# "Can't love others until you love yourself"



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Necrofantasia said:


> What does this phrase even mean?
> And what do you think of it?


It means exactly what it says. If you cannot love yourself and aren't comfortable in your own skin, how do you expect to love anyone else: truly, madly, deeply? If your own basic needs aren't relatively met, how can you meet the needs of anyone else? Any attempt to love without first insuring you are generally stable and well-adjusted will result in not having a solid foundation upon which to build and maintain a meaningful relationship with anyone else. It will collapse every time. The more healthy you are in your own life, the more healthy the person you are likely to attract and fall in love with; and vice-versa, the less healthy you are in your own life, the less healthy the person you're likely to attract and attempt to love.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Necrofantasia said:


> Self loathing can be a product of an unrealistically high perception of others with respect to the self, rather than a low perception of the self.


huh that makes sense.



> And, relating to the fact one can't properly gauge other's emotional capabilities, you could look at it as the narcissist not really understanding the behaviours inherent to "healthy" love, due to not having had an early childhood foundation on how to do it given emotionally absent parental figures.


I agree--But I think it goes beyond that though into not even understanding their own identity beyond the mask they wear to engage others publicly. They also know what appropriate love looks like, but it's all part of a show to manipulate others. 

I'm not a psychologist, but narcissists remind me of like super extroverts who really have no internal drive or sense of direction beyond perhaps self preservation and getting ahead and thriving off of attention. Maybe their parents instilled that in them...or it's just some natural drive for survival. Maybe they felt their survival was threatened at a very young age (when even losing access to parental love would endanger the life of a young child who's totally dependent).




> Early childhood caretakers program our emotional perception of what rings true as love, and our way to (verb) love , it seems. How to take care of someone else.
> Maybe they also shape our self loathing as the other side of the coin. Loving and loathing.


I think so--if you have a parent that teaches you your emotions are always unwanted, you learn to loath them because you want your parent to love you and be happy. 



> I'll tell you what her obsession is: She wants it because she's told she can't have it, she and Geralt have a conversation that pretty much spells this out right after the dragon episode. That's how her character has operated the entire show: she's never had to evolve mentally because she lucked out and had magical aptitude to allow her to tantrum her way to whatever she's wanted: looks, power, etc.
> 
> And to top it all off she's a nympho because apparently it's a mage thing, so hey, gratuitous pornography sexually empowered strong female... Definitely not a guy writing this. She's the most annoying character I've ever had to endure on several levels.


Yeah the conversation with the dragon episode was sort of confusing to me. I thought that her deepest desire was to be loved, since her deepest fear was to be unloved. So I was just waiting for that to come out that Geralt had asked the Jinn to grant both himself and yennefer's deepest desire.

For yennefer it was to be loved and for him it was to be able to sleep--so now he loves her and he can sleep.

But I thought it was interesting because she still can't be happy despite being loved, because ultimately she can't feel loved because of her internalized self-loathing from her childhood. She's oblivious that her wish came true, and she wants a baby because she thinks the baby will love her (which is messed up, but I can't understand why else she would want one so bad).

So that's how I saw it--and I'm curious whether she will ever end up happy being loved or whatever, but I suspect not.

But the show is kind of fragmented and I might be reading too much into it.

I don't think Geralt knew what Yennefer's desire was though, but now he can suddenly sleep and she's got someone who seems to love her in his own way.

This would mean that Geralt's deepest desire was to be able to sleep better, which is really kind of funny and probably a poor bargain for falling in love with someone as messed up as her, but it makes me laugh.


----------



## Tefede (Apr 16, 2020)

I eat so I care about myself.

If I care about myself a lot more than that, there will be very little room for putting the other persons needs in front of mine. Vice versa.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Something about self-awareness -- as a matter of ethics -- (at your most sub-optimal) functionality [lack of care for self-agency] it makes it difficult to care for another's agency. If your agency is at sub-par functionality, the question how can you reciporcate to another?

I will use myself as an example.

