . . if these things are true, then the most useful comment might be that of the young lover who said that some things defy analysis! Perhaps the key is a closer look at the phenomenon of “falling in love”, which is not really the same thing as being with a person with whom there are feelings of mutual love, after all.
From a thoroughly different angle, far from the fields with which I have much familiarity, comes another challenge to the notion that “falling in love” doesn’t exist except as
an ideology disguising ordinary sexual desire. Sexual desire, after all, is an experience that has observable, measurable physiological characteristics: pulse rate, engorgement of erectile tissues, pelvic congestion, respiration rate, and so on. Interestingly, physiologically-oriented psychologists are starting to think that the condition of being "in love"may also have objective physiological characteristics, many of which will probably sound familiar: changes in digestion and appetite patterns for food, disruption of sleep patterns, enhancement of sensitivity to visual and auditory sensory stimuli. In addition, biological neurochemicals are alleged to be involved, with resultant changes in affect and behavior that include a diffused attention span, sighing, and euphoria. Release of the chemicals is prompted by incidents of companionship with the person one is “in love” with, and symptoms persist over a protracted period of time when compared to the symptoms of sexual desire. The phenomenon may begin, it is thought, when sexual desire and proximity keep reoccurring in a context where orgasm and resolution is deferred. Withdrawal symptoms occur when meaningful contact with the “love object” is delayed or discontinued, bringing sluggishness, severe depression, loss of appetite, and a powerful craving for the missing person. Some of the endorphins alleged to be connected with the phenomenon of “falling in love” are said to be chemically similar to one of the natural components of chocolate, which might explain the popular association between chocolate and romance, or its popularity with the “love-lorn”. In short, being “in love” may have at least as much in common with the essentially bodily experience of sexual desire per se as it does with the more mental/emotional experience of loving someone because of your appreciation for who they are.
I’m sorry Quicksliver I didn’t mean to get your goat on this. But I do have an opinion on this and it is a strong one. I think many people have been conditioned to think they are feeling something like love. Yes, confusing it with lust is pretty common. But let’s face it, in books, movies, television, in stories handed down since ancient times love has been romanticized in such a way that many people have some very false expectations about just what it should be like. Just because Romeo and Juliet died for it doesn’t mean that is how it should feel. Don’t tell me that Hollywood and Danielle Steele do not make an impression on the less discerning members of our population. Of course I’m not advocating that we abandon the love story either. I’m just saying that if we’re having a discussion about love vs. “in love” then we have to take into account that some people’s ideas about this subject just might be a little skewed.
Oh yeah and by the way…
I can remember when my babies were born, when they were little. I was literally “in love” with them. They were so sweet and soft and squishy. Sometimes I’d be holding them and feel so overwhelmed by it that I’d almost like to eat them up, take a big old bite out of them. I’d just talk to them and rub them and kiss them, and nibble on their little toes. But later…after a few years of whiping their stinky little hineys, trying to get them to eat right, listening to their tantrums, staying up all night while they puked, handing out punishments for digusting behavior…I rarely get the feeling like I could just “eat them up”. Now don’t get me wrong. I love my kids and I’m affectionate with them. My 16 year old daughter still sits on my lap occasionally and I squeeze her and kiss her and rub her back. But you’re right on one score the “newness” rubs off a little and it take a little more work now and then to remember just how much you do love them. Hence it’s a lot harder to overcome the same feelings when it’s spouse or SO. After all society has recently changed it’s views about how hard we should work at these relationships. Some people think it shouldn’t take any work at all.
I am starting to get my peeling hurt. My son won’t kiss me in public anymore. He’s nine. Last night before his Christmas program I tried to give him a hug and kiss and he pulled away. He grinned about it and I stuck my lip out. He was so cute last night. He said his lines nice and loud and clear. I could have just “ate him up”.
Needs2know
Nobody disagrees with you here. There is a vast majority of people who don’t have a clue. At the same time, there are many people out there who are lucky enough to be able to make the distinction between lust and love/in love.
I’m sorry that you are so bitter about your situation. If you’re so convinced that he will eventually not want to be with you because of the way he describes his feelings for you, then why are you still with him? Have you considered asking him to define “in love”…perhaps his definition of “in love” is the same as yours is for “love.” If that’s the case, then it’s really a matter of semantics. Have you told him how you define “in love”? Perhaps if you two clarify to each other what you mean or how you see each of the terms, you can come to an agreement of which term suits your situation and your feelings better.
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to sound like I’m telling you what to do, so if that is how it sounds then I apologize. I’m just doing some brainstorming/questioning on the topic.
Yep. Love and in love in regards to significant others can be interchangable to those who are secure enough in their definitions, descriptions, etc.
Yes, there are those people. There are many of those people and those are very often the ones who end up embittered towards love, because it didn’t meet the wrong expectations they had int he first place. It’s sad, but until they find someone who can help them see a more solid & real side of “love” - nothing will change for them. Maybe for some people, they just don’t want that change. I don’t know…
However, I don’t think that anyone who has posted in this thread so far can be counted as one of those types of people. They all appear to have a solid grasp on “their” definitions. Most seem to be much in-line anyway. It appears as though people here don’t define “in love” as the sexual feelings or the feelings that fade. That’s “lust” or “passion” - that comes and goes. “Love” and “in love” are the constants.
The phrase “in love” tends to refer more to relationships in all forms while “love” is in connection to friendships (casual or otherwise), familial connections or inanimate objects. At least, casually based upon the responses of people here and any discussions I have ever participated in.
It’s difficult to scientifically experiment with such an intangible thing like emotions. Its just one of those personal things that will never get pinned down. I don’t think that we should tell needs2know that she (I got it right this time!) has it wrong, just as I don’t think she should tell the rest of us that we have it wrong.
I mean, if someone said they were in love with their Led Zeppelin boxed set, we should probably just leave well enough alone.
Just for the sake of it, here’s Webster’s defiiniton of love:
love (luv) n.
1. Intense affection
2. A feeling of attraction resulting from sexual desire.
3. Enthusiasm or fondness
4. A beloved person
5. A score of zero in tennis.
So, uhm, yeah, I think everything everyone has said here falls under this defintion in one form or another.
