Not all bears play with dolls...

"I knew my son was gay when he was like four years old...", said a woman on the radio the other day. This had me thinking, how could you possibly know that? Did he say he liked another boy? Or perhaps she caught him kissing another boy... Well, soon after she explained she 'knew' since he liked playing with dolls instead of trucks and other toys. After hearing this, I remembered coming out to one of my friends many years ago; getting over the initial shock, he looked at me and said "just don't let me see you wearing dresses and stuff, okay?". 

Both assumptions are based in the fact that gender stereotypes are fixed in people's minds and are considered so 'natural', that there is no way they could be any different. For instance, it is 

obvious' to most people that boys play with trucks, have rough games and get dirty; conversely, girls play with dolls, are delicate and cry when they get muddy. 

This seemingly harmless way of thinking has consequences that go a lot farther than just the playground, it goes on to making it seem unnatural and inconceivable that either sex can get interested in the other's socially accepted areas.

In that case, I believe that we, homosexuals, get a chance that heterosexuals don't: we question the values set for us and actually need to go on a journey to discover who we are and what we like. Since our basic emotions are already out of the ordinary, breaking some other rules isn't much trouble for us. In other words, we are pushed to break the barriers of gender. 

We allow ourselves to enjoy both sides of the coin, we can be rough and delicate, we can drink a shot of really strong tequila or sip a fruity drink. And yet, this is not and intrinsic quality of homosexuals. It is not like being gay automatically gives you that ability, it is just something we learn.

In the end, these are all social constructs that we acquire and adapt to as we grow up and develop in our environment. None of them can be considered 'unnatural' since they are all dependent on where we are.

So, while a boy who plays with dolls may be gay, it doesn't mean that it's a fact. It just means that he is a kid who is exploring his world and his own emotions and interests, beyond the limitations of a gender stereotype which he is not yet controlled by. 

To conclude this post, I would like to describe a project a group of students did a few years ago, when I was still teaching at University level:

The task was to break a 'gender rule' in any way they wanted, document it and present it to the rest of the class. The instructions were vague on purpose in order to not interfere with their own creative process. A group formed by three girls and two boys asked if they could do a play, to which I agreed. 

The first act showed a mother with her two children, a boy and a girl; they were having breakfast and the kids were fighting and being annoying. At one point, the mother got fed up with them and sent them to their room, 'but as punishment, you will go to the other one's bedroom and stay there until I say it's okay to come out!" she yelled. The children go reluctantly. The girl goes into the boy's room and starts crying, saying it's too dirty, too messy and dark; however, soon after she comes across an action figure, a G.I. Joe type toy, and starts playing with it. At the same time, the boy is in the girl's room complaining that it's all pink and fluffy, when he finds two Barbie dolls on the floor and start playing with it as well. When the mother sees this, she is scandalized by it and quickly puts the children in their respective rooms, without realizing that each had taken the toy they had been playing with. 

This act ends with them going to sleep holding on to their 'new' toy, happy that they had the chance to find it. But it doesn't end there. 

For the second act, the children dream that each is talking to the doll. The barbies are telling the boy he's a handsome little fellow and if he'd like to stay with them; the girl's G.I. Joe says he will protect her since she is so beautiful.

In the end, the children wake up as adults, the boy's Barbie dolls have turned into real life girls and the girl's action figure is a muscular handsome man. 

They were trying to show the incongruence of such stereotypes and how it all depends on how people interpret these actions. 

It made me think about when I was a boy and used to play with action figures... I loved taking their shirts off and looking at their muscular bodies! 

Hunting for friends - first woofs.

Tonight my partner and I decided to venture out into the gay life... Or at least what little of it there is here in Connecticut! We attended a get together at the Real Art Ways hoping to network, meet some people and, in short, have a good time.

It was a pretty good crowd - quite diverse. The thing is, though, most people seemed to know each other already... Which made it kind of hard to break into the group, and neither my partner nor I are especially good at making new friends in a group of strangers. 

Ultimately, he was able to start a conversation with a guy who happened to be talking about a gay men's chorus in Hartford, making use of the fact that I adore singing and have been looking for a chance to join such a group for a while. This proved a good way to meet at least one person in the crowd... Still, I couldn't help but wonder, how do people network and meet people in this kind of group?

The best I could find doing a quick search on Google was this little article:

http://www.inc.com/patricia-fletcher/awkward-to-awesome-five-networking-tips.html

Which is all good and useful advice... Except it misses the key element. I consider myself pretty good at keeping a conversation going, I think I am able to identify what a person might be interested in talking about and all that... However, what I do NOT know is how to start the conversation. How do you break into a group that is already engaged in conversation? That's when I found this other little article (which is, by the way, a lot more useful):

http://voices.yahoo.com/six-tips-making-conversation-strangers-249209.html

I was particularly interested in the 'picturing a friend' part. In a way, I think it helps to think of the potential of a person... I mean, I did it with people I dated; in fact, I always think "would I introduce this person to my friends/family ever?". Now, with friends it's less clear, but I guess it would help if I can picture myself sharing things with that person. It's not such a clear cut, though... But it's a start, I think!

2 weeks later

It has been two weeks since I moved to Connecticut; somehow, it feels as if it's been longer than that. I guess being a city wolf all my life, the change to a small town where sidewalks are definitely not a priority for the government is making an impression on me.

One of the things that I have noticed in the short time I've been here is how difficult it is to meet people. I mean, never mind the fact that gay-life is practically non-existent here, there are very few cafes and such places where one might casually meet with friends... Or, at least, I haven't found many. 

On the other hand, we seem to be living in an area that kind of makes me think of a combination between Desperate Housewives and a small town, non-pornographic Queer As Folk. In a dinner we had with the neighbours we found out there are actually many gay couples living in the area... It's just very unlike anything I'm used to.

In Mexico, I wasn't a party animal, going to clubs, meeting guys and dancing my young days away; in fact, most of my 'partying' consisted in getting together with a group of friends at their or my apartment to talk, eat, drink and just be silly. In a way, I see how it could be this way here rather easily... The thing is, I guess, breaking into the group. 

How does one infiltrate into a group without relying on classic meeting places like bars and clubs? Or more modern alternatives like Bear411, Growlr, Scruff and other pages of the sort? And, mostly, the problem I have with websites like those is that people aren't really looking to meet others for friendship. They may claim that they are but, seriously, the first thing you see in a profile is NOT their interests and description, but their picture - let's face it, how many people have we met on there because they were interesting without really considering their appearance?

