Researcher and therapist John Gottman is an interesting guy. Supposedly, he can predict whether a couple will divorce based on the way that they argue (and with a 93% accuracy!) and how intimately they know each other. Today I'm going to talk about the latter.

Gottman noticed that what kept a marriage loving and healthy was not necessarily the way a couple handled the rough patches. Actually, in his research, sometimes the "healthier" couples fought more than the soon-to-be-divorced couples, which makes sense if you think about the role of conflict in relationships and how they need to be aired out in order to be worked on. But I'm digressing a little. Gottman asserts that we have to know our partners intimately--really, truly get to know their inner worlds--in order to love them effectively.

This seems pretty obvious, but I don't think it's a concept most people sit down to actually take the time to think about. Gottman called it a "love map," a collection of unique data about your partner that includes their likes, dislikes, fears, goals/dreams, frustrations, etc. Love maps are so important in a relationship because they strengthen it. A couple with good love maps are better attuned to their partner's needs, making the personal transitions and stresses on their relationship easier to cope with. Being more aware of your partner's love map also means that you know how to make them happy and take advantage of this knowledge.

So for those of you in a relationship, here are a few questions to help you think about how well you've plotted your partner's love map. Try not to cheat. :P

• Which relative annoys your SO the most? Who's your SO's favorite relative?


• What got on your SO's nerves recently?


• What makes your SO go teary-eyed?


• If your SO won the lottery, what would be the first thing he/she would want to buy?


• Who are your SO's best friends? How did he/she meet them?


• What makes your SO feel stressed? What helps him/her feel relaxed?


• What's your SO's conflict style? What does he/she do to resolve a conflict?


• What's your SO's dream job?


• Your SO's favorite food? TV show? Sport to play?

You can even make it a game. Gottman suggests a "Love Map 20 Questions" game, in which you and your partner take turns answering each other's questions to sort of "test" how well you know each other. You can keep score, but keep it lighthearted, not competitive. Example of a question/answer round: Q. "How do I feel about my boss?" A. "You think he's a jerk sometimes, but mostly he's a fair boss."

A variation on this game that MF and I play is the "Ultimate Gift Box" game (I made this game up myself!). Each of us pretends that we have unlimited resources to put together the ultimate gift box for the other person. We had a rule that the gifts had to be tangible to put into the box. One thing I'd include in his gift box is an autograph from John Woo, and one thing he'd include in my gift box is a teapot. We don't keep score at all, but it's a fun, lighthearted game that makes everyone feel good.

If any of you readers try these with your partner or know someone who does, please comment and let me know how it worked out!

In my couples counseling class last Friday, it was suggested that the harder you fall in love*, the more wounds you have to heal from childhood.

Agree or disagree? True or not true for you/the people you know?



*Personally, I think "fall in love" here might need to be redefined.

Three years ago today, MF and I went on our first date. We had dinner at Flames before heading over to the Improv to see DL Hughley (who wasn't that good, but that's okay). Then we wandered around downtown San Jose together until 2am. We both sleepily went into work the following morning.

I get a lot of tender feelings when I remember those early months. I don't think I wrote too much about our dates or times together--lessons learned from previously blogged-about boyfriends, you know, plus he wanted to keep things kind of private. But those months were full of that early magic and love that through the years had deepened into something else.



From coworkers to friends to sweethearts. MF, if you ever read this, happy anniversary, sweetie. You'll always be my Jim.


P.S. I think this now marks my record for the longest relationship I've been in. Here's to many more years of disagreements, making up, and bonding over food, film, and the Kevin Bacon game. Can't wait to celebrate all weekend long! :)

I've seen this weird trend among my classmates and professors in which an unusual number of us have significant others who are either lawyers or are in law school.

Similarly, I've heard that many teachers have spouses or partners who tend to be scientists or engineers.

Have any of you guys noticed this? Or similar trends? I'm trying to find actual data on this, but my Google-fu is failing me at the moment.

Okay, here's another question that was prompted by my Tuesday night date with MF...

For straight guys: do you feel weird when a girl takes you out to an expensive dinner and pays?

For straight girls: would you take a guy out for an expensive dinner?

"Expensive dinner" in both these cases involve dressing up.

It's that time of year again. The time of year in which suicide rates are highest. (Did you know that? The highest suicide rates are in May while the lowest rates are in December.) But I'll get to this in a second.