The question does not sit right or make 'emotional sense' with me either, it makes logical sense, but does not compute in any emotional way. On an emotional/psychological/feeling level I have no clue what the question means. I can see the good part in functioning this way, but see no utility or emotional compulsion to do so. I do not feel compelled to discipline myself in such a way. Part of this is because I am benefitting greatly. 

For me it is genetic, I have anti-social traits, such as low empathy, extremely manipulative & some narcissistic traits, etc - but I have the mild awareness to inform the specimen(s) I am involved with thoroughly what they are getting into (I am half crazy), so they are not let down [(as bad)]. Self-awareness comes & goes. They usually hit the road after they 'realize' & snap out of what I am doing, but it does not bother me. I just go out the next day & get another sucker. 

But this is all part of my manipulation, too. Making them feel something. So I cannot distinguish whether I am just being truly caring or not. It is impossible to keep away from others since I must function in society. I just find another specimen the next day. It is pretty sick, but it is what it is. I haven't felt anything for anyone outside of one individual for years -- I just make feel people they are in love, that I am loving, when it is a hallow emptiness of nothingness. 

There was only one guy that called me out on it. This dude that smoked a ton of pot I was attempting to date that was diagnosed anti-social personality disorder & a bi polar. The manipulation he was doing was crazy. He had suckered me. Very rare a sucker-er gets suckered. It was just this shallow unproductive exchange of two hallow people suckering each other. He looked straight at me & said the only reason he were screwing around with me is because we are the same. Exactly the same & my tactics do not work. He diagnosed me on the spot. I ran from this dude as far as possible. The only dude I felt I had to get the fuck out of there - because he was a possible walking mirror. Pure emptiness. He stalked me for a bit afterward but eventually hit the road. 

There is no cure for low empathy/anti-social/narcissistic traits & I dropped out of therapy year(s) ago, so I just run lose. I was forced into therapy & weird shit all through childhood.

This there is the problem. Not whether or not someone 'truly loves' - but the dangerous inability to distinguish whether they do or do not -- the inability to distinguish just result(s) in using specimens for gain (when I don't even need anything) like I do.


----------



## Cthulhu And Coffee (Mar 8, 2012)

I don't know about that. 

If I'm blind to characteristics in myself that others love, does that mean I won't see characteristics in other people that I love? Does it mean I can't get to know someone and develop strong feelings for them over time?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Necrofantasia said:


> The water is warm, mimesis. Jump in.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> It means exactly what it says. If you cannot love yourself and aren't comfortable in your own skin, how do you expect to love anyone else: truly, madly, deeply? If your own basic needs aren't relatively met, how can you meet the needs of anyone else? Any attempt to love without first insuring you are generally stable and well-adjusted will result in not having a solid foundation upon which to build and maintain a meaningful relationship with anyone else. It will collapse every time. The more healthy you are in your own life, the more healthy the person you are likely to attract and fall in love with; and vice-versa, the less healthy you are in your own life, the less healthy the person you're likely to attract and attempt to love.


So, you cannot love someone without pursuing a relationship with them? Love as a feeling can be private and independent from love as behaviours. Sometimes you can find that the most inspiring, electrifying person you've ever known is already with someone else and thriving more than they would with you. And you don't really want to touch that. 


Have you never let go of someone because you recognize you two aren't good for one another, precisely because you love them? Then find yourself thinking of them daily and trying to convince yourself it wasn't love after all but it never sticks?


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Innocentia said:


> There's something wrong with expecting people to do this first step of looking after yourself before engaging any relationships. People aren't born with the absence of self-confidence, it has been destroyed and often enter social isolation. We didn't had therapists before, that's new in humanity. By expecting this first step for everyone we let the predators preying on the vulnerable, and throw any responsability we could have on the therapists.
> 
> It's definitely hard to take care of people who are destroyed in their self-confidence, we can't help someone alone, it's too much for one of us, but several of us can do something. Solidarity has to be build around the most vulnerable people, and that's not just the job of therapists or associations, but also us, their friends, their family or maybe even their lover.
> 
> ...


