Duty Love

What is love?

When the happiness of the other means more then you own. Moreso, when you cannot be happy if they are not. When you would lay down your life for the other, for the simple reason that if the other were to die, your own life would not then be worth living, so you die willingly so that your highest value might then live on.

The love being refered to here is the kind that is the strongest and truest meaning of the word, the type of love that a parent has for a child, or a person for their spouse, in some cases a friend for a friend.

Yet is this always what is meant when the word "love" is used?

No.

Love has had so many other meanings put on it. Sometimes we add another word to it, to qualify it's meaning. Thus we have Platonic Love, Fraternal Love, Romantic Love. All those can still be defined by the highest definition, the difference is only in the object of that most strong and powerful of emotions. A friend, a brother, a spouse.

We have another qualifying word, Agape, which is a religious concept, much disputed, that involves a love for everyone, with no judgement as to their value, a love not for who they are, or what they are worth, but rather a love granted out of duty, not to be earned, but to be given as an automatic.

We have further meanings of love, wherein without even putting a qualifying word on it, we speak of loving material objects or situations or services.

"I love the burgers at McDonalds!", "I loved that movie!", "I love that new hat!", "I loved that vacation we took last year in Orlando!"

In such cases, "love" is a word that is used only as the superlative of the word "like", and few would in actuality die for any of the stated objects of that kind of "love".

There is the definition of love that is little more then an upsurge of hormones, a horniness, a need of release. It is not romantic love, though it can be mistaken for it, rather it is simply a slang of the real word "lust".

There is a last kind, little mentioned, in fact hardly ever mentioned. In fact, I've never really heard of it being spoken of, though I've noted that it is sadly on of the most common kind of loves there is.

Duty Love. Expected Love. Automatic Love. "Of course" Love.

As in...."Of course I love my grandparents!"...when the person can't stand their grandparents, never talks with them if they can help it, avoids visiting, and were it not for a blood relation would never have met them, nor had anything to do with them, ever.

Our culture teaches us to say the word "love" for certain relationships, and no matter how innappropriate it is, no matter how far fetched, no matter how at odds with reality and common sense, we not only say the word, but even kid our own selves that we mean it.

There are plenty of people who really don't like their grandparents - or cousin, sibling, uncle, aunt, parents. They have nothing in common with them. They derive no happiness from them. They are not of the same social class, they have not the same religion or beliefs, no common interests.

Yet if asked, "Do you love your parents?" they will say, "Yes". Sometimes they are honest enough to qualify it a bit, usually in cases where it is glaringly apparent that the real emotion felt is contempt, boredom or even hate. Then you'll hear, "Yes, even though they exasperate me." Or, "Yes, but we don't talk much."

Why? Why say what is not felt?

Because we are thought to be bad if we don't feel love for certain classes of people. And no one likes to be thought of as bad. We are also taught that everyone feels that emotion for those people, and as a child, if you ever honestly say, "I don't love Uncle John", you are immediately told, "Oh, don't say that! You know you do, just because you don't always get along with a relative doesn't mean you don't love them!"

Thus are we raised to know that whatever we feel, if it's family, it's love.

This has devastating consequences, for not only is there the direct harm of wasting time on people that would better be spent watching a PBS fundraiser, or grouting the tile in the bathroom, but it also cheapens - and even poisons - the word love.

And then cheapens and poisons the very concept of it, in your own mind. When you are trained to fool yourself, when the whole culture strives for it as an ideal, one should not wonder at how it succeeds. Of course it will succeed. For who is to bold enough to say different?

A child knows he is feeling boredom or resentment or even malice toward a given relative. He is told he still loves this relative. Conversely, he sees in the actions of a relative all the appearances of that relative feeling malice towards the child - but is calmly and piously assured by that relative that, "I still love you". And all others will say, "Of course he does!".

From this the child could come to the conclusion that everyone in his life is either in a conspiracy to screw with him, or that they all were fooled in their own upbringing and don't know any better. No one comes to that conclusion. Rather, the word of everyone the child knows is taken at face value.

