The Arc of Love

by Aaron Ben-Ze'ev

  Love seems to be similar—it is typically beneficial for our well-being, but there are types of love and circumstances in which love can be too much of a good thing. As I have suggested, profound love involves a process of intrinsic development that does not generate boredom or deactivate human capacities; on the contrary, such intrinsic developing promotes one’s capacities and flourishing. Since profound love is an engine of human flourishing, its benefits run deep. Just as we would not fault an author for writing a book that is too profound, we would be unlikely to criticize a lover for loving too profoundly. If this profundity leads us to neglect other valuable activities, both profound and superficial, then we can say that it is “overly” profound. Like other flourishing experiences, profound love is valuable because it resonates with the lover’s character and unique circumstances. Hence, the issue of harmful addiction does not arise.

  Of course, we wish to be with our beloved! We enjoy intrinsic, meaningful romantic activities for their own sake, and there is no reason why we should not want to be involved in such activities repeatedly, while making them more meaningful and enjoyable. This is also the case with profound intrinsic activities such as writing or painting. There is no “appropriate” frequency for engaging in profound intrinsic activities, providing, of course, that these activities do not prevent the person from engaging in other flourishing and necessary activities.

  Romantic intensity, unlike romantic profundity, can be excessive. Thus, the lover’s intense passion might prevent her from noticing, or at least admitting, that her partner’s attitude toward her is humiliating or that their relationship has little chance of surviving in the long term. In contrast, since profound love is constitutive of personal flourishing, we cannot speak about an excess of flourishing. However, translating one’s profound love into concrete deeds can be detrimental if one does not recognize what is good for the beloved or for oneself.

  Profound romantic behavior and “love addiction”/“sex addiction” are completely different animals. To understand this difference, let’s think of the difference between profound and superficial activities. In this respect, Stanton Peele and Archie Brodsky, in their classic book, Love and Addiction, argue that the distinguishing feature of the addictive attitude is not the intensity of passion, but its shallowness.14 Being profoundly in love involves pursuing a wide range of flourishing activities with the beloved; being a sex addict confines your world to a narrow band of repetitive activities. The repetitive and superficial attitude that marks a sex addict’s interactions makes personal development and flourishing extraordinarily difficult. In profound love, the wish to be with the lover is worlds away from the obsessive need that drives addiction.

  We can conclude that something good can cross over the line into excessive when such an attitude or behavior does not contribute to one’s overall flourishing, and might even damage it, mainly by preventing the pursuit of less enjoyable, but more meaningful, activities that would advance flourishing. Thus, “the more the merrier” holds true up to a point, after which “one can have too much of a good thing.” Sex is typically a wonderful experience, but sex addiction is negative and needs to be treated, like any addiction. Imelda Marcos, the former first lady of the Philippines, had a collection of 3,000 shoes. The country singer Dolly Parton revealed that she never wore the same clothes twice, so one can only imagine how many outfits she had. A documentary on Fidel Castro puts the number of his sexual partners at 35,000—two a day (one at lunch, one at dinner) for the entirety of his four-decade rule.

  We don’t need to own thousands of pairs of shoes or have a different sexual partner at every meal to have too much of a good thing. That is particularly true when those things are superficial experiences or commodities and when preoccupation with them robs us of the resources to pursue more profound activities and thereby flourish. In this vein, if a couple’s time together interferes with each partner’s personal flourishing, this can be considered “too much” couple’s time.

  When people speak about loving too much, they are referring to the intensity that overwhelms lovers and makes them blind to their partner’s faults or their own obsessive behavior. How appropriate, then, that Cupid, the Roman god of love, is depicted as a blindfolded boy—showing graphically that lovers, especially young ones, can be blind to the faults or the unsuitability of the one they love. A remark such as “I couldn’t help it; I was madly in love with her” indicates excessive love, which lacks the restraint and control that enable autonomy and personal growth to develop, and, in extreme cases, can lead to possessiveness and domination.

  Loving Longer, Loving More, and Loving Most of the Time

  If you can’t live longer, live deeper.

  ITALIAN PROVERB

  At this point in our road trip toward long-term profound love, we’ll consider two related questions concerning the duration of this type of love: (1) Does loving longer mean loving more? (2) Can we be profoundly in love most of the time? As not everyone likes surprises, here’s a hint: the dispositional nature of profound love makes the answer to both these questions no. But let’s find out why.

  Does Loving Longer Mean Loving More?

  Susan Lowenstein: Just admit it. You love her [your wife] more.

  Tom Wingo: No. Not more, Lowenstein. Only longer.

  PAT CONROY, The Prince of Tides

  Susan Lowenstein is Tom Wingo’s twin sister’s psychiatrist. Tom’s wife cheats on him, and the two nearly divorce. Tom and Lowenstein fall in love with each other (while both are married). Tom then receives a call from his wife, who has finally decided she wants him back. He loves both Lowenstein and his wife. He returns home, not being the sort of man to abandon his wife and three daughters. Tom continues to love Lowenstein and considers her a blessing for him.