I have yet to figure this out... It's tough being new in a place like this but I'm sure I'll meet people eventually! I can't wait to have dinner parties and just get-togethers with people in the apartment!

A Wolf In Connecticut

Hey bears, chasers and other furry creatures! ... ... ... Or just people in general...

This wolf is no longer in Mexico City! I have recently relocated to Waterbury, Connecticut with my fiancé! 

Culture shock is still in process, I have only been here for a couple of days so I haven't really had time for it... I expect it to come to me in the following week though.

It's amazing how different it is here. Evidently, seasons are NOT just made up by the media to sell pumpkin pie and turkey! Here, fall actually DOES look orange and yellow!

We were at a cute french crepes place yesterday and I ordered a 'mixed berries' crepe; however, the girl said that the only berry they had was strawberry and if that was okay... I accepted and actually enjoyed it, but was nevertheless puzzled by the lack of variety... It was later explained to me that people here depend on whether the fruit is in season... 

In Mexico, we have all the fruit all the time... Most seasons look all the same, with some days colder than others; but lately it's been so random that you get hot days in winter and rainy, chilly days in summer. 

We went to a progressive dinner with the neighbours as well, which was fun. 

Still, if there is anyone here in Connecticut who'd like to be in touch and maybe hang out, let me know! I'm really looking forward to making new friends here!

Kiss those calories away!

Yeah, maybe you can't. You know what they say, you want a man to gain weight, get him married. Or is it because some people just stop kissing after getting married? Hmmm... Anyway, I came across an article that seems to think otherwise...

Supposedly, kissing burns about 2 calories per minute... Yup, I know what you're thinking, best workout plan ever? They also say that it helps tone your facial muscles and boost the immune system... For the full article go to this website:

http://health.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1194640,curpg-1.cms

Still, whether all that is true or not, it still got me thinking about the deed itself. When you think about it... It's kind of weird... Saliva, tongues, lips... And yet... Romantic...

Once I heard a philosopher say that nowadays people think of their bodies as 'a way to transport their heads'; we are so disconnected from our bodies, that I believe we think of ourselves as that alien from Men In Black that was actually a tiny creature controlling a mechanical body using the head as his control room. 

I mean, think about it, how often do you think as your limbs as yourself and not just 'a part of yourself'? The perception of our 'self' is normally limited to our minds/heads, I think this is what can make kissing such a passionate thing. Joining the part of yourself you are most aware of, letting someone past your normal barriers and get as close to you as possible.

Does it relieve stress? Hell yeah! Never mind the release of dopamine, serotonin and whatever other chemicals that act in your brain, it makes you forget the world around you exists and helps melt your worries away! (...When done right).

So, does it burn calories? I don't really know... But perhaps it's worth trying? Hehehe... I know I have put on a bit of weight since my fiancé has been away... Hmmm... Perhaps that's why? 

The end

They met at the café that had been their usual the last couple of weeks... Granted, it was a very different situation. Same city, same chaos, same everything... 

Lobo had called a friend before leaving, knowing that telling someone what he was gonna do would help his resolve. "Expect a call from me in about an hour," he'd said, "I have to do this now, I'm going to that place  down the street to meet him and I'll probably need someone to comfort me afterwards."

When Lobo arrived, he saw him sitting at the café, with his laptop open in front of him and a cup of coffee on the table. Mocha, Lobo knew. Some things don't change. His heart jumped, very much against his brain's much wiser counsel. Stop. Just stop. It's getting old.

He approached the table and greeted him. No kiss, we're not there anymore. Not like we were anywhere really. But still, fondly. His smile still entranced him and made him wonder what it was in his brain... What substances God had put in his gray matter and whatever transmitters that overrode all rational thought. 

As they sat down, he told Lobo to excuse him for a few minutes, for he was in the middle of some work related stuff. "Sure, go ahead," he said. He let his gaze follow his companion's blue eyes sweeping across the screen; watched his fingers type away who-knew-what and tried with all his might to suppress the memories and the urge to keep walking - or rather running - down a road leading nowhere. He had told Lobo it had to end, they were playing with fire. And yet, here I am. Still close enough to the flame to feel the heat scalding my skin.

When he was done, they chatted for a while. As naturally as usual. The chemistry, the lingering passion still floating in the air. Nothing but an illusion. Stay focused. Fruitless thoughts of that sort kept racing through Lobo's mind; doing their best to drown the longing, the desperate need to let his feelings show, embrace the man across the table and make him understand- Understand what? Remember what you're here for.

"What are you doing now? I mean, after this" he said.

Probably going home to cry my eyes out or call one of my friends, and what's it to you anyway? 

"I'm going to go get my hair cut down by the mall." Lobo said, hesitatingly.

"Oh, good, I'm headed that way too", he replied with a smile, "I'll walk you there".

Lobo's heart sank for an instant. I miss you so much, I wish you understood that I want to be with you, regardless of what happens later. But only for an instant. No, this is good. I'll just say what I need to say before we say goodbye. It'll be easier. Faster. Cleaner. 

"But, do you mind if we stop by my place? I need to drop something off", his companion said as he was closing the laptop and finishing the mocha. 

"Sure, no problem" Lobo lied. Whatever makes you think I want to go back there? Still, there's no people there, so it'll be more private.

The place wasn't far, no more than a couple of blocks. Lobo had all but memorized the number of steps it took to get there. Every step, he felt heavier. His heart would send signals constantly. Here's where we met to go to that place, and there's where we almost decided to date again.

With every second, Lobo's decision faded a bit more. I wanted this so much. It felt so right. How can it be that it's over? He turned to see those blue eyes that now haunted his dreams. How can you be so indifferent about it?

As he stepped into the apartment he gathered his courage and decided to do it. This is good bye. 

"I need to tell you something" Lobo said. It took all his strength to keep his eyes from watering, his voice from quivering, his heart from going into kamikaze mode and abort the mission. 

His companion stared at him. Those eyes. Those damned eyes. Lobo's gaze turned downward and fixed on a spot on the floor. No, it has to be done. 

He looked up.

Their gaze locked. 

And then, Lobo felt his kiss.

