If love is a choice, then should attraction play any part in marriage?

[WildCatholic]

I keep hearing that “Love is a Choice”, so does that mean in marriage that attraction, particularly physical attraction shouldn’t play a role in marriage? For example there was this girl that really liked me. I didn’t find her attractive at all for a number of reasons, but I could see why some people would think we made a good match. So should I have just made the “choice” to love her and go out with her even though i wasn’t remotely attracted to her (she not only was not Catholic, she wasn’t really religious at all, was part of some women’s freemason group, had bad social skills, and also just wasn’t physically attractive which I know is mean, but she was nice, just not what i’m into.)

So if love is a choice, can you choose to love someone you aren’t attracted to?

 

[EasterJoy]

Would you choose to have someone choose you not because they value you, but because they are being patronizing and don’t think that someone will better appreciate you than they do?

Do her a favor, and let her free to find someone who will have enough eyesight to prize her.

 

[WildCatholic]

Would you choose to have someone choose you not because they value you, but because they are being patronizing and don’t think that someone will better appreciate you than they do?

Do her a favor, and let her free to find someone who will have enough eyesight to prize her.

Already done, sorry i didn’t clarify but this was a few years ago and I never really even considered her. Apparently she really liked me a lot though, so I gave it a thought. But I knew it would be wrong.

 

[THP]

I keep hearing that “Love is a Choice”, so does that mean in marriage that attraction, particularly physical attraction shouldn’t play a role in marriage? For example there was this girl that really liked me. I didn’t find her attractive at all for a number of reasons, but I could see why some people would think we made a good match. So should I have just made the “choice” to love her and go out with her even though i wasn’t remotely attracted to her (she not only was not Catholic, she wasn’t really religious at all, was part of some women’s freemason group, had bad social skills, and also just wasn’t physically attractive which I know is mean, but she was nice, just not what i’m into.)

So if love is a choice, can you choose to love someone you aren’t attracted to?

You are conflating issues here. When choose a spouse its not just about love and attraction. You can choose to love somebody but that doesn’t mean you should make her your spouse.

 

[miguel]

I keep hearing that “Love is a Choice”, so does that mean in marriage that attraction, particularly physical attraction shouldn’t play a role in marriage? For example there was this girl that really liked me. I didn’t find her attractive at all for a number of reasons, but I could see why some people would think we made a good match. So should I have just made the “choice” to love her and go out with her even though i wasn’t remotely attracted to her (she not only was not Catholic, she wasn’t really religious at all, was part of some women’s freemason group, had bad social skills, and also just wasn’t physically attractive which I know is mean, but she was nice, just not what i’m into.)

So if love is a choice, can you choose to love someone you aren’t attracted to?

People age and lose their physical attractiveness over time. So yes, there are other qualities that we can learn to be attracted to as beauty fades. If you’re not attracted to her physically at all and she’s just not for you, that’s OK. Beauty is a blessing. There is nothing wrong with looking for that quality along with other qualities. I wouldn’t touch a beautiful NAZI with a ten foot pole either.

 

[TK421]

When St Raphael the Archangel came to Tobiah and told him of Anne, one of the things he mentioned to Tobiah was her physical beauty. It’s not wrong to marry somebody you find attractive, but if that’s your overarching quality, don’t be surprised if you end up unblessed in the long term. Holiness should trump everything.

 

[Xantippe]

Also, liking somebody makes them more attractive. Conversely, disliking someone makes them less attractive.

I think that stuff about “love is a choice” is meant for people who are already married. It’s the antidote to “I love you but I’m not in love with you anymore” and “I’ve fallen out of love.” It’s meant to be a kick in the pants to husbands and wives who don’t find their spouses exciting anymore.

 

[JimG]

Also, liking somebody makes them more attractive. Conversely, disliking someone makes them less attractive.

I think that stuff about “love is a choice” is meant for people who are already married. It’s the antidote to “I love you but I’m not in love with you anymore” and “I’ve fallen out of love.” It’s meant to be a kick in the pants to husbands and wives who don’t find their spouses exciting anymore.

I think the saying is that “Love is a Decision.” First you are attracted to someone enough that you find yourself wanting to be with her, being “in love,” which is an emotional state. Then you make a decision that your love will last a lifetime and ask her to marry you. You make a public affirmation of lifelong love at a wedding ceremony, and ratify the decision to love her every day of your life. And–deciding to love also results in continued feelings of love.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Physical attraction should not be the most important factor. Physical attraction wanes. If your primary reason for marrying someone is physical attraction, then what happens to your marriage as you age and your spouse loses their physical attractiveness? How does your marriage survive that?

