"Unrequited love"- thoughts on this term

[Heathcliff]

Tonight, I happened to think of a person I knew in the past, who I hadn't thought of in a while: a girl I met soon after I started at university, who I developed a huge crush on. Unfortunately, she saw me as a friend but nothing more than that- there was never anything more than friendship between us... but my feelings for her felt more intense than they had for any girl I'd known before. She's still a special person in my memory, though I am certain I am not a special person in hers.

It occurred to me tonight that, if I believed in the term "unrequited love", I would say that I loved her back then. Except... I don't like the term and I would prefer to use a word like "infatuation". I wondered if anyone else feels the way I do about "unrequited love"?

Wikipedia defines unrequited love as follows: "Unrequited love or one-sided love is love that is not openly reciprocated or understood as such by the beloved. The beloved may not be aware of the admirer's deep and strong romantic affection or consciously reject it."

The reason I don't like the term is that "Unrequited love" seems like a romantic term for something that can be much darker. It's one-sided, and the 'beloved' might actually reject it... do we really want to call this 'love'? Would you be happy to say that a stalker 'loves' their victim?

When I was a teenager, I sometimes snuck a look at my younger sister's teenage girls' magazines out of curiousity. I remember once seeing an advice column, with the advisor urging a girl to try and get over an obsession with a boy who wasn't interested in her. She was trying to say that what the girl felt was not love ('love' being something of a magic word to teenage girls, judging by those magazines). I remember what the advisor wrote: "Love is a two-way emotion, which grows."

I like that description. Taken literally, I think it's nonsense- an emotion is something a person feels in their body and brain; no emotion can be 'two-way' between two people. But we know what it means, right? What we give the powerful label 'love' to in society is probably best left to something that is reciprocated. However strongly I felt about that girl in college, it was not 'love' and I would not want to call it that.

Any thoughts on this subject?

[Aranea]

I think that "unrequited love", "infatuation", and "obsession" are all different things. For example, I would not say that what a stalker feels for their victim is unrequited love, but obsession - they're letting their desires overrule the other person's requests and are putting themselves at the forefront. Infatuation would be a little different, a teen girl burning brightly and fiercely for a popstar. It's all encompassing while it's there, but then it burns out and is gone. Unrequited love would be love or affection for someone who doesn't love you back, and there are ways to do that without being inherently harmful. You can love someone and want the best for them, while realizing you aren't the best for them.

I think unrequited love works as long as it's long-lasting and not malevolent in nature. As long as you acknowledge your crush doesn't love you back and are OK with that, that's unrequited love.

But I also think that there are many different types of love, romantic, sexual, familial, friendly - you love your best friend, right? And your parents? All equal and valid types of love. And then you fall romantically in love with all sorts of people who may or may not love you back. To me, there is no such thing as "true love" - one love that is stronger than all. You will fall in and out of love with myriad people and maybe you'll be lucky enough to deeply love someone who loves you deeply back, and then if you believe in marriage you get married.

[Timber and Coal]

I think the most important part of the definition you provided is that the 'form' of the beloved isn't defined. It could just as easily [and more fittingly] be talking about a pet animal [or an object].

I'm sure many people here would say that they loved, truly loved, their pets. They might display affection to us [mostly because we provide them with food..] but they certainly don't love us to the description of "love is a two way emotion which grows".

So I think in that sense, unrequited love is true. Otherwise, the descriptions provided above by Aranea best describe emotions one person might feel towards another person. Love isn't a linear emotion, it's a whole spectrum.

[March Hare]

Which also means that love has a dark side, just like everything else. The Bible calls it caritas, which in English is often translated to charity, but it means love. However, the kind of love that - I think it was Paul? - preaches is just part of everything that love can be. Love, in short, is everything anyone has ever said it is.

[Heathcliff]

I'm sure many people here would say that they loved, truly loved, their pets. They might display affection to us [mostly because we provide them with food..] but they certainly don't love us to the description of "love is a two way emotion which grows".

That's a good point- however, in my post I was specifically thinking of 'love' as romantic or sexual love, which the Greek philosophers called Eros (according to Wikipedia). The love that couples feel for one another. I think this is generally the context in which the term "unrequited love" is used.

