Is there a difference between 'love' and being 'in love'?

Question

If a guy/girl told you that they are 'falling for you' does that mean they are in love with you or just 'love' you or both?
Is there a difference? What does 'falling for you' entail? Does it matter if you've only known them for about a month?

Answer 1

Falling is a grammatical gerund. This means it's a process. And from my limited personal experience, this seems right. Love isn't a switch that you turn on and off. "Fallling for" is a way to tell someone that he/she is attracted to you, without the emotional risk of being turned down. It's an emotional way to save face if things go badly. If I tell you that I'm falling for you, things could go two ways- worse or better. If things go better, then I might end up "being in love" with you; if things go worse, I have the emotional fall-back of saying, "well, it was just a process. I fell a bit, but not so much."

And a month is plenty of time to be attracted. A day is enough, if it's gonna get started. OTOH, sometimes you know someone for years and still don't "love" them.

Take it as a compliment, don't discourage anything merely because you're not certain *right this moment* but be careful.

Be well ....

Answer 2

I think "falling in love" is a state of infatuation and a rush of "erros" (one type of love that the Greeks described as sexual attraction and excitement). Another word perhaps for lust that can also be driven by romance. This is very shortlived and fades away with time as reality sets in - that the one who once sent you soaring actually does have many annoying habits that you will soon discover, as the fantasy or mystery wears off. Part of the excitement is that you can't see those things as well during this time. It's mostly sexual adrenaline, and emotional euphoria. It can be a beginning to a long lasting relationship, but the test is when boredom and irritation inevitably set in, and how the partners respond to those things. All too often it's "Hasta luego, baby! I'm moving on". Those who chase after only this kind of love will always be dissatisfied in life, and in relationships, and will always live for themselves and their emotions. They will also be a source of pain to those who might trust them because
they more or less use people to fufill their own needs, then set them aside when they're 'done'.
Another type of love is called phileo-which is more of a friendship love that says "I'll meet your needs as long as you meet mine." This is sometimes also flakey because is is based on selfish motives. As long as someone does what they are suppposed to do, and it pleases you to be in their company, you will be there. it includes mutual interests, companionship, but often a shallow commitment. Like you're content, but still shopping for a better bargain. It can also be a beginning too, though, to something deeper. If a couple starts off with this, there isn't the emotional let down, like the other highly passionate love. Whcih can be good, too. But stagnation and possible restlessness happen much sooner.
Any serious long term relationship, like wine, needs to age and develope character in order to develope real self sacrificial love (agape) that isn't so much about feelings as it is about dedication and meeting the other persons needs above your own regardless how you feel at the moment. The closest thing I can describe it is the way a parent loves a child. No matter how much pain they may cause, a parent finds it very difficult to stop loving them (unless they aren't very healthly themselves). This is also the 'for life' stuff that marriage and family have to be built around. It is suppose to be safe because It involves totally exposing your inner self without fear of rejection or abandonment. That's why it hurts so much when deep meaningful relationships break up. You feel as if you were just publicly exposed and had your heart ripped out. This is what I call 'true love' -but it isn't so much a feeling as a choice and a reflection of the maturity, sense of honor and character of the person doing the loving! If you are a person who knows hows to genuinely and unselfishly love, perhaps it doesn't matter how long you've known someone. But it's always wise to let time and experience identify expose the nature of the ones doing the loving before jumping into anything.
Oh, and one last thought: It may be archaic and old fashioned, but jumping into sex confuses the emotions and clouds over good judgement. Waiting to test the relationship before moving onto the next level of intimacy may prevent alot of misery if you misjudged your feelings or the other's. Guard your sexuality and your heart. Don't give it to just anyone, it's one of your most precious assets!

Answer 3

Yes.

If they are falling for you that means they are falling in love with you. ("falling" kinda gives it away)

There is a difference. You love your parents/siblings/dog/cat/car/motorbike etc etc.