  Does loving longer (time-wise) necessarily mean loving more (romance-wise)? Loving more is a combination of loving more intensely and more profoundly. As we have seen, time typically does not increase romantic intensity, but it can sometimes enhance romantic profundity—if a process of meaningful development exists. However, loving longer is usually part of living, or, at least, of knowing and interacting with someone for a longer period. Such joint living involves creating more nonromantic commitments, such as having a family, having friends in common, and sharing a joint, meaningful history of coping together in the face of various challenges. These commitments do not necessarily increase love, but they do reduce the likelihood of separation.

  This is, indeed, Tom Wingo’s case. He would probably have chosen Lowenstein if he had met her and his wife and at the same time. In his present situation, he chooses to make a romantic compromise and give greater weight to his life circumstances and family commitment. This is a dilemma between the value of love and the moral value of commitment to one’s family and shared history. There is no rulebook in the world that can tell one what to do when one loves two people, albeit not with the same profundity. Despite the length of time that Tom has loved his wife, their love has not developed into profound love. Hence, in his case, loving longer has, indeed, not meant loving more.

  Will we suffer Wingo’s fate? As far as we can tell, many will—but many won’t.

  Being in Love Most of the Time

  I have loved Berta for sixty years.

  YA’AKOV HAZAN

  I am in love with him most of the time.

  BLAKE LIVELY, describing her love for her husband, Ryan Reynolds

  When, at age ninety-two, the Israeli politician and social activist Ya’akov Hazan said that he had loved his wife, Berta, for sixty years, he did not mean that he thought about her or sexually desired her every minute of every hour of this long period. Romantic love is a complex emotion, and it is present even when thoughts about or sexual desire for the beloved are not.

  Romantic love can endure even when the two lovers are not together. In fact, not being with each other all the time can enhance the endurance of such love, as it provides greater personal space. Romantic love inclu
des the desire to be close to the beloved, but increasing numbers of romantic couples live at a geographical distance from each other. As indicated below, compared to close-proximity relationships, such long-distance relationships are characterized by higher levels of relationship quality.

  Blake Lively’s claim that she loves Ryan Reynolds “most of the time” might appear to run counter to the nature of profound love. However, she probably desires him sexually most of the time, but loves him all of the time. Lively said, “The secret to our marriage is our unwavering friendship. . . . We were friends for two years before we were ever dating. And I treat him like my girlfriend.” She considers friendship to be the foundation of her loving relationship with Ryan. Friendship is, indeed, the basis of enduring profound love. As in the case of profound love, you cannot be a friend just “most of the time.” Possibly, too, Lively did not announce an unwavering love because love seems to disappear during a disagreement or period of frustration with one’s romantic partner. I would say that the love is there, under the surface. If Blake Lively is profoundly in love with Ryan Reynolds, her love is continuous and exists even when they fight with each other. She probably means that such love is at the center of her awareness most of the time, but she does not mean that it disappears when they are not making love or not thinking about each other.

  Profound romantic love is a complicated emotional attitude that includes occasional eruptions of intense positive emotions, such as sexual desire, happiness, and admiration, and of negative emotions, like resentment, anger, and jealousy. Those acute intense emotions can be frequent, but they cannot be continuous; they can recur often or only infrequently. Profound romantic love just doesn’t go away. It seems that Blake does love Ryan all the time, although she might sexually desire him “only” most of the time.

  When Should You Say, “I Love You”?

  The regret of my life is that I have not said “I love you” often enough.

  YOKO ONO

  I conclude this chapter on the issue of time in romantic relationships by discussing a practical lover’s dilemma about timing—the question of when to utter the expression “I love you.” Hearing a partner say “I love you” for the first time is often one of the highlights of a romantic relationship. However, people tend to be uncertain as to when to declare their love and whether to be the first to do so or to wait until the other has given an indication of feeling the same way. Is there an optimal time to reveal your feelings? Does timing make no difference, or all the difference?

  When Should You Say It?

  Love isn’t saying, “I love you” but calling to say, “did you eat?”

  MARLON JAMES

  Romantic love expresses our genuine attitudes. There is nothing that boosts communication and personal flourishing more than exposing our loving heart to a partner. However, such self-disclosure makes us more vulnerable and can put our partner in an uncomfortable situation, especially if his or her feelings are different from ours. Consider, for example, these common (and conflicting) pieces of advice about when to say “I love you” to your partner:

  • Go on at least five dates.

  • Say it only after two months.

  • Don’t wait too long.

  • Wait until you’re absolutely bursting.

  • Do not do it before, after, or during sex.