I referred to romantic relationships. I referenced friends already. Now you're twisting what I've said. I didn't say don't expect to have friends. Your responding to something I didn't say.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

angelfish said:


> True to some extent, though it reminds me -
> 
> Research into attachment theory suggests that having a partner with secure attachment style (healthy) can help a partner with insecure attachment style (unhealthy) move into secure attachment. It's believed that the stability, acceptance, and love of the securely attached partner are modelled and the other partner learns from that and unlearns the fear and pessimism inherent to the unstable patterns.
> 
> ...


I don't mind being friends who need a lot of help. I'm happy to take a person under my wing within reason. But that's a far cry from dating them. My observation of friends who don't love themselves/take care of themselves, has been that they can improve to a reasonable point with friends and therapy. But I've seen them get hurt when they tried dating before they understood some basic stuff. It's like hurt people are a magnet for predators. It's why I don't think it's a good idea to date before someone has the basics down. All I've seen happen is that they get hurt. I haven't seen them pick someone healthy that will help them. I've seen them pick someone who slowly picks them apart and isolates them. And when I've tried to say something, I've been shut down and cut off. I know someone like this right now. I think the first mistake was dating in that state.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Necrofantasia said:


> So, you cannot love someone without pursuing a relationship with them? Love as a feeling can be private and independent from love as behaviours. Sometimes you can find that the most inspiring, electrifying person you've ever known is already with someone else and thriving more than they would with you. And you don't really want to touch that.


Split semantic hairs much? :tongue: 

It seems to me that, in this thread, we are discussing the notion whether cultivating a healthy loving relationship with another human being requires that both people entering that relationship also have a sense of self-love first. If this is not the intent of the OP, then I misunderstood it. Loving someone in a platonic sense is not quite the same thing, but there still has to be a strong sense of self on both sides of the equation, or it will turn into one person manipulating the other's love to their advantage. 



> Have you never let go of someone because you recognize you two aren't good for one another, precisely because you love them? Then find yourself thinking of them daily and trying to convince yourself it wasn't love after all but it never sticks?


In my experience it is entirely possible to love someone and not be IN love with them? Sure. Of course I have discovered I was incompatible with someone I loved (or wanted to love). Sometimes I even fooled myself for a while trying to make something work like shoving a square peg into a round hole, but sooner or later, it becomes obvious the price of interaction is not worth the frustrations it ultimately produces. 

What I am saying is that in order to give a healthy, intimate, loving, relationship between two people the best chances of lasting long term, it is very important for there to be a basic level of self-love in place at the start.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Roslyn said:


> I referred to romantic relationships. I referenced friends already. Now you're twisting what I've said. I didn't say don't expect to have friends. Your responding to something I didn't say.


I spoke of lovers too, I included all kind of relationships. And I didn't wanted to twist your words, if you don't feel aimed by what I say, then you're not aimed. You were insisting on telling people to see a therapist before engaging themselves in a romantic relationship, and I wanted to expand on that matter that it's not a solution by itself, and I went in my comment to include all form of relationship to give a more broader touch to my comment. 

And maybe you mentioned somewhere else that it's not sufficient to just see a therapist in that context, I don't know. I'm not here to give you a lesson, I wanted to bring awareness on a problem, which is the "go see a therapist, don't bother me with that shit" mentality. If you're not one of those and you don't seem like one of those at all, I'm happy for you. I just thought you may be interested in this kind of an insight, because I'm not the only one to rebounce on what you say, like Vesh for example.

And you clearly state that you wouldn't date or have a romantic relationships with someone with a low self-esteem, I don't see anything wrong with that. You also pointed that those people were vulnerable to abuse, I absolutely agree. What I think you did, is that you gave a general advice that someone shouldn't look for love until they got a better self-esteem. And that, I don't agree. From my perspective, we shouldn't give this advice systematically, in some cases, it could be a good advice, in others, it's not required. 

Is my intervention a bit clearer?

