If it works for her, great!

But it sounds WAY PROBLEMATIC TO ME:

"To me, true love is that you would hurt yourself before you would hurt your partner, you would do anything to make them happy, even at your own expense, there’s nothing selfish about true love."

Do ANYTHING to make them happy?

It's possible that I'm just reacting too literally to a sweeping generalization that wasn't meant to be taken literally—like, I can think of a million and six ways in which "anything" could go in a terrible direction—but... ag.

Comments

[LG]

That quote totally fits with what I got from all her books, so at least she's consistent.

[Lili]

Ugh.

[Leila]

@LG: Yeah, I guess if anyone had assumed that Bella's mindset in Twilight could be easily removed from Meyer herself, this would refute that? Then again, Bella's choice to keep the baby -- even though Edward wanted her to abort -- suggests that Meyer's statement isn't as all-encompassing as it sounds. Or something. I remember feeling like that choice -- even though it was obviously detrimental to her health -- was the first moment in that series where I felt like Bella really said NO to Edward.

And, wow. I can't believe I'm yapping about the Twilight Saga all these years later.

Anyway, as my sister pointed out on the FB, it sounds like what Meyer is describing here is 'obsession', not 'love'. (Which is also consistent with the books, and which also points back to some of the books she cites as influential, notably Wuthering Heights.)

[Annie]

@Leila, I feel like Bella only said NO to Edward at that point because she loved the baby--still going along with that idea of "you would sacrifice yourself over your loved one. Of course, the loved one in this scenario is a blood-sucking freakishly fast-growing baby vamp. So. Yeah.

[Leila]

@Annie: Ag. Yes. You are, of course, totally right. Ag again.

[Hope]

I think I am going to read this more as a response to 50 Shades than well thought out advice on how to love. I am far more unsettled by the promotion of the idea that hurting someone or being hurt by them is okay if you love them.

While I, too, can see a million ways love can go wrong, I think most of them stem from a lack of reciprocity, not a problem with selfless love. In fact, the more I think of it, the more I can accept selfless love as an ideal love between two people (or more, actually). We don't often reach our ideals, but it's okay to have them.

[Leila]

@Hope: Interesting! My sister and I have been talking about this on the FB as well, and while that part of the conversation has gone in a slightly different direction, the idea of selfless love came up there, too: and I'm finding that the whole conversation is making me (personally, obvs) MORE uncomfortable with the idea of selfless love. There's a lot to think about here.

[tanita]

@ Hope: agreed. The first thing out of the gate is hurting yourself is okay? Wow.

[Chrissy]

I feel like I'm entering "beating a dead horse territory", but in this discussion, here more than on FB I think, there's this concept of "selfless love" that, and maybe I'm being purposely obtuse, that I just don't understand. In a relationship, it's not selfless, you get something out of it. Whether, it's companionship, affection, access to a DVD collection, you get something out of it, generally positive, or else why would you do it? It makes you feel good on some level, which is not selflessness. And denying that that exists is not being truthful with yourself or your audience when discussing the concept of love and what it means to you/everyone else.
Leila, you've infected me with verbosity. I just wanted a nap today.

[Hope]

Chrissy, I am an Old and I do not know this FB conversation you speak of. Please don't tell me how to find it as I am wasting too much time already. However, you sound like a Young Thing so I will condescendingly say, "It's all about the reciprocity! When you love someone enough to give up anything for them, and he/she loves you enough to give up anything for you, then it balances out nicely and you both get what you need and both of you sink into some gooey stupid love mess where you bill and coo at each other constantly and all your friends barf."

[Leila]

I'm sorry that you're feeling like this conversation has been a timewaster, Hope -- I've really been enjoying it. I'm not sure if I'm misreading your comment -- nuance is so easily lost in text format, ag -- but it does sound to me like you've made some large assumptions about Chrissy.

Anyway, maybe we're all just working with different personal definitions of 'selfless love'.

[Chrissy]

Hope, we are coming at the same point, from different directions. And yes, I've been greatly enjoying the conversation today about the nature of what love is. The give and take, what both parties get out of it, is not selfless, but it is also that balance, that BOTH (or more) get something out of it that makes the healthy relationship, instead of obsession, or one sided.
And while my husband, who I've been with for thirteen years, and I don't coo or make the same eyes at each other that we did many years ago, we both still get something out of the relationship. But we also give into it, which is what makes it lasting.
The only example I can really think of that *might* qualify as selfless would be with my son. I still get to watch a being grow, which is amazing, so in someways, I still get something out of it. But I don't think the author was really talking about the kind of love we have with our children.
I am anything but a Young Thing and you do yourself a disservice by suggesting good conversations, regardless of how they take place, are a waste of time.

[Hope]

Oh, I'm sorry, I was joking. I could talk about this sort of thing forever, so if you pointed me to the facebook page I'd just go read all the comments over there, too, instead of getting the laundry done, but really, who needs clean laundry?

Chrissy, I agree with you about the parity in the give and take. I don't even think it's wrong to say that you would hurt yourself before you hurt partner, but by that I am thinking about the people who have taken a bullet to save the people they love, or pushed them out of the way of speeding cars.

On the other hand, there's this way of representing love where being in love means you don't do anything fun anymore, you just stare into each other's eyes. I would say this an inaccurate picture of love if I hadn't seen it occasionally in real life.

[Leila]

@Hope: Oh, phew, I'm glad that all is well!