Engagement

I've always been a hopeless romantic... And, yes, ever since I can remember I have dreamt about getting engaged and married. I remember fantasizing about a huge wedding with lots of guests, a spectacular event which would include me singing (of course), all my family, friends and basically everybody I have ever met; it'd take place in an incredible party hall or in a beautiful garden... etc. etc. The funny thing though, is that I never actually thought about who I'd be getting married to... Or what it meant... Or why'd I'd do it. In fact, I think this was the least of my worries. 

I spent many years wondering whether I'd propose to someone or if I'd wait for someone to propose to me... If a gay couple is supposed to follow the straight protocol of making it a surprise or if both talked about it and exchanged rings instead. This brought me to the conflict of "should I plan a big romantic event to propose? I'd love to do it! Yes, I will! But wait, I want to be proposed to as well! Grrr!!".

...And, again, I never thought of the person I'd be proposing to or why.

The answer, however, came to me last Saturday. And it was much simpler than I ever imagined. I had it backwards all along. And for a good reason too, I think.

So, my partner and I were at my cousin's wedding last Saturday. It was amazing and extra special since my family was so welcoming towards him. They interacted with us and were very happy for us being together. We drank, danced and did everything one normally does at a wedding (that goes well)...

When the evening came, my partner asked me to walk with him a little to get some air - my usual paranoid reaction being "why? is there something wrong?". Anyway, he led me away from the dance floor and all the people, to this little love seat set next to a pond. The day had finally cooled down and there was a general feeling of merriment in the air - perfect setting. We sat down and started talking about nothing in particular. And then, he did it. He took my ring from my finger (my 'commitment' ring to him), got on one knee and asked me if I would marry him. 

I looked at him and realized something unusual. There were no people around to applaud and gasp. There was no romantic violin music in the background. There was no surprise ring hidden in the cake or on the bottom of a glass of champagne. And it was then that I knew I had been waiting for the wrong thing. Being focused on all those details I had always ignored the fact that I'd been expecting things that happen on TV, or proposals that made other people happy, trying to make them my own. 

In my case, there was the man I love. That one person at whose side I have been meant to be. The one with whom I've been through so much this year, in an unlikely relationship, enduring distances that were literally across continents; my 'bullet-proof love' as my mother called it. The one I am willing to wait for and I have no problem making my one and only. He was on one knee, asking me to be his husband and take on the world together.

That's when I understood what an engagement was about. 

Of course, I said yes. (Yay! I'm getting married! ... ^_^ ... Ok, I'm back now). And then I said "of course I'll marry you... ... Ummm... There are no witnesses to the proposal!" - alcohol makes me overly direct perhaps. So, what did he do? A couple of hours later (maybe less), as I was talking with my cousins, he sneaked behind me, slipped the ring of my finger and proposed again in front of my family. If it hadn't already been perfect, that made it so.

Later I was thinking about the kind of wedding I'd like. And, for the first time in my life I thought "I don't need a big over-the-top, super expensive wedding. I need the man I love at my side. I want us to vow to be together, make it official, share it with the people I love (not with everyone I've met just for the sake of having lots of people at my wedding)."

Perhaps that's what love is really about, huh? When you realize that the things around you, the plans you make around the relationship are just pluses, decoration - and the real focus of your happiness is having that person in your life.

Waiting is an 'action' verb

As I wait for the time when I can see my partner again (a month or so... And then another month before I can move in with him) I have gone through many different stages... Mainly unpleasant, frustrating and conflictive ones.

I have always taken pride in the fact that I don't shy away from a challenge - in fact, I like complicated situations that push me to do more than I usually do - I am a hopeless workaholic and I always try to do the best that I can... But when it comes to 'waiting'... Ah, that's my weak spot.

I always thought that waiting was a passive state in which you were helpless, completely at the mercy of the universe without the possibility to actually do anything. I would feel frustrated and anxious, clenching my jaw constantly without realizing it, feeling all my muscles tense and my mind racing, obsessing with all the possible outcomes. No matter what I was doing and despite the fact that I work from dusk till dawn (and later), my hyperactive mind didn't seem to know how to stop.

Today I realized something. Waiting is not a passive thing. Waiting for something is fostering, or rather protecting the hope you harbor for something. Beyond what you do to achieve your goal, sometimes it's more important to keep that hope safe, like a little light inside you. Despair is a very powerful feeling when you let it in, and it will quickly tarnish your hope turning into premature grief. That is what makes waiting hard, the constant thought that your wish won't come true, that all your work will go to waste.

How about making sure it won't?

Even if, in the end, things don't turn out the way you wanted them to, it doesn't mean that you can just sit and watch your hope be swallowed by those dark feelings (frustration, fear, despair). There is something you can do while you wait. Something of utmost importance and that requires action. Keep that hope alive. It's not easy. It takes a lot of work. But it's worth it. And it can be done.

Behind a broken heart

In secondary school, I had this Physics teacher who had a very interesting way of explaining the concept of 'broken'. He would take a wrinkled piece of paper out of his briefcase, smooth it out, crumple it up again and say "there, I broke it". He explained that breaking something doesn't necessarily mean tearing it up in pieces, but rather changing it in a way that it cannot be brought back to its original shape.

This made the whole 'heartbreak' concept a lot easier to understand for me. While there are many causes for this (a breakup, a disappointment, the death of someone), the result is the same: you are left with a void-like feeling in your chest that makes you feel surrounded by darkness and despair.

After that, you will never be the same again... And that is not always a bad thing.

Instead of thinking of a heart as something rigid and fragile, like glass, I think it's more like dough. It constantly changes its shape and morphs depending on who touches it and how they do so. Still, if you give it to someone who modifies it into something you don't like or that hurts you, you cannot mold it back to the way it was before, no matter how hard you try... And why would you? Wouldn't it be more fun to find a new shape you might like even more?

When I see it this way, it makes it easier for me to open up to people and be less afraid of being hurt. Of course, there will be times when I will feel pain but now I know it will just be an opportunity to see a new shape of my heart.

Rings, proposals and roles.

The Claddagh ring is my lucky charm.
The other my 'commitment' ring.

"So, I've been wondering," my boss said to me as he inspected my ring, "how does... how does it work with you guys? I mean, normally the guy proposes to the girl, but in your case there is no girl". At that moment, I actually found myself puzzling over this question, not being exactly in that situation. After thinking about it for a bit I could only answer "I guess it depends on the case!". 

There is someone at work who is waiting for his boyfriend to propose to him since they have talked about marriage (they have a long distance relationship and this way he would get residency in that country); he was present at the time and my boss looked at him and said "well, in your case it is pretty obvious he is proposing to you!"