  • Don’t say it when you’re very emotional and cannot think rationally.

  • Don’t say it when you want to reward your partner for something.

  • Never say it first, and don’t echo it back until you’ve spent some extended time together.

  All of the above suggestions have to do with timing. However, is timing more important than honesty and self-disclosure?

  As discussed above, when it comes to long-term love, it is time, not timing, that knocks the ball out of the park. Some wrong turns along the road, stemming from bad timing or political incorrectness, will not blot out an entire romantic picture. They might even enhance trust and honesty between lovers. Since profound love needs time to develop, it isn’t reasonable to say, “I love you profoundly” after being together for just a short time. Such a statement could show that you are not serious about what is, in fact, a serious matter. However, since love at first sight can occur, you can say “I love you” after a short time together if you are just expressing what you feel at that moment. You might add that you see great potential for the relationship to grow. We can see potential, but we cannot see its end.

  In profound love, actions speak louder than words. There can be many reasons for not saying “I love you” that are not necessarily related to the lack of love. When Tevye, in Fiddler on the Roof, asks Golde, his wife of twenty-five years, whether she loves him, she is surprised by the question and wonders whether he is upset or tired. “Go inside, go lie down! Maybe it’s indigestion,” she says. When Tevye insists on being answered, Golde says: “For twenty-five years, I’ve washed your clothes, cooked your meals, cleaned your house, given you children, milked the cow. After twenty-five years, why talk about love right now?” And when he insists upon receiving an answer, she finally says: “I suppose I love you.”

  Different Paces

  Never seek to tell thy love / Love that never told can be; / For the gentle wind does move / Silently, invisibly.

  WILLIAM BLAKE

  When one is sincere, confessing one’s love is usually not problematic. There could be a problem, though, in expecting a like-minded answer to the declaration. This difficulty derives from two major points—the different paces at which love develops, and the different personal tendencies in revealing one’s heart.

  It might matter, too, whether you happen to be a man or a woman. Men tend to confess love earlier than women do, and are happier than women are when receiving confessions of love from a partner. According to one survey, men take an average of 88 days to say “I love you” to a partner, compared to women’s 134 days. Moreover, 39 percent of men say “I love you” within the first month of dating, compared to just 23 percent of women.15

  Personality differences also cause people to fall in love at different paces. However, differences in pace do not indicate differences in romantic commitment—the one who falls in love more quickly might also be the one who will fall out of love more quickly. There are also differences in pace of expressing love: shy people tend to express love later than outspoken people do, even when their emotional intensity is similar. One shy woman told her lover, who had confessed his love to her: “Don’t weigh my words now; weigh my deeds.” She is right: in love, deeds are more real than words.

  Lovers, then, are often counseled to reveal their love only when the other feels the same and is ready to express it. Romantic etiquette does not dictate that when a lover has confessed his love, you are to do the same. It is, in fact, probably best not to respond by saying “I love you too,” but rather to say that although right now you do not know whether you love them, you do know that you like them a lot, that you want to get to know them better, and that you want to give the relationship a chance to develop further. Love at first sight is not required. Less preferably, one might postpone discussing the issue of love and simply enjoy the (presumed) bliss of ignorance.

  Love does not grow at the same pace for all of us. While it is true that profound romantic flourishing involves mutual loving attitudes, this does not mean that you should hide your love just because your beloved is not (yet) as in love with you as you are with her or him. We should be open about our attitudes and give our partners the time they need for their feelings to develop. This development might be gradual. It might reveal itself in “softer,” more indirect expressions of love, such as calling someone “My love,” or saying, “I send you my love” or “I love what I see in you,” until, finally, the direct declaration “I love you” might be heard.

  Moving slowly is different from being at a standstill, nor does it mean that one is less committed to the journey. Often, the opposite is true. We should respect diffe
rent personalities and not expect our partner to feel and express the same things that we do at the same time. Profound love is a long-term commitment, and so it is possible that sometime in the future, both lovers will feel profound love and be able to reveal it. Rushing to achieve an unripe romantic profundity is often harmful—patience and calmness are the name of the game.

  The same is true of other expressions of romantic robustness, such as “You are the love of my life” or “You are my greatest lover.” Such expressions create a ranking between past and present partners, making the declaration even more complex, as it involves not merely the two lovers, but also others from the past. If, for example, you tell your partner, “You are the love of my life,” you should not be insulted if she does not reciprocate by saying the same about you. Comparing loving relationships is often impossible and even distracting. One loving relationship might be very passionate, another more profound, and a third more companionate. Even if comparisons can be made, the fact that your beloved’s first love, many years ago, was and remains his or her greatest love does not diminish their love for you—the circumstances of the relationships are different, and you might have many good qualities that were absent in the former partner. In any case, your relationship is unique, and a comparison, even if it were possible, is of little value.

  Concluding Remarks