One of my professors is a pretty strict behaviorist. He maintains that all problems can be attributed to either "too much of something" or "not enough of something," frequently both. Bored? Too much time on your hands, not enough to do. Fight too much? Maybe it's too much yelling and not enough listening. Want a boyfriend/girlfriend but don't have one? Maybe you're not meeting enough people. Or you're too focused on someone else but not on yourself. Or even vice versa. Etc. It sounds rather basic, but it's a useful concept for the problem-solving part when you're trying to figure out what to do.

The same professor today says that a lot of the milder mental health issues--anger mismanagement, panic attacks, bulimia, depression, for example--can be attributed to lack of assertion. People are spending too much time ruminating over something but aren't spending enough time problem-solving. Or, more specifically, too much time is spent ruminating instead of just asking for what you need.

This is where assertion comes in.

Maybe I've just been getting tired of datinandrelatin. It's just the same old story, really: somebody is getting mixed messages about something and they want to know what their love interest/friend/family member is really thinking. And almost every comment to these posts are, "Talk to them." But lots of times, the poster feels scared about talking to them. Sometimes it's legitimate (e.g. abusive situations), but most of the time, people will respond to reasonable requests. And you won't always get what you want, but you can certainly get it more often when you ask than when you just sit around and hope things will change for the better by itself.

Sometimes you get what you need when you ask for it in a reasonable way. Sometimes you don't get it, but then you're forced to ask yourself why you're in a situation where you're not getting what you need.

Here's an example. Once, I was upset at MF for not spending enough time with me. He had just started law school, and we were 3 timezones apart. I felt really guilty about asking him to call me more often or spend more time with me on the phone, because I had heard stories about the first year of law school and how it can be a relationship killer. I felt bad about trying to exert more pressure on him. But the longer I put off talking to him about it, the more frustrated and upset I got. Finally, I couldn't take it anymore, so I sat down with him on a night where he did have time, and I told him that things needed to change. He's been a lot better about setting aside talk time with me almost every night now, and on the especially busy nights, he's been able to let me know, and I have a much easier time letting him have that space than I used to. Thanks to asking and some other important factors, it worked out great. But it wouldn't have happened if I didn't ask.

But what would've happened if he said he couldn't give me that extra time? I had a pre-set answer to that, too. "If I'm going to have a boyfriend, I need him to be able to spend this minimum amount of time with me. If you can't do this now, get back to me when you're done with law school if you want to work things out." I wouldn't have gotten him to spend more time with me then, but I would've taken myself out of a stuck situation, waiting for some guy who just wasn't going to give me what I needed. And honestly, would I really want to have stayed with someone who didn't even want to make some time for me, even just a bit? Nah, pass, kthxbye.

Oh wait, I said I would get to the suicide rate thing, right? Well, I was gonna lead that into depression. The paradox of (clinical) depression is that the person starts to isolate themselves from the things and people they used to like. And it's really challenging to get out of that isolation; when you haven't been social in so long, it's damn scary to try and reconnect with people you haven't kept up with. But that social reconnection is exactly what you need. And you have to ask for it. It might take several attempts before you click with someone, but without even attempting, 1 out of 20 attempts is still so much better than 0 out of 0.

Ultimately, you gotta start by deciding that you deserve better. Once you get that down, it's easier to build up the courage to ask.

Hi again, people. Like I mentioned in the last public post, I'm working on a paper/project on long-distance relationships, and I'd like some feedback from those of you who have been or are currently in an LDR.

I'd like to hear some of your backstories on your LDR(s) and how they turned out as well as what kinds of support you would have liked at the time you were involved in an LDR.

I'll include my own background with LDRs in the comments, just to kind of start things off. If you have any friends who would like to include their feedback here, I'd encourage them to do so! :)

This is a reflection post from last year's post on the same subject. Last year, I tried to define it more operationally, but when you try to define something like love operationally, it loses a lot of soul. Love is always going to be vague because there are so many different kinds of ways we closely relate to people.

Psychology's Robert Sternberg did a better job of talking about the different varieties of love based on 3 scales--intimacy, passion, commitment)--but he did it without really talking about the basic love aspect very much (or if he did, then the bulk of attention had gone into his categories).

I think the thing to take away from here is that perhaps being "in love" with someone comprises of all 3 scales; that is, being in love means that you feel intimacy and passion for someone and are willing to make a commitment towards them.

The concept is simple enough, but in real-world application, it's more complicated than it sounds. It gets complicated when one person feels strongly on all 3 scales and the other person doesn't (on one or more scales). Even when we're not talking about romantic love, when we're talking about other types of relationships like platonic (intimacy only) or familial (intimacy/commitment), it's ideal an ideal relationship if the scale levels match for all parties involved.