While it was a funny comment and we all agreed, he might have actually be onto something. There are some couples in which the traditional gender-based roles are very entrenched. Just to clarify, gender roles are social constructs of what is 'masculine' and 'feminine'; while these two words are normally associated with male and female sex accordingly, they are not synonyms or necessarily fixed. A masculine woman is not, by definition, a butch woman who looks like she drives a big truck (the same goes for feminine men) - the concept is much wider than that. A man who stays at home and takes care of the children, a woman who pursues an engineering-related career, a man with an artistic streak - those are examples of characteristics which are not related to their mannerisms or physical appearance.

That being said, some gay couples are comfortable following this model - in which case, the one who takes on the masculine role is very likely to do the 'proposing'. But what about couples where roles are more flexible?

Well, I don't actually know. While the fairy tale idea of the prince getting down on one knee and the Hollywood chick-flick cliché of the jaw-dropping surprise proposal are very appealing, there aren't that many resources that show how 'most people do it'. 

In the end, it all comes down to that, doesn't it? How we have been taught by the media that 'it should be done'... But that does not mean that each couple can come up with their own way, right? 

A Good Wolf

Nietzsche said that most people think that 'good and evil' fell from Heaven, as if it were something outside themselves; instead, it is people themselves who decide. And yet, so many of us have caught ourselves wondering whether something we want to do is 'all right'.

Many a time I've heard phrases such as "well, I'm not responsible for what others feel" and "I gotta live the moment". Most of them come from cheap self-help books that misinterpret Buddhist ideology. "I'll let the Universe do its work" doesn't mean that I can free myself from any responsibility and act recklessly.

However, I have found that there is a very simple way to know if something is 'good' or 'bad' (for lack of better words): if you are ashamed of what you are doing, if you hide your actions even from those who are closest to you, then you should think twice about it - not because of what they think, but rather for the reasons why you conceal it.

On the other hand, sometimes we don't even ask ourselves why we think something is wrong. Very often we keep habits from childhood and beliefs that weren't ever ours.

Some time ago I saw a video on TED.com where a lexicographer talks about what she calls 'The ham-butt problem" and it's something like this: she was cooking a ham and cut the ham-butt off as she always did, but this time she stopped and wondered why she did it - it was, of course, something that her mother had always done. So, she called her mother and asked her, and the response was "well, my mother always did it". They called grandma and she said "my pan was too small!".

How many beliefs, habits and who knows what else do we keep going just because it has never occurred to us that it could be any differently? I won't wear pink because it's for girls. I won't date more than one person because it's wrong. I won't talk about my sexuality because it's shameful. I won't eat that because it's bad for me - and this last one is wonderful because most of us have absolutely no idea if it's true, we just follow what commercials tell us (the same commercials that say that we must shampoo every day and use lots of toothpaste).

In the end, I think gay people have been pushed to question these ideas to a point (even more so while coming out), but most of us stop when we get to a comfortable point. Why? Isn't this like living in a house that somebody else built and decorated for us? I mean, it took me years to realize that I love purple and that I want to decorate my bedroom with that color! We can't really destroy the 'house' or the core of who we are, but the decoration - the beliefs, habits, ideologies - we have, we can question, arrange, rearrange and change until we feel satisfied with them. So, don't take for granted that you 'know what you like and don't like' until you've put yourself to the task of questioning it!

Healthy Love

That's what everybody wants, right? That's why Psychologists like me have work, actually... And why people buy those cheap, tacky magazines with the 20 question test that can tell you if you have a 'codependent' relationship. Also, it is rather in fashion to watch all those shows that give you tips on how to have a 'healthy' relationship... Most of which, I think, should have informercials instead of regular commercials... Very often, those shows only present utopic, ideal relationships which only Buddha would have.

It's funny how there seems to be a generalized concept of what is the ideal relationship; the one that can make you happy and, if you read this book or that, you'll find the recipe for it. Well, what if you don't really want something like that?

The concept of 'health' itself has changed in the last few years; before, it was considered 'the absence of illness or disease' whereas now it is 'the physical, mental and emotional well-being of a person'. And, no, it is not the same thing.

A relationship can be free of jealousy, deceit, arguments and problems, and still be awful... On the other hand, the presence of these factors doesn't necessarily indicate that the relationship is faulty or destructive.

When you start a new relationship, have your friends ever made comments like "you shouldn't see each other so much", " you shouldn't show you care so much", "you shouldn't be so jealous", etc. etc. It's like everyone has advice on how to have the perfect relationship - and yet, how many of those actually have it?  In fact, most of those comments only reflect what most of them are afraid of or are doing themselves, and have very little to do with you or your relationship.

In the end, I believe 'healthy love' is that which leads you to create something new in your life. To grow and make the union of the two something bigger than what they are on their own. If you're jealous, distant, cold, affectionate, intellectual, monogamous, polyamorous, etc. What does it matter as long as it makes you happy?

Promises, promises...

I was watching Mike and Molly the other day and there was this scene that really caught my attention. In short she says that she doesn't want to tell Mike that she wants to be with him 'forever' because she doesn't want to make promises she may not be able to keep... And then he says:

"There's nothing wrong with making promises you want to keep"

Many a time I have found myself in this situation. Preventing myself from making promises about a future I am not completely certain of... And yet, I seem to fail to notice the irony in that statement - there is no way I can be certain of anything in the future!

Still, does not keeping a promise like 'I will be with you forever' undermine its value? I'd say no.

Looking back to all the promises I've made (or been made), they made me happy at the time and were very real.

Even with the ups and downs, with some stories whose endings could've been much better, I think that I would still go through it all again. 'Forever' is only the moment when you feel it - expecting anything else from it is very unreal.

In the end, promises are words that express what one desires... Of course, I am talking about these platonic promises that can in no way be kept and, rather, are symbolic representations of what one's feelings are. Promises like 'I'll see you tomorrow at 5' are more about committing and a whole other story.

Telling someone you want to be with them till the end is proof of love. Don't be afraid to do it. If it doesn't work out, it just didn't and there will be reasons for it; however, you will still have lived that eternal love even if for a moment.

Gay love through the generations...

One of those things that I've rarely thought about even though most of my relationships have been with people at least 10 years older than me: How has the idea of 'love' changed through time? How does it affect what people look for and how they pursue it?

I was talking with a good friend about this and he had some very interesting ideas...