He feels emotion "X". He is told that is love. From that point on, X = LOVE. It is that simple.

And what is X? X is feeling contempt, malice, anger, boredom, all manner of negative emotions towards person A, whereas A itself equals "A person who society says must be loved, no matter what, or you are bad."

If only the negative emotions exist, but the object of those emotions is a stranger, or coworker, or boss, or service person, or salesman, etc. then you do not have X, and the negative emotions are simply given the real label.

But if those same negative emotions are felt to brother, sister, mom or dad, or any other relative, then since society insists, and the family teaches, that it is "love", you then feel that emotion, note it is towards an A category person, and call it "Love".

Ask yourself what that does to your soul? To your peace of mind? To your mental health and emotional stability? Ask if it has anything to do with how twitchy and sullen and resentful so many people are. It has a lot to do with that.

Bad enough to encounter such a bad person in the first place, and to have to feel negative emotions. But to have to call the hurt and negativity by "love", and smile when you say it, and fool others, having first having fooled yourself? Horrible, and very damaging, for it is hard to fool yourself, and impossible to do it without harming yourself.

Typically, you suspect yourself, but trained to know that only bad people don't love category A people, you condemn not the one who causes the pain, but rather you condemn yourself! And in an almost fully automatic process, you violate your own soul, beat down your own emotions, dim down your own mind, and say, "Yes, I love him, even though he is a schmuck."

Have I listed out all of category A? I made mention of all those extended relatives, but I did not mention a certain class of relative. The ones that are not of blood, but of marriage.

I refer not to in-laws, our culture, in a rare burst of sanity, does not require us to display this "pretend love", this "duty love", this "self-violative, reality destroying love" to bitchy mother in laws, or shiftless brother in laws, or alcoholic sister in laws.

But it does require you to feel it for your spouse. That is the one category A person in the equation that is related not by blood, but by marriage. Unless you are actually getting divorced, you must say you love your spouse, no matter what. And even in the event of a divorce, it is popular and all but socially mandated, to "be mature" and "know that a part of you will always love him/her anyway".

Is that mature? Does a part of you always love the ex?

No, it's not mature, it's expected. Yes, a part of you does, the part that is feeling the same fake love you have for your idiot cousin or overbearing mother. The same duty love we just discussed. That is all you really feel. For if you felt any kind of real love at all for the person you divorced, you'd scarcely have divorced them.

Need proof? Well, we started out defining love as being such a great and overriding concern for the other that you'd die for them. That their happiness meant more then yours, and that you'd not be happy if they weren't.

That's why you gave her all the property, and insisted to the judge that you pay twice the required amount in alimony? That's why you decided, "Why bother with a lawyer, when he already has one, I'll just go to his lawyer's office and sign whatever they like - just to make him happy!"

Uh huh.

When you get divorced, you have not real love for the person. You have this Duty Love, this Fake Love, this "I must feel this way because society thinks the less of me, and even I think the less of me, if I don't feel it at all costs!" type of "love".

What about before the divorce? Before there is even talk of a divorce? So long as no one speaks of leaving, is it then always true love holding the couple together?

Not a chance.

Sorry to be negative, so you know there is real and true love in marriages. We all know which couples have that kind of love, too. That old couple walking down the beach, still holding hands after 45 years. Who still find their greatest happiness in sharing a sunset with each other.

Just as we all know the types that can only feel Duty Love. There are, after all, obvious cases. The beaten woman in body - who is also beaten in soul - and assures you, "I love him, I just wish he wouldn't drink so much." Uh huh. Sadly, if she's beaten enough in her soul, she might well lay down her life for him, though that's rare, and might more be for fear of what he'd do if he survived after she did not assist!

But the "abused wife" is such the stereotype, and in truth, there are oh so many less obvious examples. There are "The Bickersons". You know who I mean. They always fuss and quarrel and bitch and piss and moan and squabble with each other. And they always stay together, sometimes with "the kids" as the motive, more often for some personal reasons they each feel, but don't want to admit, even to themselves.