Despite that, physical attraction is still very important. I don’t want to speak for everyone, but I think that many people will agree with the following. When I have sex with my wife, then during it and immediately afterwards my mood improves. I feel closer, more intimate with her. That intimacy has helped me get through some of the more difficult aspects of our (still young) marriage. How do you have sex with someone to whom you are not physically attracted? It is certainly possible, though not nearly as easy. So if you marry someone that you are not physically attracted to, you will probably have less sex and less intimacy. It is good for a married couple to share any sex and intimacy they can.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I keep hearing that “Love is a Choice”, so does that mean in marriage that attraction, particularly physical attraction shouldn’t play a role in marriage? For example there was this girl that really liked me. I didn’t find her attractive at all for a number of reasons, but I could see why some people would think we made a good match. So should I have just made the “choice” to love her and go out with her even though i wasn’t remotely attracted to her (she not only was not Catholic, she wasn’t really religious at all, was part of some women’s freemason group, had bad social skills, and also just wasn’t physically attractive which I know is mean, but she was nice, just not what i’m into.)

So if love is a choice, can you choose to love someone you aren’t attracted to?

When I mention that “love is a choice” on here, I am talking about already married couples past the honeymoon phase.

I am all for giving chances, but I do not suggest going out with someone you are not really interested in or attracted to for a long period of time.

 

[whm]

I thought my wife was attractive when we started out because I loved her (still do). She is objectively attractive, but to me she was it, perfect despite any imperfections. For me there is not a separation between her personality and her body, infact the personality overpowers everything else(not that it needs overriding). Wow this is a tricky subject, going to get myself in trouble

 

[EasterJoy]

Already done, sorry i didn’t clarify but this was a few years ago and I never really even considered her. Apparently she really liked me a lot though, so I gave it a thought. But I knew it would be wrong.

You were right. Even had you failed to be attracted to her because you were shallow, you still did the right thing. Now, you might have decided to weigh a deep appreciation that you experienced more on an intellectual level even though there was not the emotional “wow” you had thought you’d feel for a spouse, but in the end you ought to feel that she is offering you every bit as much as you are offering her. You may not feel breathless, but you ought to feel truly lucky. (This is going to work better for people who are more cerebral in their appreciations on a day-to-day basis than for people who naturally find their contentment in their emotional responses to life.)

Does that help?

 

[KendraDZ1902]

Beauty fades, but I think you should be attracted to the person. I mean, you can’t really enjoy the martial embrace with someone you find hideous, I would think. My husband is very handsome, I thought so the first moment I saw him. It might have been the reason why I gave him my number, but it most definitely wasn’t the reason we married.

 

[Giggly_Giraffe]

Papa Benedict xvi wrote :

This is due first and foremost to the fact that man is a being made up of body and soul. Man is truly himself when his body and soul are intimately united; the challenge of eros can be said to be truly overcome when this unification is achieved. Should he aspire to be pure spirit and to reject the flesh as pertaining to his animal nature alone, then spirit and body would both lose their dignity. On the other hand, should he deny the spirit and consider matter, the body, as the only reality, he would likewise lose his greatness. The epicure Gassendi used to offer Descartes the humorous greeting: “O Soul!” And Descartes would reply: “O Flesh!”.[3] Yet it is neither the spirit alone nor the body alone that loves: it is man, the person, a unified creature composed of body and soul, who loves. Only when both dimensions are truly united, does man attain his full stature. Only thus is love —eros—able to mature and attain its authentic grandeur.

Nowadays Christianity of the past is often criticized as having been opposed to the body; and it is quite true that tendencies of this sort have always existed. Yet the contemporary way of exalting the body is deceptive. Eros, reduced to pure “sex”, has become a commodity, a mere “thing” to be bought and sold, or rather, man himself becomes a commodity. This is hardly man’s great “yes” to the body. On the contrary, he now considers his body and his sexuality as the purely material part of himself, to be used and exploited at will. Nor does he see it as an arena for the exercise of his freedom, but as a mere object that he attempts, as he pleases, to make both enjoyable and harmless. Here we are actually dealing with a debasement of the human body: no longer is it integrated into our overall existential freedom; no longer is it a vital expression of our whole being, but it is more or less relegated to the purely biological sphere. The apparent exaltation of the body can quickly turn into a hatred of bodiliness. Christian faith, on the other hand, has always considered man a unity in duality, a reality in which spirit and matter compenetrate, and in which each is brought to a new nobility. True, eros tends to rise “in ecstasy” towards the Divine, to lead us beyond ourselves; yet for this very reason it calls for a path of ascent, renunciation, purification and healing.
… …

In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love —eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other. The element of agape thus enters into this love, for otherwise eros is impoverished and even loses its own nature. On the other hand, man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift. Certainly, as the Lord tells us, one can become a source from which rivers of living water flow (cf. Jn 7:37-38). Yet to become such a source, one must constantly drink anew from the original source, which is Jesus Christ, from whose pierced heart flows the love of God (cf. Jn 19:34).
.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html#_ftn13

 

[JimG]

When I mention that “love is a choice” on here, I am talking about already married couples past the honeymoon phase.