Starting with the way gay people have had to behave depending on the culture of the era. Not that many years ago, gay life was still pretty covert; people had to sneak around, hide, live in fear of being discovered and hardly being able to actually share anything with another person. So, perhaps, the focus was not so much on having a relationship (that was way too much work and, sometimes, just not possible), but rather on sex. While straight people where being taught that they had to meet someone they could spend the rest of their lives with, have babies and take to family parties, gay people had to lead double lives or look for someone they could find some relief with. We, as homosexuals, are not taught to look for the intimacy and permanence of an actual relationship. In some cheuvanistic cultures (like some places in Mexico), it is even okay to have a male lover as long as 'nobody knows about it and you get married to a woman'.

A bit later on, people who were born after Stonewall, pride and this whole diversity revolution... Well, we have it a bit easier. We are the ones who go out and hold hands with our lovers while walking down the street, face bullies and come out to our parents and try to teach them that "it's okay". We're like the 'transition generation'. We are able to, with some important effort still, have a relationship which is moderately acceptable in society and, more importantly, in our own social circles.

But, what happens when these two generations try to establish a relationship? When these two ideologies have to, somehow, coexist and adapt to each other?

Let's see. The one, while also yearning for companion, someone to share their lives with, has had to make it through the 'dark side of the street', so to speak. While we have had the chance to step into the other side...

Now, I don't want to generalize. There are always exceptions and there is no way I can speak for everybody. But this all just made me wonder if the concept of a 'romantic relationship' hasn't changed dramatically? Or enough to pose a problem for these combinations? Is my generation a bit more open to intimacy because we have been allowed to do it more openly? And have we stopped looking at sex as a union with somebody else because it is so easy to get? Or perhaps it's the other way around and we aren't really looking for that intimacy and just mistake it for sex. Maybe, people in the previous generation can separate love and sex more easily since the former was more rare and difficult to achieve? 

One thing I know for sure. Those of us who are relationship-oriented (and even those who say they aren't), are looking for someone to share our lives with; someone to love and be loved by. I'm a bit too romantic for my own good and I do believe that love can get you through anything. All those differences age, race, distance and other factors bring can be overcome as long as both people can communicate and are willing to compromise.

Faithful

"You're faithful because you want to be, not because the other person is going to, necessarily. I mean, in the end, if your partner cheats on you and you don't, it's pretty much on yourself and has nothing to do with him - you chose to act in a certain way because you wanted to". Or so my therapist said.

This is a very interesting approach to monogamy. I've heard, and perhaps I myself have considered, that one is faithful because 'you wouldn't want your partner to do that to you', right? But this brings you to a most difficult issue: does this mean that you would cheat in case your partner did it too?

Recently I read that 'commitment' is the state in which the person goes from a passive to an active role in a relationship, thus promoting the development and stability of it. Therefore, it means that people who are committed to a relationship need to take action to make it last and stay strong. It's not just about letting things happen, it's taking things into your hands and doing whatever you can to build a strong foundation for the relationship to survive whatever comes its way.

I believe, also, that being 'faithful' means different things to everyone, and a key factor for a relationship to work out is for both parties to agree in such concepts.  When both parts are playing the game with the same 'rules', it is harder for it to present any issues which could later hinder the relationship and bring about dreadful misunderstandings

In other words, if you think that cheating on your partner is reduced exclusively to the main standard of monogamy, you need to let them know so! What if they're not so much into sex but rather the emotional quality of the relationship? Or viceversa? Sometimes we think it is 'obvious', but it really is not.

Sex is really easy to get, so much that its value has gone down quite drastically. But what about love? What about intimacy and affection? It's true that you can just sleep with the first guy you meet on the street... And yet, I believe that when you are aware of what you want, it does not matter how hot or charming the new person might be, the love you have for your partner goes way beyond that.

Suspicious minds

Often condemned, rarely appreciated and mostly troublesome, this emotion seems to give lots of people a terrible headache. But, is it 'bad'? Is it 'normal'? Can we control it and does it mean anything if your partner is not jealous of you?

To my mind, it is nearly impossible to trust your partner one hundred percent; I mean, to the point that you are absolutely certain that there is no way that this person would ever stray from the path that has been set. We are all humans and we all make mistakes, so what makes it impossible for your partner not to do so?

In a way, I think that some degree of jealousy is healthy for a relationship. It shows that you are not taken for granted, that your absence would be more than just 'noted'... Then, again, I said 'some degree' of jealousy - when someone is checking your e-mails, texts and can't stand to let you out of their sight, well, that just becomes creepy.

Recently I read an article on this, defining jealousy as the feeling of the threat of real or potential rivals to an existing relationship. Not that any of us are alien to this feeling, but there was something else that caught my eye. These researchers were proposing the idea of two kinds of jealousy: 'reactive jealousy' and 'suspicious jealousy'.

Reactive jealousy happens when there is something external that makes you feel threatened; for example, when your partner has cheated on you. This type of jealousy is characterized by anger, sadness and fear. Whereas suspicious jealousy is more related to insecurity and self-esteem, and is more characterized by anxiety, insecurity and doubt.

While this makes a LOT of sense, it seems odd how different they actually are and what discrepant reactions they provoke. I mean, when someone cheats on you, it is only normal that you'd be pretty pissed off, right? Or sad because the person disappointed you... However, I don't think this is the most common form of jealousy...

Somehow, I think that mostly people (like me) suffer from suspicious jealousy. The idea of what 'might' happen but not because of what the other person could or not do, but rather because our mind creates an infinite number of stories that, while possible, aren't necessarily probable.

So, when you tell somebody you're jealous and that person asks what they can do to help you feel more confident... It's not always something that they can do. Because they can tell you they love you, give you proof they do, even get a tattoo of your face on their butt and it would STILL not help you feel less jealous! Why? Because, if it's suspicious jealousy, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with them!

The only thing that happens in these cases is that the jealous person feels anxious and insecure, which brings stress into the relationship, and their partner feel like nothing they ever do is enough, even when they try to comply with any demands that the jealous partner might make!

In the end, I think that reactive jealousy is normal and can even be beneficial for a relationship, giving the person the feeling that they are important enough to take care of... As long as it's not psycho. And if there's good communication between the couple then there's no reason why it should be a problem at all. On the other hand, suspicious jealousy is something that the person has to work with on their own; sure, their partner can help by understanding how it is not about their behavior per se, but rather some issues which are more personal and less related to the relationship itself. This means that the jealous partner should understand that, while their partner can be supportive, their behavior will not necessarily make them feel better or worse.