And sorry if you felt like I twisted your words, didn't mean it.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

WickerDeer said:


> I agree--But I think it goes beyond that though into not even understanding their own identity beyond the mask they wear to engage others publicly. They also know what appropriate love looks like, but it's all part of a show to manipulate others.
> 
> I'm not a psychologist, but narcissists remind me of like super extroverts who really have no internal drive or sense of direction beyond perhaps self preservation and getting ahead and thriving off of attention. Maybe their parents instilled that in them...or it's just some natural drive for survival. Maybe they felt their survival was threatened at a very young age (when even losing access to parental love would endanger the life of a young child who's totally dependent).


Knowing what something looks like is not knowing what it is. 
And if you're seen as unwanted by parents that only respond when you act as someone else, you don't even bother getting to understand yourself, because only the act gets results. Introspection is something one either learns or discards as a kid, that's how you get extros and intros. 





WickerDeer said:


> I think so--if you have a parent that teaches you your emotions are always unwanted, you learn to loath them because you want your parent to love you and be happy.


You don't loathe them so much as don't understand them. They're alien to you. 
And it's sometimes less about parental love and more about pain management and abuse mitigation. 




WickerDeer said:


> Yeah the conversation with the dragon episode was sort of confusing to me. I thought that her deepest desire was to be loved, since her deepest fear was to be unloved. So I was just waiting for that to come out that Geralt had asked the Jinn to grant both himself and yennefer's deepest desire.
> 
> For yennefer it was to be loved and for him it was to be able to sleep--so now he loves her and he can sleep.
> 
> ...


Nah, something goes off in her when you tell her she can't have something, so she throws everything away to get it without ever thinking of the consequences. Time and time again she gets plot deviced out of her own stupidity and never grows up as a result. 

That is until she ends up exchanging her fertility for looks. 









And now she has that to pursue to distract her from her self loathing. She is constantly pursuing something all the fucking time because standing still means she risks introspection, can't have that. 

Unless you tell her that... then she might just sacrifice her lungs to become a perfectly still rock, become a significantly more interesting character and do us all a favour and stay that way. 

Also from Geralt's perspective he is probably used to dealing with insane magical womenchildren . Sleeplessness is on the other hand not something you ever get used to. 




mimesis said:


>


Stop being a coy smartypants and get in the robot mimesis. 




tanstaafl28 said:


> Split semantic hairs much? :tongue:
> 
> It seems to me that, in this thread, we are discussing the notion whether cultivating a healthy loving relationship with another human being requires that both people entering that relationship also have a sense of self-love first. If this is not the intent of the OP, then I misunderstood it. Loving someone in a platonic sense is not quite the same thing, but there still has to be a strong sense of self on both sides of the equation, or it will turn into one person manipulating the other's love to their advantage.
> 
> ...


I don't think I am. You make it sound like the face value is clear as day but the wording is actually quite vague. 

Also, I'm not talking about platonic love. I'm talking about romantic love blocked by circumstance. There's a difference between wanting and choosing not to pursue someone, and not wanting to pursue at all.


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

Necrofantasia said:


> I don't think I am. You make it sound like the face value is clear as day but the wording is actually quite vague.
> 
> Also, I'm not talking about platonic love. I'm talking about romantic love blocked by circumstance. There's a difference between wanting and choosing not to pursue someone, and not wanting to pursue at all.


But how does this have anything to do with the notion that one should love themselves before they deeply love others? Isn't this a separate circumstance? Sometimes it doesn't work out. Timing is off, or the person is in love with another person and isn't available, or there are some other issues. It doesn't preclude them having some level of self-love and balance within, it means that circumstances were just not right for them to enter into a relationship.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

tanstaafl28 said:


> But how does this have anything to do with the notion that one should love themselves before they deeply love others? Isn't this a separate circumstance? Sometimes it doesn't work out. Timing is off, or the person is in love with another person and isn't available, or there are some other issues. It doesn't preclude them having some level of self-love and balance within, it means that circumstances were just not right for them to enter into a relationship.


Referring to 



tanstaafl28 said:


> If you cannot love yourself and aren't comfortable in your own skin, how do you expect to love anyone else: truly, madly, deeply?