Perhaps in a filter I'll talk about my experiences with different combinations of these scales.

In the meantime, what are your thoughts or experiences on the concept? Agree/disagree? Too simplified? Success stories? Need advice?

Eric sent me a link to the following thread:

Donkey K. says:

and by 28, only the leftovers are still single.

Stupid theory, i know, but there seems to be a patern. Most people that are considered great long term partners, are already taken by 27 and off the market. They might come out of school, date some, have one or two long term relationship, grow up, and by 25-26 they know what they want, and if they are great people, they are snaged off the market by the time they reach 27-28.

The ones that remain single are:

1. People that are too damn picky
2. People that are f ucked up in some sense (alochool, drugs, (ugly and fat people that are too damn picky)). etc..
3. People that just are not suitable for a long term relationship.

Let's admit it. Some people are just NOT wired to be in a long term monogamous relationship. Therefore they jump from relationship to relationship, dating like it is 99, but the long term prospects are just bad.

It seems that SF, (due to the nightlife and party all the time) attracts a lot of these kind of people, who bunch up together, party and play and have insignificant relationships.

I am not saying that they are bad people, they are just not good long term relationship material, therefore by 28 and up (maybe 29 for guys) all you have left is the people with some issues. The good "Catch" es are already off the market.

I have my own thoughts about this, which I will probably share in the comments soon. What are your thoughts on this poster's comment? Do you agree/disagree? There are many factors to consider, so please feel free to share what factors you think need to be considered when assessing this statement.

P.S. I've been wanting to use this icon for awhile but couldn't find an occasion to use it before! :)

Regular readers of this journal and those who know me in real life know that I'm currently in a long-distance relationship. It hasn't been my first, but it's been the longest and most geographically distant one I've been in thus far. MF and I originally endured the joys and trials of being in an international LDR, and now we're in a coast-to-coast LDR.

I was surprised to learn that people generally consider LDRs to be less successful than local relationships. While the dynamics of an LDR are certainly different, the core predictors of success are the same as local relationships: communication, intimacy, trust, etc, and if you ask those in LDRs what their motivations are for breaking up, I'm sure it'd be rare for them to say it's because of the distance.

To support that, here's some information from the Center for the Study of Long Distance Relationships (CSLDR):

Rates of Break-up for LDRs Versus Proximal (Close) Relationships (PR) from 5 Studies:
- 30% PR and 27% LDR over 6 months
- 21% PR vs 37% LDR over 3 months*
- 35% PR vs. 42% LDR over 6 months*
- 23% PR vs 11% LDR over 6 months
- 25% PR vs. 8% LDR over 1 year
*Not a statistically significant difference (i.e., rates are statistically equal)

Multiple studies have measured relationship quality and compared couples in LDRs to those in geographically close relationships. Couples in LDRs report identical levels of relationship satisfaction, intimacy, trust, and commitment.

Interesting, no?

Also, people often talk about the cons of being in an LDR, but not much is said about the possible benefits of. One advantage I can now appreciate about being in an LDR is that we're both more able to spend time and energy developing ourselves as individuals, whether that be focusing on our academic goals, career paths, families, friends, hobbies, etc. We get more of the time and satisfaction of pursuing our own interests while also maintaining a meaningful relationship together.

I know a few of you have been or are currently in LDRs yourselves. Or maybe you'll be in one someday if you haven't already. Or chances are good that you know someone else who's in an LDR. Here's some interesting advice from the CSLDR for LDR couples (I've cut out quite a bit of the text here for brevity's sake):

1. Stay Optimistic! When we looked at dozens of coping styles used by couples in long distance relationships, the only one that clearly stood out was staying optimistic about the relationship. [...] Focusing on the positive asks couples to remember the advantages that come with an LDR (and there are many!)


2. Re-Learn How to be Intimate. [...] Our research found that what couples say and how they say it matters far more than how frequently they communicate. We use a five-step approach to re-learning intimacy:


• First, find ways to share in the little day-to-day events. [...]


• Second, use technology to create intimacy. [...]


• Our research found that couples in LDRs that stayed together wrote to one another twice as often as those that broke up (even when we controlled for differences in trust, commitment, etc.) Hand written letters (not email) have an important psychological impact that fosters intimacy.


• Understand the pitfalls of talking on the telephone. Unfortunately, research shows that talking on the telephone has a number of important drawbacks. Arguments are more difficult to resolve, opinions are difficult to predict, couples feel misunderstood and attacked, and they may judge their partner as less sincere and intelligent then when talking face-to-face. [...]