This could be a relief, in fact, for some people. Knowing that your partner is jealous because of their own insecurities releases you from the "responsibility" of provoking such an emotion and gives you the opportunity to be there for them in a whole other way.

The fearless lover - the fearless gambler.

That's what I was called... 'A fearless lover'. True, when I commit to someone, I give it my all. Isn't that the way? Evidently, it is not always so. Now, I'm not saying either is 'better' or 'worse', it is just a matter of how you choose to play the game.

Love is always a risk, it is exactly like any other gamble: you can only lose as much as you bet, no more and no less. For some, it is smart to count their chips and carefully place them one by one; this way, you always know how much you may lose and can withdraw at any moment. Still, the problem is that no one plays this game on their own; there's always at least one more person with their money on the table (so to speak).

However, everybody bets as much as they wish to win - for some of us it is not whether we might 'lose' but knowing if the other is playing to win as well.

So far I have learnt that it is better to bet all, otherwise why play at all? If you're going into a relationship half-heartedly then you will most likely fail... And the process will not be half as enjoyable!

The fear of being heartbroken... Yeah, it's overwhelming sometimes. But, isn't heartbreak unavoidable anyway?  Also, time heals a broken heart... But, the longer you wait, the less likely you'll be able to love fearlessly... The longer you stay in the safe zone, the harder it'll be to step out of it.

So, give it all! Love all the time! A heart that has been broken has known love and that is worth the pain... When you're in love with security and the safety of being within your defenses, there is very little room for anything else.

Absent - not gone.

If you close your eyes, does the world around you disappear? Well, it does if you're like two years old; at around this age, children start learning that even if something is not in their sight, it still exists - sounds silly, right?

Ideally, we would all go through that phase of development efficiently and all relationships would go smoothly, regardless of whether the person is next to us or in a different room. However, things are not so simple. 

Have you ever felt a pang of angst when your lover is not with you? Like at the end of the day when they go back to their place? Or, in the case you live together, if they go away for a couple of days? 

It is basically the same mechanism. People need to develop this basic trust in every relationship to know that the presence or absence of the person does NOT mean they won't return (or stay).

I was talking to a friend about this, not very long ago, and she made me realize how stuck I was in this area (along with the fact that I'm way too dramatic, but I blame my culture and roots for that). Still, I have learnt that the love you feel for someone, be it a friend, a relative or a lover, remains whether the person is there or not. I mean, there is no reason why it wouldn't!

This can bring about many problems in relationships... People who can't survive unless they see their significant other every day... With the extreme example, of course, of stalkers... Which is where it gets creepy.

Now, there is something called "transitional object", which children use to feel more 'secure' when starting to set some distance between themselves and their object of affection. This can work similarly in adult relationships... A plush toy, a ring or a necklace, a picture... There are many things people can use to feel close to their loved one regardless of where they actually are. These help in the beginning, hopefully, as the relationship grows stronger, people need these objects no longer and can deal with the absence of their partner on their own, knowing full well that they will return.

How long should you wait?

It's funny how often it happens that a book comes into my life bearing a message that applies to my life so accurately, it's scary. 

A couple of days ago, I started reading 'Giovanni's Room' by James Baldwin. I must confess that, so far, I find it to be a very depressing story - at least potentially. However, there's a beautiful romantic side to it that I can't help but adore; it's always nice, inspiring even, to read about two people falling in love and how nothing else matters to them... For a while at least.

There is a part, though, that had me reflecting for quite a while.

Giovanni: "Tell me, what is this about time? Why is it better to be late than early? People are always saying we must wait, we must wait. What are they waiting for?"

David: "Well, I guess people wait in order to make sure of what they feel."

Giovanni: "And when you have waited - has it made you sure?"

Giovanni's Room - James Baldwin

It had me thinking about how this illusion is so deeply embedded in most of our cultures - the idea that one should not be impulsive, but rather wait as long as possible to ensure that the desired outcome will turn out as expected... But, isn't this silly? I think that, when you want to do something and get that feeling deep in your gut, that itch to start moving, time will hardly make it any 'easier' to go through with it.

Perhaps the main issue is that most people believe that, by obtaining more information before taking action, it is easier to make the right choice... And I do not disagree on this point.

Except when it is about human relationships and matters of the heart. I heard somewhere that 'the brightest light will always cast the darkest shadows'; wouldn't this mean that a feeling that can change your life as much as love does, will also come with ghosts and other mischievous feelings attached? Obviously the possibility of getting all you have ever wanted cannot be separated from the fear of losing it as well...

So, how long should one wait? I think that, when two people meet, it takes only a few minutes to know where the relationship can go. Let's say, on a date, it takes very little time to know if the person in front of you can, potentially, stir your soul. 

When you feel you love someone, how long do you wait to say it? How do you 'make sure' you really love someone? It's funny to me how people can throw words around like 'hate', 'stupid', 'idiot', etc. as if they were nothing, but find it extremely difficult to say the 'L' word...

Waiting, in my opinion, is overrated. Perhaps we should be more focused on living?

Commitment : What makes a long distance relationship work.

Why would you want to stay with one person when there are so many other choices? Why stay with someone despite all the trouble it causes and the effort it takes to make a relationship work?

I found a very interesting article that addresses these questions (and many others that most of us have) with a very simple concept: commitment.

The main statement of the article drew my attention instantly: "A study has suggested that Long Distance Relationships (LDR) are more stable than Geographically Close Relationships (GCR)."

Wouldn't it be the other way around? I mean, surely being close to someone makes the relationship grow stronger and makes it easier to stay together; and I'd think it quite obvious that those who spend lots of time separated tend to slowly grow apart. However, this study attests that the factors that we assume could break such a relationship aren't really intensified by the physical closeness or lack of it.

Commitment, they say, is influenced by three factors: a) satisfaction or happiness with the relationship; b) perceived alternatives (such as other attractive partners); and c) investments that would be lost if the relationship ended.

According to this research, there's not much difference between satisfaction in LDR's and GCR's, which is the main predictor of whether these relationships will last or not.

Now, the second predictor, alternatives or other possible partners, is one that drives someone like me completely crazy. I mean, why would two people choose to be in a relationship in which they can't see each other if they have plenty of other choices right around the corner, right? Well, according to this study, this isn't that much of an issue either. Evidently, people who go for LDR are normally those who have a hight work intensity and idealization; they tend to segment their life into work and relationships. This means that people in LDR's normally focus a lot of their time apart on their work. Oddly enough, high alternatives do predict lower commitment when talking about GCR's.