He doesn't figure he can do any better, and neither does she. One, the other, or both figures, "Better the devil I know...". One may figure, "At least she keeps the house clean, even if she is a whiny shrew." and the other thinks, "Well, he's a good provider and doesn't hit me like my sister's husband. That he's lousy in bed and belittles everything I do...well, it could be worse."

Sometimes it's even just a case of material security. "I won't go back to living in an apartment, I worked my ass off taking care of him, and am not going to lose this lovely house." or in these modern times, "I can't pay the mortgage myself without her income."

Even social factors, "Our church doesn't allow divorce", "I like his social circle", "A politician can't afford a messy divorce", "What would all our friends think?"

For whatever reasons, there is no true love. The woman holds the man in utter contempt, the man is belittling to the woman, either or both emotionally abuses the other. They argue and quarrel. They have no common interests any more. They play petty little mind games one to the other, or both to each other.

There is nagging and malice, threats and bullying, hatreds and despairings. In varying combos, in varying degrees, but no real passion, no real joy, no real love.

And through it all, "No, I still love him, I just don't like him when he's cruel to me, and he never takes me any where or does what I want to do..." or "I love her, I just wish she'd clean the house and cook, I work all day and this is what I come home too..."

All for the concept so trained into us from childhood, this Duty Love that we call not even by that name, but say instead, "Love", as if the pain just described is semantically equivalent to the old couple strolling down the beach in 45 years of wedded bliss, or equal to the love of a man who'd gladly die that his wife might live but another day.

And...it's made easier to claim it, with a bit of natural human vanity and pride. A natural desire to not look foolish. A natural desire to not wish to admit, "I made a mistake in marrying this person, and I am so silly that I am still not going to correct that mistake even now."

Who amongst us is going to admit that to ourselves? Here's a hint: The only ones of us who ever admit that - are the ones who are then filing the divorce papers the next day. No one can admit something like that, and then live out their life in the full knowledge that they are living a lie.

Sadly, more people will lie to themselves. And assure themselves that they still must feel something for him, he wasn't always bad, there have been some good times, he tries, he this, he that...it never occurs to them to ask, "Gee, if he's so good, why are you even worrying about it?"

So the vanity of humans, plus early conditioning by a silly society, equals treading water in a painfully boring, and even actively harmful marriage, all with the sugar coated lie of, "He's not all bad, and I do love him, and I know that in spite of everything, he loves me." Know instead that one does not have to be all bad, to be bad enough. And that the "everything" that he loves you in spite of, are all the things that prove it is not real love felt!

Others are aided in feeling Duty Love by kidding themselves that they know he still loves them, so it would be wrong for them not to feel it back. Guess what? They guy who is always putting you down, cares not for your interests and dreams, doesn't appreciate you, or even understand you, is not going to lay down his life, that you might live! No, you need not pluck any daisy petals to know that he "Loves you not"!

This myth, this sham, this "Duty Love" that we teach our children, is responsible for so much pain. Wasted hours and years in visits with relatives that you care not for. Changing the course of your life for not wishing to upset your mother, or let down your father. Frittering away your savings and your own dreams to care for an alcoholic sister or junkie cousin, or gambling aunt, or stealing brother.

Staying in a loveless marriage, telling yourself that a house equals a home, that boredom equals security, that not being beaten equals love, that nagging equals concern, that quarrels equal care, that good with kids equals good enough for you...and any other lie that lets you avoid the effort of real and meaningful change to an uncertain - but undoubtedly better - path.

I might think that this horrid mistake started the same time as the concept of Agape Love came about. But I mention that only in passing, for it matters not where this "Duty/Pretend/Lying Love" concept came from.

It matters only that it is real, and that if you recognize that such a bad type as that exists, you can then evaluate your own relationships, and if you are honest, you can then start down the road that will allow you to effect positive changes in your life.

Dean West