• Use reminders of your partner frequently. [...]


3. Some things must be said. Couples in LDRs often don't discuss certain topics that are critical to relationships. Faced with limited time together, couples often don't want to "spoil" a weekend by bringing up issues. This leads to a tendency to postpone (often indefinitely) discussing important topics. Research has shown that while couples in LDRs argue less frequently than others, they also progress more slowly. Similarly, couples in LDRs can come to idealize their partner (downplaying the negative side) which works well until the couple re-unite. Then disillusionment can set in. To combat this effect we recommend that couples formalize a time to talk about the relationship and address problems that might otherwise fester. [...] Finally, we remind couples in LDRs to generously applaud the contributions of their partners. Men in LDRs in particular feel that their partners did not acknowledge their contributions.


4. Don't Isolate Yourself! Research has found that those in LDRs very frequently cut themselves off from others. They use work as a distraction from the loneliness. They feel awkward when they're out in public. Their ambiguous status – physically single but not romantically available – can be uncomfortable in certain social situations. [...]


5. Expect Disappointment. Couples in LDRs sometimes measure the success of their relationship by the perceived quality of the most recent time spent together. If the weekend went great then the relationship is doing well. If the weekend was a disappointment then the relationship is in trouble. [...] Simply realizing that there will be some disappointing times together – and that this is normal – will help with those less than glorious weekends.


6. Learn the Art of Long Distance Sex. [...] Fortunately, research has shown that couples in LDRs report just as satisfying sex lives as their geographically close counterparts. When reuniting, couples in LDRs often report a "honeymoon" effect complete with intense and novel sexual escapades (one of the advantages of LDRs). When apart, couples need to learn how to be sexual without being physically close. [...]

Hope you guys find some value in all that information! If you're interested in reading more about research on LDRs, here's the source of the information posted in today's entry: http://www.longdistancerelationships.net/faqs.htm

I was looking for a past entry, and I came across this one that I never gave the update on. It was the entry about choosing "our song" as a couple, and shortly sometime after that entry was posted, we got the song. It's Jack Johnson's "Better Together."

I had strong feelings about wanting the song choice to be organic and meaningful, and while the song itself was chosen by both of us in 2006, we did listen to a lot of Jack Johnson during the early parts of our relationship. So the choice felt semi-organic, which is good enough for me. :)

There's been some discussion on datinandrelatin lately about cheating and flirting. I'm curious as to what you guys reading my LJ think.

I think most people will agree that "cheating" is defined by what the two (or more, if you're poly) involved parties in the relationship mutually decide it is. So my next question is: what do YOU define as cheating in your relationship(s)?

Closely related to that is the big gray area called flirting. What do you define as flirting? What kinds of flirting are you okay/not okay with?

Just in case you're wondering what's going on with my life recently, here's an update. It's sort of a way for me to organize what's going on, but it's also a chance for you guys to know in case I haven't been commenting/posting much.

The most major thing that's going on with me at this point in time is my counseling traineeship. I have a regular client caseload now, and they range from the fairly mild behavioral issues to much more complex cases that ALWAYS involve complicated family situations and personalities. Fortunately, there's a lot of traineeship support through school and the school-based counseling program, so there's are lots of opportunities to discuss cases and how to approach therapy with clients.

I mentioned before that I'm volunteering at a school center on Mondays, but what I didn't mention is that it's a program specifically designed for severely emotionally disturbed children. It's a very nice program, but at this point, I know I don't want to work with this population. I liked how one of my supervisors phrased our work: "It's working with ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances." SED kids are not just ordinary folks, period. But huge props for the people who can and do work with them.

Getting my feet wet in the mental health area for the first time has been very emotionally complex as well. I was very surprised to learn how closely tied my cultural issues are to other areas of my life, and seeing that tied to my professional life has been disconcerting.

Professional development aside, the financial toll it's taken has made my social life suffer a little. They're not paying me for the 20 hours a week I'm spending on my traineeship, so to make my rent and bills, I'm trying to pull in extra shifts from research and tutoring, and many times, the only time I can fit the extra time in for work is on the weekends. I've still made time to see my friends, but the decision always seems to hurt in some way; if I choose to stay in to work, I feel disconnected from my personal life, and if I choose to go out with friends, I worry about what I have to cut back financially in order to be with them (but I don't let myself think about that while I'm with said friends). Fortunately, they're all very understanding people, and I've been able to touch base with them every few weeks or so.