This actually makes sense. People who are actually happy with the relationship they have will hardly put some time aside to look for other alternatives. Also, focusing on their work keeps them occupied and allows for more experiences the couple can share when together; isn't it awful when you spend all day, every day with someone and, come nighttime, you have nothing to say to each other?

The third predictor, investments that would be lost, is a little colder but also easier to understand. People in LDR's invest money in communication and commuting (at least), all which would be lost if they broke up. Also, when both people are striving towards being together after whatever period of time, this is seen as an investment for the future... Which makes the relationship grow even stronger. Something that, by the way, is not as easy in GCR's, since most investments are limited to shared possessions (which they can just fight over in the end).

So far, the article seems to be quite cheery about LDR's and even appears to suggest they aren't that hard. However, there is one point yet to be discussed:

"Attachment and caregiving cognition, motivation, and behavior are aspects of evolutionary-based behavioral systems that produce strong emotion (Bowlby, 1988). In important romantic relationships, partners have attachment and caregiving bonds with each other. Theoretically (Bowlby, 1969), LDR separations activate the attachment system and lead to separation protest, even when separation is a choice. The protest is attachment behavior, action designed to gain or maintain a comfortable range of proximity to the partner. Protest is evident in LDR interviewee comments (e.g., "I grieve every Monday"; Magnuson & Norem, 1999, p. 131) and reports of loneliness, sadness, missing the partner, and dreading  separation (Guldner, 1996)."

Ouch, right? So, how does one deactivate this natural reflex? This 'separation protest'? Well, here's where it gets interesting.

In GCR's, the satisfaction of each other's attachment and caregiving needs depends exclusively on their ability to do so; conversely, in LDR's this means little, since neither can do much while being apart. No matter how 'functional' their relationship may be, the apart-together cycles  they go through naturally inflict stress in the relationship.The article here relies on a theory of separation anxiety which I am not going to describe in much detail here; I will only say that most people deal with separation either by being anxious to be with the other person (and thus needing the closeness) or by avoiding contact so as to minimize the effects of said separation.

Happily, the authors of the article has some suggestions for both:

For the first kind of people, research indicates, there are many ways to reduce this anxiety as long as they can perceive the partner as available. This can be done by having pictures of the partner or frequent e-mails or phone calls.

The second group has it a little easier, since avoidant attachment makes distance work as a motivating factor for commitment. Still, this isn't always a good thing. Since this kind of partner doesn't feel as much anxiety from the separation right away, they might feel their commitment is weakening... But with time they realize it is not so.

The one thing that is definitely compromised in LDR's is caregiving. The couple may feel disappointed that they can't be there for the other person and thus 'fail' in being a safe 'haven' for them. Still, this is normally compensated through finding ways to actively demonstrate their love for the other person and substituting physical caregiving with verbal communication. Actually, this also makes for the development of better communication with each other.

In the end, the research goes on to show that what most people believe makes LDR's break up (anxiety, avoidance, fear of losing the other person, etc.) is significant only when ignoring the three factors which influence commitment. In other words, commitment in GCR's and LDR's is quite similar, except the former rely more on satisfaction and the latter on the investments made in the relationship; this since LDR partners are more likely to rule out any other alternatives before beginning said relationship. 

Once I read that "some men seem larger at a distance"; I found it funny that, in this research, people in GCR's are more likely to compare their partner's flaws with other possible alternatives, while people in LDR's tend to be in their best behaviour and appearence in the little time they see each other and, thus, increasing the satisfaction factor. Still, this also means that they see each other in situations of high anxiety and stress due to separation, which keep them from idealizing each other.

The injured lover's hell, the green eyed monster...

"Born in love but propelled by rage, jealousy is a complex relational experience. It is a

visceral fear of loss, a set of paradoxical feelings and thoughts, an action and a reaction. Milton referred to it as the ‘‘injured lover’s hell,’’ Shakespeare, as the ‘‘green eyed monster’’ that destroys love and annihilates the beloved person. The 19th century Brazilian writer Machado de Assis described it as a ‘‘doubt,’’ a twilight between fantasy and reality, that drives a person into madness"

So, while going through some articles online I came across this one, and I found the definition breathtaking... Not only is it so poetic it makes it sound beautiful in an odd way, but I believe it defines that feeling so accurately I could never match it.

At one point, before I started this new relationship I'm in, I thought I had overcome that feeling and was rid of it for good - I couldn't have been more wrong... And yet, who's to say that some jealousy isn't healthy? Looking back I have come to realize I have only stopped feeling jealous altogether when I am not afraid I will lose the person I love - this can either mean that I don't really care or that I'm being arrogant.

At one point I was in a relationship with someone who I was pretty sure wouldn't leave me, no matter what I did. My indifference towards his absence was proportional to the intensity of the happiness that relationship brought me - in simpler words, I didn't care much if he left because he wasn't bringing much into my life anyway. 

Now, how do people normally react when they're jealous? Well, the article I'm quoting goes on:

The experience of jealousy tends

to arise without warning at a particular moment when one partner behaves in a way

that stirs up a fear of betrayal in the other. To manage the anxieties engendered, the

jealous partner may become sullen, inquisitive, or aggressive.

Ok, so I'm interested in the partner "stirring up" a fear of betrayal... This, of course, does not mean that they actually betrayed anyone, they just disturbed a sleeping monster that was already there! Like the author says "Some of the vulnerabilities that typically underlie jealousy are: a need to be recognized as the most special person in the life of the partner, fears of abandonment and betrayal, and feelings of inadequacy in which the person feels unattractive or unworthy". Are you relating to any of this yet?

The experience of the jealous person resembles a trance-like state characterized by

intrusive fantasies and fears, compulsiveness, and irrational associations.

I love that, a "trance-like" state. Have you ever found yourself going on a jealous rant while inside your head you're like "but this is stupid, I'm being silly"... And yet, there's no way to stop it once it gets going...

The French

philosopher Roland Barthes speaks of the contradictions involved: ‘‘As a jealous man,

I suffer four times over: because I am jealous, because I blame myself for being so,

because I fear that my jealousy will wound the other, because I allow myself to be

subject to a banality: I suffer from being excluded, from being aggressive, from being

crazy, and from being common’’

And one ends up having an internal battle on top of the one going on with their partner, stuck in an ambivalence that seems to eat him up.