I don't dispute the fact that a person can love a pet very much, but I think we would all agree that is a completely different type of love to boy-meets-girl love.

Which also means that love has a dark side, just like everything else. The Bible calls it caritas, which in English is often translated to charity, but it means love. However, the kind of love that - I think it was Paul? - preaches is just part of everything that love can be. Love, in short, is everything anyone has ever said it is.

Wow. I like this reply. I think I would agree with that- that "Love, in short, is everything anyone has ever said it is" and because of that, "love has a dark side". A guy who follows a woman around because he is obsessed with her- maybe he does 'love' her, but that love doesn't make his behaviour any more acceptable.

I suppose my original post is more about how we use the word 'love' in society. I think we do sometimes treat 'love' as a magic word- that if you're in a couple and you're in love, everything's going to work out. I know not everyone believes that storybook idea of love anyway; but maybe if we were a bit more accepting of the dark side of love, things would be better.

[tma]

I agree with points that Aranea and Maru have made in regards to love as a spectrum and a wide variety of "love". Sometimes I feel that the way that I love a person both equal and different than the way that I love another person. Sometimes sexual attraction mixes in with platonic and the other person even if they do have a *bit* of "blended" feelings toward the person don't have the same blend.

Stalkers can be people who don't even *know* the person that they are stalking (like people stalking celebrities). They are obsessed with who they *think* the person is. And then there are people who maybe know the person on a much deeper level and cannot bring themselves to "let go" for whatever reason. I'd say that some stalkers love (and they have turned their love to the dark side) and others lust/ obsess on something that isn't even the person that they claim to love.

This might be as clear as mud, but...

Very interesting topic.

[Timber and Coal]

I understood that you meant unrequited love within the realms of romantic or sexual love held towards another person, but the point I was trying to make is that I don't think it's possible within the parameters of the definition you provided.

When you apply unrequited love towards another human being, it crosses so many wires that it could be described by a multitude of defintions, like the ones provided above (obsession, desire etc)

Which is basically what I was trying to say; I think the term unrequited love just isn't meant to be applied to feelings between people. I'm in agreement with your post and you summarise it best with "however strongly I felt about that girl in College, it was not 'love' and I would not want to call it that". U.Love is just meant to be applied towards something that isn't capable of giving love in the first place (animals, objects). In my view.

[Aranea]

I agree with points that Aranea and Maru have made in regards to love as a spectrum and a wide variety of "love". Sometimes I feel that the way that I love a person both equal and different than the way that I love another person. Sometimes sexual attraction mixes in with platonic and the other person even if they do have a *bit* of "blended" feelings toward the person don't have the same blend.

Stalkers can be people who don't even *know* the person that they are stalking (like people stalking celebrities). They are obsessed with who they *think* the person is. And then there are people who maybe know the person on a much deeper level and cannot bring themselves to "let go" for whatever reason. I'd say that some stalkers love (and they have turned their love to the dark side) and others lust/ obsess on something that isn't even the person that they claim to love.

This might be as clear as mud, but...

Very interesting topic.

I agree with what you say here - a stalker or a fan doesn't really know the person they think they love, so that can't really be true love. They might think they do, but by the nature of the relationship, they don't, so we might not consider that love.

I understood that you meant unrequited love within the realms of romantic or sexual love held towards another person, but the point I was trying to make is that I don't think it's possible within the parameters of the definition you provided.

When you apply unrequited love towards another human being, it crosses so many wires that it could be described by a multitude of defintions, like the ones provided above (obsession, desire etc)

Which is basically what I was trying to say; I think the term unrequited love just isn't meant to be applied to feelings between people. I'm in agreement with your post and you summarise it best with "however strongly I felt about that girl in College, it was not 'love' and I would not want to call it that". U.Love is just meant to be applied towards something that isn't capable of giving love in the first place (animals, objects). In my view.

Yes, exactly. You can love lots of things - just because your love isn't returned equally doesn't make it any less valid. You can feel things just as strongly and not have them returned - a love for a child might be stronger than a love for a parent, even if that is a two way street. (Or, in more uncommon situations, a child might love a parent more if the parent is neglectful)

And you can certainly love your pet! Though I would say pets often love you back even more