I am all for giving chances, but I do not suggest going out with someone you are not really interested in or attracted to for a long period of time.

It’s certainly wise to not go out with someone you are not interested in or attracted to.

As to “love is a choice” applying to those past the honeymoon phase, well, okay. But that choice had better have been made when they pronounced the wedding vows, because it’s a choice that was promised then.

 

[WildCatholic]

You were right. Even had you failed to be attracted to her because you were shallow, you still did the right thing. Now, you might have decided to weigh a deep appreciation that you experienced more on an intellectual level even though there was not the emotional “wow” you had thought you’d feel for a spouse, but in the end you ought to feel that she is offering you every bit as much as you are offering her. You may not feel breathless, but you ought to feel truly lucky. (This is going to work better for people who are more cerebral in their appreciations on a day-to-day basis than for people who naturally find their contentment in their emotional responses to life.)

Does that help?

It does help. Part of the reason I thought this back then was that I was an unconfident college student who worried I wasn’t good enough to get married and that I was some ugly person with a weird personality. So when Iheard this girl liked me, even though she repulsed me, I would sometimes think, “well maybe if I can’t do any better, i could date her even if I’d have to fake it” and I thought that eventually i’d learn to love her even if I wasn’t attractive to her. Of course being that I just couldn’t stomach going out with her (sadly it was more her social skills than anything, granted she didn’t have much else going for her other than she was smart). I guess sometimes I still feel this way today, especially being at best an average looking man, that maybe I should date someone i’m not attracted to, especially physically because it might be good for the woman. However I know not to do this and feel a lot more confident about myself. So there’s where i’m coming from…

 

[bsf]

Giggly Giraffe, thank you for the excerpt from the encyclical letter. That was interesting.

WildCatholic, this is a regular topic of internal dialogue for me.

At a personal level, I am confused about physical attraction and the role it is supposed to play in my life. Or, maybe more accurately, I am concerned that physical attraction I experience is not serving the purpose God intended. I wonder to what extent I have allowed physical attraction to become disordered by previous choices and an acceptance of secular society’s standards for physical beauty. I struggle sometimes to see past the body and appreciate the spirit. That does not even sound “right”. I wonder if “seeing past” is not what God desires, but rather an appreciation of each person’s unique body as a part of His creation. Quite honestly, when I encounter a woman or even an image of a woman I find physically attractive, a part of me views that attraction with suspicion.

Does any of this resonate with you WildCatholic?

 

[Xantippe]

If one is only attracted to girls and women 16-25 who could walk into a modeling agency and name their price, that would seem to be a recipe for unhappiness, for a variety of different reasons.

If only perfect 10s are attractive and only 1 woman in 1000 is a perfect 10, and every guy is holding out for a perfect 10, then 999 out of a 1000 guys are going to be lonely. And that’s if beauty is the only criterion–it gets even worse if you consider personality, character, shared interests, common vision for the future, etc. (Fortunately, in real life, standards of beauty seem to be somewhat more flexible.)

 

[miguel]

If one is only attracted to girls and women 16-25 who could walk into a modeling agency and name their price, that would seem to be a recipe for unhappiness, for a variety of different reasons.

If only perfect 10s are attractive and only 1 woman in 1000 is a perfect 10, and every guy is holding out for a perfect 10, then 999 out of a 1000 guys are going to be lonely. And that’s if beauty is the only criterion–it gets even worse if you consider personality, character, shared interests, common vision for the future, etc. (Fortunately, in real life, standards of beauty seem to be somewhat more flexible.)

And we know 999 out of 1000 men and 999 out of 1000 women aren’t lonely…so standards are definitely being slipped for other qualities…also, you must not live where I live if you think the frequency of “perfect 10s” is only 1 in 1000…give me a break!

 

[Irishmom2]

I think the saying is that “Love is a Decision.” First you are attracted to someone enough that you find yourself wanting to be with her, being “in love,” which is an emotional state. Then you make a decision that your love will last a lifetime and ask her to marry you. You make a public affirmation of lifelong love at a wedding ceremony, and ratify the decision to love her every day of your life. And–deciding to love also results in continued feelings of love.

Perfectly stated.