The article goes on, explaining how this can be treated... But it doesn't mean that everyone's going to pull an Othelo on their partner just because they have wandering eyes!

I prefer to put a more positive spin on this. When jealousy is controlled (not violent or obsessive), it can show the person they are loved and cherished - I'm sure we all like to feel like someone appreciates us enough to not want to lose us. Of course, if this turns into incessant questioning, passive-aggressive behavior and meaningless fights, it stops being good for the relationship.

So, yeah, jealousy is irrational, it can turn love into rage in seconds and is more related to what one has going on in his own head than what is really happening. But most of us can't make it go away entirely, the best we can hope for is to learn to manage it, identify its absurdity and work through it with our partner... Because, in the end, it is just love expressed in a not-so-functional way and it needs only be set back on track.

SCHEINKMAN, M. (2010). Disarming Jealousy in Couples Relationships: A Multidimensional Approach SCHEINKMAN & WERNECK. Family Process, 49(4), 486-502.

Letting go versus bear-hugging someone to death

Lately I've understood this saying, perhaps truly for the first time. If you love someone, let them go... Well, you know the rest.

I've been reflecting on the idea of 'holding on to someone'... When I try to picture it, it's like that person is trying to run away and you're stopping them, grabbing on to them for dear life, because it feels like letting go would mean not seeing them again. But, how much satisfaction can one possibly get from achieving 'love' like that? Forcing someone to stay despite what they may want? Also, when you hold someone too tight, you mostly end up suffocating them.

I am the kind of person who (and perhaps this is a cultural thing, but I'll get to that on some other post), when I start dating someone, I spend as much time as I can with that person. And only in the past few years did I learn that when someone says 'I need some space' it doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to be with me or they want to go hunting for someone else...

I have especially grasped the concept that, when you love someone, if you let them go they won't necessarily run away; I mean, why would they? Someone who loves you is with you because they want to be with you, not because you're holding on to them.

In short, now I think that if you love someone, you should let them go (even if just as an experiment)... They will probably stay in the same place they were, close to you, showing you that they have more than one reason to be there... And if they do run away, you're better off - there's no point in trying to force someone to stay since, eventually, they will find a way to escape anyway.

Muegano - Bearing the distance.

So, this is a typical Mexican candy (muégano). It's little flour squares dipped in caramel and stuck together. It is also what a typical Mexican family looks like; so much, in fact, that we would call them a "Muégano family". This means that it is a family whose members are ALWAYS together and do EVERYTHING together... Of course, this also applies to friends... And couples.

Trying to read more books related to my real profession (Psychology) I happened to come across Bowlby's theory of  "Optimum Distance" - and while this may not have been a new concept for me, I saw it in a new way.

So, this theory explains that a child will always venture to walk some distance away from his or her mother up to a point. Children experiment to see how far they can go without feeling separation anxiety and, when reaching that limit, they go back to their mother to get their sense of security back (kind of like recharging it) before giving it another go. "Optimum Distance" refers to how far a child can go from their mother without feeling said anxiety. This happens as long as the child can be sure that the mother will always return (or will be easily found) after being apart from a certain amount of time. This allows the child to develop a basic security that, despite not being there, the mother will not disappear and will return when needed.

While I do not really believe in determinism in terms of how one cannot escape the consequences of our childhood, I think this can be applied quite easily to how we relate to a romantic interest...

Some couples develop a specific dependence on each other because they are afraid that distance will mean that the other person will disappear... Or at least whatever feelings they have might.

This may sound insane but it really isn't. It depends on how much they can trust that the other person will be there when they come back. Someone who is always threatening with "if you do that again, I will leave you", or disappears without warning at random intervals, fosters an insecurity in the other person that they might go away at any time. The frequency of the meetings is not what is important, but rather the security that they will meet again and all the things they share will be there when they do.

I have found that, in Mexico, it is very common for this 'Optimum Distance' to be very short... And, considering how most people grow in a household where all members of the family seem to be stuck together by some apparently sweet but incarcerating caramel layer, it really isn't much of a wonder.

As much as you love someone, you cannot (and should not) be together 24/7, we all need our space and, without such, there wouldn't be much to share with your partner either. It's all about being able to trust that the other person will be there and learning to negotiate that Optimum Distance at which both can feel free to continue with their lives without feeling like the other person is so far that they cannot see them anymore.

It is awesome when you get to a point in a relationship when either can ask for some space without feeling guilty or anxious... It gives the couple a sense of freedom and independence which, far from creating a gap between them, strengthens their bond since their relationship does not depend only on being together, but on something beyond that. Being able to have their separate lives and share them to create something new.

The gap between 'Te amo' and I love you.

For a while I have been thinking about how language plays such an important role in the way people interact. Even among those who speak the same language, some concepts might be understood so differently that it could cause misunderstandings and chaos - so, of course, when two cultures clash it can get a bit complicated.

Specifically, I am interested in how Spanish and English speakers express their affection for each other, the words we use and what they mean.

Here's a scenario I consider rather typical: Two people meet, they talk for a while and one says to the other "I like you". They date for a while, feelings start to get stronger and they feel comfortable saying... What? 'I love you'?

In Spanish we have two different ways of saying 'I love you': "Te quiero" and "Te amo". And this is a BIG difference and kind of a relief since there is something between 'like' and 'love'. For us, 'Te amo', which many might consider closer to 'I love you', means a deep love for someone; something serious and strong. However, "Te quiero" is more like saying 'I want you'... It is still affection but on a different level.

The way I see it is like this, you say "me gustas" when you want to get to know someone; "te quiero" when you feel you want to be closer to that person, you 'want' them by your side, to be yours... I think love transcends that, it is a desire to see the other person happy, to share experiences and be more than what two people are when they're on their own. I don't think 'love' can hurt... Even when two people are apart, love can remain. I think it hurts when you 'want' the other person by your side, when you want them to be yours... Also, if someone said "Te amo" to me after only a few dates, I'd totally run away... LOL

Somehow, I think this can be a problem when two people with different native languages start a relationship. Especially if neither is aware of this cultural difference. Saying 'Te amo' in Spanish, at least for me, requires a lot of time of knowing the other person... And yet, I think I have come to understand 'I love you', in English, more as a 'Te quiero'... I think that, as a native speaker of Spanish, there is no way to express those feelings of love in any other way than saying: Te amo.