Love’s closest counterfeit sounds like love but acts like selfish need

By David McElroy · October 15, 2018

Counterfeit love feels just like the real thing — at first.

As you start getting close to someone, you suddenly feel your heart swell in size. Your thoughts center on him or her. Everything the person does or says seems just right for you. You feel irrational exuberance and the feeling that you’ve finally found the love you’ve been waiting for.

Most of all, though, you bask in the golden glow of feeling that this wonderful person adores you.

And then something happens. His or her mask slips. You see things you hadn’t seen at first. The person’s words of love and devotion start to change. And the words you needed so much — ”Never forget that I want you!” — start to disappear. And then the memory of those promises feels hollow.

Maybe he didn’t really love you. Maybe she didn’t adore you and want a life with you. Maybe it was just counterfeit love — a selfish thing which crumbles into dust when it faces the light of reality.

It was my father who first taught me that love could be selfish. It took me many years to consciously realize it, but the lesson was very clear. He was fond of saying, “I love you,” but what he really meant was, “Please love me.”

My father didn’t offer real love. He didn’t know how to love. He was only a beggar holding out a shiny counterfeit in hopes of getting what he so desperately needed. (When I wrote about this two years ago, I knew that I’d learned the lesson from him, but I couldn’t say so, since he was still alive and reading my words here. Go back and read what I said there for context.)

Selfish love actually attracts us. A recent psychology study showed that a person becomes more romantically interested in another person, on average, if he or she discovered that the other person was attracted to him or her. So if another person falls for you — gives you attention and appreciates what you seem to be — you’re far more likely to return the affection than you otherwise would be.

When I first read this, it seemed counterintuitive. After all, don’t we often seem to want something we can’t have? Maybe. But after reading the study and then thinking about my own history, I realized there was truth to it. When I’ve known that a woman was interested in me, that made her more attractive and more desirable to me.

Why is this?

I think it’s simply that we are all desperate to feel wanted, needed and loved. If someone else will love us — will give us the attention and adoration we want — that person automatically becomes more attractive to us.

That doesn’t mean we’re going to fall for whoever falls for us, of course. We all have certain minimum standards a potential partner has to meet. We sometimes feel selfish admitting these standards, but we all have them. I want a woman who’s beautiful and smart and impressive, at least by my standards. I want someone who can be a partner in the true sense of the word. I want someone who will be the sort of mother I want for children. I have my mental list. You have yours.

But if someone meets those basic criteria, we quickly respond when that person offers what appears to be love.

It’s at this point that it’s obvious why the counterfeit is so dangerous. Counterfeit love engages in the heady stage of “falling in love.” Counterfeit love says all the right things, but it’s just a fantasy. There’s no willingness to follow through.

Counterfeit love just wants the attention and the affection. Counterfeit love is selfish. Counterfeit love isn’t about the other person. It’s about what the counterfeiter can get from the other person — until the other person grows tired of giving love without receiving follow-through.

I’ve been thinking about this a lot lately for an odd reason. I’m craving all the things which a love counterfeiter craves. I’m craving attention and affection from a woman who meets my standards. I’m craving for such a woman to adore me — to want me — for her to want me to love her in return.

This stage is the same for real love and counterfeit love. In fact, you never know which you have until you make it through this stage and get to the point when action is required. Then you find out whether the person is offering real love — or if the person (consciously or unconsciously) is just sucking attention from you, but has no intention or willingness to give you real love in return.

Almost everybody likes the way love feels like when it’s starting. Almost everybody is intoxicated by the thrill of being adored, by the excitement of being wanted and needed and understood. But love counterfeiters suck what they can from you and then quit when it’s time to give in return.

Only a much smaller percentage can honestly say, “I’m willing to sacrifice for you, because my love for you is real — and I’m willing to do the hard work of building a future with you.”

I can think of one time in my life — more than a decade ago — when I was the love counterfeiter. I didn’t mean to be. I didn’t mean to hurt her. But she adored me and was willing to give me anything. I got caught up in being adored instead of ending something quickly which couldn’t work. It was my worst relationship mistake.

I’m not sure it’s possible to know for sure whether a new relationship is real love or counterfeit love until that moment comes when it’s time to make a sacrifice or to put into practical effect all the things you’ve been fantasizing about together concerning a future.

But there comes a moment when it’s clear whether what you’ve experienced is real love or if it was just frivolous play — like a 16-year-old with a crush.

When that moment comes, you will either feel more loved than you’ve ever felt — to know someone was telling the truth when she said she wanted you — or you will feel more hurt and betrayed than you’ve ever felt — to find out the words meant nothing.

The heady feeling of falling in love is amazing. There are few things like it. But you can’t know that love is genuine until just past that point — and that’s when you find out whether you’ve experienced real love or just an ugly counterfeit which has no lasting meaning.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts