Why does most love hurt us? Because one usually loves more

By David McElroy · June 24, 2020

Something about today’s date felt oddly familiar to me this evening. It seemed as though it used to be important. Who did I associate it with?

And then it hit me. It was her birthday.

It’s really hard to explain my relationship with her. I’ve written about it before, so I’m not going to rehash it. But her birthday has me thinking about that again. And about other relationships. And about love itself.

Why are my memories of love so mixed? I’ve experienced some of my greatest joys in love, but my deepest agonies and hurts have also come from love and its aftermath. I need love, but the fear of being hurt again is so awful that it’s devastating.

The woman whose birthday is today is happily married and we haven’t spoken for a very long time. She eventually realized that I would never love her. She wasn’t willing to be my second choice. And she was wise enough to walk away instead of remaining my “back-up plan.”

Why is it that one person usually loves more than the other? And why do those relationships hurt the worst?

After a different woman gave up on me — after I backed out of marrying her — she married someone else. She quickly started dating another man and married him less than a year later. It was a very bitter period for both of us.

A couple of years later, we ended up having extensive conversations — long emails and intense phone calls — for many months. I asked her forgiveness for some of the ways in which I had handled some things between us. She expressed deep and painful regret about her subsequent decisions.

She once asked me to watch a German film called “Nowhere in Africa.” She had just watched it and the movie had made a profound impression on her, mostly for one point about love.

“One person always loves more,” a man in the film said. “That’s what makes it so difficult. And the one who loves more is vulnerable.”

When I had backed out of marrying her, she felt that she had loved me far more than I loved her. So she was badly hurt that I backed out. She was the vulnerable one.

When I later decided I had made a mistake — that I should have married her and that I still wanted her at the time — she had moved on and married someone else. She was afraid of me hurting her again, she said. I loved more at that point, so I was the vulnerable one.

She came to see love in a way that I see as very cynical. She saw love as nothing but the actions you do for someone, completely disconnected from the emotions of the heart. We were both hurt and she ended up believing it was better not to feel love beyond the conscious decision to care about someone.

I believe she locked her heart in a box — to keep it safe — because it was the only way to deal with something which had hurt her terribly. (She might very well disagree with my interpretation. I clearly don’t speak for her, but I’m making a point that goes beyond her.)

It’s true that one person frequently does love more. I’ve been on both sides of this. The only thing I can say with any certainty is that as long as one person loves more, there’s only pain and alienation. In many cases, that eventually turns to numbness. Even to hatred.

The only love that survives is the one in which two people love equally. Those are rare, but they exist. I still hope to experience that miracle once again. Very soon.

The safe way to deal with this fear is to hide your heart away in a box. To turn love into a series of obligations and promises and duties. Not to allow yourself to feel anything. But the great English writer C.S. Lewis made the case against this in his book, “The Four Loves.”

“There is no safe investment,” Lewis wrote. “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything, and your heart will certainly be wrung and possibly be broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact, you must give your heart to no one, not even to an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements; lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket — safe, dark, motionless, airless — it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. The alternative to tragedy, or at least to the risk of tragedy, is damnation. The only place outside Heaven where you can be perfectly safe from all the dangers and perturbations of love is Hell.”

To live without love is a special kind of hell on Earth. To live with deep love for someone else — and not to be loved in return — is a very different kind of hell. Both are deeply painful.

So on this birthday of that long-ago girlfriend who was never going to get the right kind of love from me, I’m grateful that she moved on and found the man who wanted her as much as she wanted him.

And as I experience the painful memories of past loves and past hurts — for which I have nothing to show at the moment — I hope to remain constantly aware of the warning we get from Lewis.

I don’t want to put my heart in a box. I want to allow my heart to love — however it needs to — even when the feeling of not being loved in return makes life an emotionally hellish and depressing experience.

“To love at all is to be vulnerable.”

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