You seem to suggest it's not true love if not within the confines of a relationship.


----------



## Vesh (Mar 28, 2020)

Roslyn said:


> I don't think it's linear or a matter of willpower. I will repeat as many times as you need to hear it that when if you are struggling with these things, get a therapist. I've gone to therapy when I needed help. Therapists are wonderful! What's the hurry to relationships before you can love yourself.
> 
> And at no point did I say that no one is capable of loving them. Just they need to be aware that like attracts like. If you're not at least taking care of yourself, you aren't going to attract someone healthy.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with the saying. There's something wrong with your interpretation (you wrote further down) when you decide that it means you have to find some perfect level of living. But maybe Wisteria's wording would help you.


You know, I don't think we even necessarily disagree that much. But I think we're coming at this having had very different life experiences and having seen abuse and mental illness manifest in very different ways. I'm saying what I'm saying because I think it's important for people in a dark place to be reminded they don't have to be perfect to be loved and that their flaws do not preclude them from finding someone who cares about them. I'm saying it because I've seen people in those headspaces, who think that just because they haven't fully healed from their wounds they don't deserve to find love, because they're too broken or insufficient, and they're never going to be good enough. And I think if they internalize the message of the quote in the OP, it will damage them. I just want to remind them that they are good enough.

I'm also speaking as someone whose natural tendency is to withdraw and shut myself off from the world when something goes wrong in my life. If I'm stressed, then I don't want to be in a relationship at all. I want to be alone, completely isolated, left to my own thoughts. That's not a good habit for me.

But it sounds like you've seen the opposite a lot, and you feel like the opposite is more worth saying.

I think we're talking about two completely different things/situations, and trying to match our views is going to be impossible because we're not looking at the same thing at all. And we're not truly addressing these words to each other but to the people we've met who are struggling, so we wind up feeling like we're both talking past each other, because we are.


----------



## Cherry (May 28, 2017)

Necrofantasia said:


> ...pregnancy, or child rearing, is often more about social convention than love. I found the rarest thing is to find a parent who has a thoughtful response to why they chose to have children. Most of them feel attacked when asked.
> 
> I think it's a responsibility towards the child to be able to answer that question thoughtfully even if they never ask it. That contemplation to me is an act of love in and of itself.


'...' Maybe it doesn't warrant a thoughtful response. It's an instinctive matter, and maybe even a heart matter. And this is coming from a very thoughtful person.
Although I do get where you're coming from. Still, I'm sure that doesn't mean those people and of course they would feel attacked cos it's just none of...some people's business  particularly when they don't know the intention of the person asking or why they even care. It definitely just would come across as a judgement. Personally I find it very sad when/if there is no love involved. I've met cold mothers who clearly never wanted their child and it hurt me deeply (I spent more time looking after their child than them - with no pay, too!) However, I don't believe most people make a commitment without love (or at least what they think is love, or hope for love) involved. Love is also part of social convention, it's extremely human and you don't need to be a genius to experience it [in its various forms].


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Cherry said:


> '...' Maybe it doesn't warrant a thoughtful response. It's an instinctive matter, and maybe even a heart matter. And this is coming from a very thoughtful person.


Yeah, nothing screams responsibility quite like bringing a new life to this world on "instinct" and "emotion". 



Cherry said:


> Although I do get where you're coming from. Still, I'm sure that doesn't mean those people and of course they would feel attacked cos it's just none of...some people's business  particularly when they don't know the intention of the person asking or why they even care.


What if it's your own kid asking?

They feel attacked and pull the "business" card because they never have a reason outside of shit like "Instinct", "Emotion" or "It's what you do when you're married" or "What God Intended". They are basically approaching parenting on autopilot, which kinda sucks for the kid. 

Also since we coexist in the same environment, no, the "none of my business" card is bullshit. The products of poor upbringing ultimately affect everyone around them. 

The ones that are able to answer, typically understand why I ask. 