My love life in the midst of this has been thriving. MF is experiencing equally frustrating issues with law school and professional development, so we've grown closer as a result of being at the same place in life and being able to better empathize with each other. The new level of emotional closeness has really the physical distance so much less important now. Growth really does happen during conflict, and in an indirect way, we've grown.

My family seems to be doing generally well, and catching up with my parents or sisters on the phone always makes me feel a little sad that I can't be there to help. Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the relationship I have with my dad and my teenage sister, but that's probably best in its own separate post.

That's about all the time I have to post right now. I'd like to put up a poll at some point when I have time, but no promises. :)

---

Edit: Also, I should mention that I've learned some amazing things--about people and about myself--from therapy and psychology classes. I'm pretty skeptical when it comes to just reading theory, but seeing them applied in real life and actually work seems almost like magic.

Just so I don't forget.

Last weekend, we went to an Indian place to eat a late lunch. I ordered a lamb wrap, and while it was pretty good, it had onions. I forgot to ask them to leave that out.

MF took the half of the wrap that I wasn't eating and started picking out the onions for me.

That was probably the single, most unintentionally romantic thing he's ever done for me. I was really touched by this for some reason, and I actually teared up a little. It was so sweet.

I've been wondering for the past few days about the role of "work" in love and relationships. Namely, in a loving relationship, how much of it should be "easy" and how much should be "hard work"? Is true love supposed to make the relationship easy to maintain? Or is it hard work in the relationship that fosters the love?

Now I think that it's probably a fallacy to polarize them this way. The love and the relationship are just two different things. You can have an "easy" love and a "difficult" relationship just as you can have a "difficult" love and an "easy" relationship. Wait... can you?

I'll consider these questions some more while I go take my walk.

Two of my classmates made an interesting point about love having similar properties to chemical addictions--or really, addictions in general.

The first few times you experience a drug, you get an incredible high or euphoria, and you keep taking the drug to maintain or re-experience the euphoria. After some time, however, the usual dose of the drug isn't enough to get that original euphoric effect, and because you've built tolerance to the drug, you have to up the dosage to get the same euphoria. If you try to quit taking the drug, or when it suddenly becomes unavailable, you experience withdrawal symptoms characteristic of that drug.

Other criteria related to addiction (you don't have to meet all the criteria, just 3 minimally):
* the drug is taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended
* there's a constant desire (or unsuccessful efforts) to cut down or control drug use
* lots of time is spent on trying to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects
* important life activities (social, occupational, etc.) are given up or reduced because of drug use
* drug use is continued despite the knowledge of having a persistent problem that's likely to have been caused by drug use

Apply the concept of love to this, and it sounds like a pretty familiar picture.

The first few times you meet someone, you get an incredible high or euphoria, and you keep seeing the person to maintain or re-experience the euphoria. After some time, however, the usual amount of time you spend with the person isn't enough to get that original euphoric effect, and because you've gotten used to seeing the person, you try to see them more often to get the same euphoria. If you try to quit stop seeing them, or when they're suddenly unavailable, you experience withdrawal symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression, etc). Or perhaps because of the tolerance you've built for the person, you seek out a new person to experience that original euphoria again.

Granted, this is not the same picture for all those who experience love, especially when looking at the additional criteria for addiction. (If they end up meeting those criteria as well, however, they could be diagnosed with sex/love addiction.) I would argue that this tolerance/withdrawal picture wouldn't be true for those who are self-actualized and whose object of affection is more like a healthy complement to their life rather than an indispensable part of their life. But then again, I think few people qualify in the self-actualization department (including/especially me).

The same two classmates went on to discuss the biological basis for why we're attracted to certain people. I'm not going to go into detail about it because it's a complex subject, and I don't have sources to back this up, but basically, we subconsciously choose mates based on our evolutionary constructs. Our brains pick up--through scent--if someone has an immune system complementary to our own, giving our offspring the best chances of survival.¹ It offers an explanation as to why we could be attracted to someone who is, for nonbiological reasons, just totally wrong for us.

So with this thought, what about the experience of love that's separate from these biological bases? That, they say, is experienced with an emphasis on companionship rather than passion, the latter of which is where the euphoria comes from. Companionship is slow, steady, and has deeper roots than fleeting passion.

That being said, the ideal would be a balance between the companionship variety of love and the passionate variety of love.

Well, no shit! What situation in life doesn't require some kind of balance for the most optimal outcome?

