Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site uiucuxc
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hachiya
From: hachiya@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: love vs. 'in love'
Message-ID: <105500027@uiucuxc>
Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 11:49:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucuxc.105500027
Posted: Mon Dec  9 11:49:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 04:28:31 EST
References: <604@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Lines: 25
Nf-ID: #R:mit-eddie.UUCP:604:uiucuxc:105500027:000:1196
Nf-From: uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU!hachiya    Dec  9 10:49:00 1985


>There are a few people on the net who make a distinction
>between loving someone and being 'in love' with them.
>As I understand it, it has nothing to do with friendship
>--loving vs. SOship--'being in love'.  'In love' is the
>silly sort o' thing I thought I had outgrown (you mean,
>I WON'T outgrow it?  Oh, DEAR.)  It usually (make that
>*usually*) has lots to do with hormones and looks and
>silliness, and darn little to do with having things in
>common, or being able to talk to each other.  Love, on
>the other hand, is a committed thing that has everything
>to do with accepting and caring and forgiving one another.

>Let me see.....the trick is to combine the two.

	When I said that the difference between friends and lovers is
that you love your friends and are in love with your lovers, I meant
that *as well as* loving your lovers, you are also in love with them.
Saying that you are "in  love" with someone does not imply (to me
anyway) that it is the infatuation type love one has when s/he is very
young.  I meant all the other stuff--commitment, friendship etc.  To
me, saying "in love" adds all the other things  (that a relationship
implies) to love.          

							Donna