You also love your partner, but being in love will allow you to be more giving. The problem is though that being "in love" frequently turns to love only and the relationship becomes more mundane and ordinary, losing the spark it once had whilst falling, and being in love. It's important to attempt to keep the spark alive by remembering not to take your partner for granted. To always remember why you fell in love with them. It doesn't matter how long you've known them to fall in love. Be sure that it's not falling in lust.

It provides the highest and lowest of emotions. A true rollercoaster letting you know that you are alive. Remember what they say - "it's better to have known love and lost love than to have never known it at all".

The way it has been written about over hundreds of years for me clearly defines the two as interlinked but separate.

Answer 4

Loving something is just liking it a lot. Being "in love", you have a deep passion for it. And it doesn't always have to be with a member of the opposite sex. You can be in love with your children or your job or a certain subject in school.

Answer 5

One type of energy, energy-in-motion, e-motion, is sexual.

When it is in process ("arousal"), the focus of sense of soul moves from the genital region to the heart, activating a type of "love" or "wholeness," "fullness," "harmony," "joy," and the like.

A test as to "being in love:" if two people are able to sit at a table, look into one another's eyes, and feel love in their hearts, without feeling sexual energy promoting the love, that is a better indication that the two are compatible, "in love," rather than "in lust" or "making love." The latter two states are more based on simply endorphin (e.g., dopamine) empowerment, are more simply addictive, etc.

When the female desires to be cuddled, talked with, etc., this also is more related to endorphin-style "making love." The sitting across from one another and feeling love, while one also loves God completely, is either Self-sustaining, or it is fueled, at consciousness and subconscious levels, by desires/memories of being cuddled, sexual arousal, etc. If the former, and mutual, it is more "genuine love." A thought experiment: if one were to live with one's love all one's life, never having sex or cuddling, etc., would one's love "be there"? If not, one is not coming from the love chakra, but "making love" via sexual energization, etc. Such "making love" is not "erroneous," but if the love does not arrive to and remain Self-existent at the love (4th) chakra, one is in lust, and the endorphin-chemistry-arousal typically majorly wears off by the end of the second year.

You might do well to read "Soul Mates and Twin Flames," Elizabeth Clare Prophet, and "Sexual Force or the Winged Dragon," O. M. Aivanhov.

The basic male pattern is energy 60% initiative, impersonal, and 40% loving, personal; the basic female pattern is energy 60% loving, personal, and 40% initiatory, impoersonal.

Men prefer respect more than love, something women find rather difficult to "believe," because women prefer love to respect.

If someone were to inform me that they were "falling" for me, that would incline me to understand that they were no longer in control of their emotions, but were falling in lust for some aspect of my being which presently offered or seemed to offer a key to unlocking the flow of kundalini energy from the 2nd chakra to the 4th. There are certain contrary energy-patterns in the 3rd chakra which sometimes block this flow, and another may provide a key or bridge or seeming solution, like a knight on a white charger, when in fact the "falling for you" person is in need of therapy regarding e.g. power issues and complexes typically found in that astral-physical region.

"Kundalini West," Ann Ree Colton, and some of Aivanhov's talks, e.g. "Toward a Solar Civilization" and "Light Is a Living Spirit," discuss third chakra issues. So does Mark Prophet's "Climb the Highest Mountain." Martha Beck's "Expecting Adam" is also extremely worthwhile, as is David Wheaton's "University of Destruction."

If you have questions regarding pressure to be "in lust," would suggest either 1-800-232-6459 http://www.family.org free licensed counseling or the likewise free pastoral counseling at http://www.klove.com Both are mainstream Christian.

kind regards,

j.

Answer 6

to love someone doesnt take long. but to fall in love with someone takes quite a while and some getting to know each other and still love the other no matter what their imperfections may be. you can love your mom but you can be in love with your husband.

Answer 7

It depends if life really has its own background music.
haha I'm kidding but um..
Love shoudn't have a direct definition in the dictionary.
It's not simple.. but it can be explained in a simple way,
if you look at it only that way.

Answer 8

"Love" is a philosophical construct and "being 'in love'" is the state of being human that provides the ostensive definition of that construct.

Answer 9

whoaa. with love, you can't disect it into tiny little pieces

you just....love