The different thing here about their philosophy is this. In discussions about relationships, people often use the triangular theory as the basis for the most complete form of love (consummate love = intimacy, passion, commitment). In the classmates' discussion, commitment is not merely unnecessary, but it is an illusion that could "hold back" the relationship because you start taking it for granted. "Once you give up the illusion of commitment," said J, "once you accept that the relationship won't last forever, that's when you can truly cherish each other." It's the paradoxical presence of hope and doubt that open up avenues for real love.²


_____________
¹ For the record, I'm a little skeptical about this. The evolutionary explanation doesn't quite explain why some people are attracted to the same sex. Also, this explanation is missing the large role of cultural schemas when it comes to mate selection.
² I just read over my entry and realized that these two ideas are strung together pretty loosely. The two ideas aren't reflections of my opinion on the subject matter, but I thought them to make for very interesting discussion.

From datinandrelatin came a discussion question:

"In a relationship, do you prefer to be giddily
happy/impulsive/constantly evolving or maybe-a-little-boring but totally
safe and perfectly content with no real peaks or
valleys?"

I think the poster's bias is pretty obvious, but bias aside, it's an
interesting question and had me reflect on my relationship with MF.

On a night we decided to hole up instead of go out...
MF: "Phuong, are we a boring couple?"
PT: "Maybe a little bit. Does that bother you?"
MF: "Nope. I like it."

And a little surprisingly, I do, too.

Sparks used to be the most important thing for me. But if having high
highs and low lows means I can't even stop to take a breath, then I
don't want that. In my mind, a healthy relationship is supposed to be a
safe space for two people to feel as comfortable and secure as they need
to be. It can take some effort and compromise for both people to be
comfortable (arguments are normal), but once they get there, it's worth
the compromises. I just don't think you can really be happy until you
feel safe... even if that means being a little boring. :)

--

An LJ friend very recently asked this question on a comment, and I felt it was big enough topic to warrant a whole post, probably a whole series of posts, but I don't have enough material for a series. :P

So what does it mean to be in love?

To me, "love" is a complex emotion that's got a lot of grey areas. I can say that I love my mom and my brother. But in each instance, "love" conjures up completely distinct feelings, even though they're both familial love. The common thread that seems to run in all my relationships involving love is that I care deeply in the well-being and happiness of each person.

I imagine that "in love" takes this a step further and implies that, in a romantic sense, one cares deeply about the well-being and happiness of a certain person above all others. This would make it the easiest type of love to identify; "being in love" is such a clear cut thing that if you have to ask yourself if you're in love with someone, you probably aren't.

This definition carries a number of other implications as well. It means that:

• one can fall out of love. This is in response to, "Well, if you were REALLY in love with someone, you wouldn't stop loving them."


• one can have the unrequited kind of "being in love." We sometimes forget about the one-sidedness of the "being in love" discussion.

Other possible implications could be:

• Two people can be in a happy relationship and not be in love.


• Two people can be in love with each other and still not make their relationship work. I don't think this circumstance is highly likely, but it's possible.


• You could be in love with more than one person.

While the concept of "being in love" is intrinsically idealist, these implications serve as reminders that love often doesn't work the way we'd wish it would. Does this mean that my definition, with all its implications, is too pragmatic? Is it too loosely defined? Probably, because if I care about my mom's well-being and happiness above all others, then I'd be "in love" with her, wouldn't I? That's why I sort of tacked on "in a romantic sense" in the definition. :\

It's a work in progress. I'll keep working on it and elaborate on some of these points later. :P

I'd also like to hear what you readers think it means to be in love. I get the sense that the emotion of "being in love" is only complicated when it doesn't work out.

This is a break from the "What's Better" series. I'd also like to hear elaborations of your answers in the comments section! :)

Poll #931889 Dating Poll
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

What's more difficult to handle?

If you were dating several people, and one of them sent you a love note/flowers/etc., would you hide them or display them openly?

If you were confident that their choice would be a good one, would you let your parents choose a spouse for you?

Would you rather have a mate that was smarter than you or better-looking than you?

Someone a few years younger than you is looking for advice on meeting a mate. What advice would you give him/her?

And he delivers another classic. I love stories like these. Stories that make you go sigh.

I've had a moment like pjammer's--where you develop a great connection and don't/can't pursue it further. Oh, I'll always wonder what would've happened, of course. But I can live with my choices and am ultimately happy with them.

(I was about to share my "Lost Connection" story but decided this was too public of a forum. Perhaps in a filtered entry? Your story gets mine. :))