Can "I love you" sometimes mean letting go?

We tend to assume that anyone who tells us they
love us - but simultaneously insists they don't
believe we should be together - must be lying.
After all, doesn't true love conquer all?

Romanticism teaches us that love has nothing
to do with practicalities. As D.H. Lawerence
wrote: "A man in love will sleep for the rest
of his life on a park bench for a woman he loves."

But what about parenting childeren from another
relationship? Distance? Mental illness? Cultural
differences? Contrasting life goals? Romantiscism
insists there will Always be a way through.

There exists another philosophy, more restrained
and less esteemed, that balances respect for emotions
with an equal respect for the practical dimensions
of life.

This philosophy acknowledges that our tender feelings
cannot entirely erase the impact of social ostracism,
opposed friendship groups, clashing values, or continuous
alarm.

If love means caring for another's well-being, should
we continue a relationship that mires our partner in
avoidable miseries? Are we so uniquely fitted to be
with them as to justify the suffering?

Might our so-called love sometimes have more to do with
our satisfaction than their fulfillment? True generosity
may sometimes mean stepping aside.

There are liars who dress up escapes as acts of generosity,
but there are as many true lovers who quietly sacrifice
themselves on unheralded altars.

It is hugely honorable to do one's utmost to be with someone.
It may be greater love still to adore a person - and then,
before wasting any more of their time, to leave them well alone.

theschooloflifelondon