This time, I’d like to hear from anyone that wants to sound off on the subject.
I see the phrase “Love has no boundaries” frequently. Frankly, I do have a reaction to that (which if you read this much, you’d probably guess). But I want anyone who wants to tell me to let me know what they think of the expression and why.
Entries (RSS)
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:30 am
I think the expression really refers to numerical boundaries. There certainly are other sorts of boundaries. For example, I very recently enforced the boundary of “you can’t treat me like shit when I haven’t even done anything wrong”.
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:21 am
The only meaning of that phrase that makes sense to me is that people will fall in love (or at least be attracted) across social boundaries that others wish they wouldn’t cross.
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Kineticflow put it very succintly. At least, I sure hope that’s what people mean by it!!!!
February 22nd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Unfortunately I think there are people who intend “Love has no boundaries” to mean that if it’s “twwue wuve” then boundaries can be bent or broken as necessary.
You can probably tell from my word choice that I disagree.
The meanings that I hope most people mean are those already noted –
a) People fall in love across social / religious boundaries that others would prefer they not, such as falling in love with members of the same sex or people of another race, ethnicity or faith.
b) People fall in love with more than one person, even in mostly-monogamous cultures.
February 22nd, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I was about to say that I vehemently disagreed with it, because healthy boundaries are very important in relationships.
But I guess that’s not really LOVE. Love itself doesn’t have boundaries. But healthy relationships do.
I know I’m overanalyzing it, but I still do think that “Love has no boundaries” is far too dodgy a slogan for me to want to wear. (:
February 22nd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
I think the statement reflects a naive and context-free view of love. It isn’t even wrong; just meaningless (but with a whole lot of potential to be interpreted in ways that squick me).
Sure, maybe in the abstract love does not have boundaries. Maybe the boundaries necessary to maintain a healthy relationship are not, in and of themselves, a facet of love (though that seems to be rely on the inherent slipperiness of the word; you can define whatever you like as “really” love or “not really love”). If your love for someone or something is entirely abstract, I question the relevence of how you’re using the term…
In the real world (where love takes place…), it seems like such a distinction is harder to maintain. Since we pretty clearly are talking about romantic love of the sort in intimate relationships, I think it’s reasonable to say that few people maintain that successfully without observing some kind of interpersonal boundaries. Boundaries are not bad things. There is a big difference between withholding honesty and clear, direct communication, and simply taking some time to process stuff internally or map one’s responses to the realities of your relationship.
February 25th, 2010 at 12:11 pm
I think it means whatever the speaker intends for it to mean–hence, it becomes a truism. “Love has no boundaries….because I have no boundaries.” Or, love has transcended the boundaries I thought I had, was taught to have, or other people have.
Not particularly useful. But poetic. And I would argue not particularly harmful.
February 27th, 2010 at 11:48 am
The cynical part of me hears “love has no boundaries” as “I get to set the rules, not you,” at least this morning. I would like it to sound more like, “given mutual respect, affection, and self-esteem, we can establish our own boundaries in this relationship, not default to some mythical ‘Twue Wuv’ structure,” but that’s probably just for me.
February 28th, 2010 at 4:31 pm
The snarky me would say “Of course love has no boundaries! You can say ‘I love you’ to anyone!”
Which rubs my spot about people saying they love someone, but showing it in an odd way… or not at all. Love is a verb, not a noun or exclamation.
The phrase is naive, regardless of whatever deep philosophies might back it. Why not present it in a deeper way if it truly is supposed to be deep? “Love may have boundaries, but only you can set them.” Not perfect, but something of that ilk at least.
Anyone that said things like this with any frequency would strike me as disingenuous and full of talk. My response? “Prove it.”
But that’s just another of my pet peeve’s altogether…
March 1st, 2010 at 10:00 pm
One of my partners once came up with a very pithy saying that I liked very much — “Love may have no boundaries, but relationships require them!”
And I think that’s very true — you can’t necessarily control your *feelings*, and it’s okay to love and be loving to lots of people, but you NEED to be in control of your behavior and how it affects the loved ones in your life.
But, yeah — “love has no boundaries” squicks me, and would make me think twice if I heard it coming from someone I was considering as relationship material.
September 2nd, 2010 at 10:07 am
I would run the hell away if anyone said that to me! “Love has no boundaries” is the hallmark of the psycho, the stalker, and other dysfunctional people.