Cherry said:


> It definitely just would come across as a judgement. Personally I find it very sad when/if there is no love involved. I've met cold mothers who clearly never wanted their child and it hurt me deeply (I spent more time looking after their child than them - with no pay, too!) However, I don't believe most people make a commitment without love (or at least what they think is love, or hope for love) involved. Love is also part of social convention, it's extremely human and you don't need to be a genius to experience it [in its various forms].


That's why you think before you breed. Also I wouldn't be too sure, I've seen males And females try to use kids to trap a partner in a relationship. 

Also yeah, apparently love is such a nebulous, broad and arbitrary term that it's impossible not to feel it in some way or to dispute it. So much so that it's apparently "Human" and "Part of social convention" despite how wildly varied the latter is across geography and time. 

There's a quote by de la Rochefoucauld that comes to mind. “There are some people who would never have fallen in love if they had not heard there was such a thing."


----------



## Ines (May 3, 2020)

Necrofantasia said:


> What does this phrase even mean?
> And what do you think of it?


In my opinion, when we don't love ourselves, we try to find the "validation" from other people. We try to fill that hole inside us, from the validations of other people, and the closest person to us(the one we love) becomes it's victim. We might do a lot, provide a lot, but our intention for providing is "to get the validation of other person". 
See, its like, when we have some hole within ourselves, then how can we provide to others? We feel the need to fill that hole within ourself. 
You can see the examples of codependent parents, enmeshed parents, other toxic parents. They are perfect examples of this phrase. 
The love they possess, isn't true love, even if it seems to them also, its just attachment and fulfilment of their own life by indulging too much into their kid's life.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Necrofantasia said:


> What does this phrase even mean?
> And what do you think of it?


It's worded this way because it sounds nice. This is how a lot of sayings are. Everyone loves themselves. It is a function of our evolved psychology to look out for our own interests and more often than not, a positive self-image is the default. In essence, the saying means to only get into a relationship with another person when you are in a stable place emotionally and physically. The spread of this idea serves us all because if followed would lead to emotionally damaged people not spreading their condition to others. Thus, the saying sticks and has become popular.

The individual who wants to make the best decision for themselves needs to consider that their emotional/physical state effects the mate selection process. If you're in an emotionally depressed state for a while and happen to run into someone where you start a relationship, then you're probably with someone who is good at soothing that depressive state. Thus, I think even if you are "not stable", then it can actually pan out well. Likewise for the opposite in which you are perfectly stable.

As childish as it may sound, every cloud has a silver lining.


----------



## JimT (May 31, 2010)

Necrofantasia said:


> What does this phrase even mean?
> And what do you think of it?


I think that the emphasis is on the word "you," as in "you're the only one who can solve this problem in the long run." I think it's about apportioning responsibility and teaching accountability. The point is: ​"It isn't always the other guy's fault. Sometimes it's *you* who needs to step up your game."
 
It's a phrase that comes up in therapy. It's not something you hear *before* you get into relationships. Instead it's a phrase you hear *after* you've crashed and burned a few relationships and are starting to look for reasons why your relationships keep going south.

It's your therapist telling you:

_Look, you have a dysfunction: You're a freaking depressive (or whatever). Sure, you can get into lots of relationships and hope that your partner will provide your missing parts or carry you. And it might even work out over the long-term. But it's going to cost you in some way. And the worse your dysfunction is, the higher the cost. You can't be "all take and no give" in some areas of the relationship. That sort of attitude tends to come back to haunt you. Things tend to get lopsided and out of balance over time. Sooner or later people get tired of carrying you and demand that you start paying your way in some fashion or another._

_So at some point you need to look at your dysfunction and start doing something about it *yourself*. "You can't love others until you love yourself." The point is that *you* have to do the work if you want to start building better relationships._

_You can still keep getting in relationships. No one is perfect, and if nothing else relationships are beneficial in that they highlight the problem and put it in your face where you can't ignore it. But learn from the process. If you can work on mitigating the dysfunction, then the crash-and-burns won't be so bad or so frequent. With a little more self-awareness about the causes of your problems, you'll learn to start climbing out of the relationship holes you keep getting trapped in. Or at least you'll learn not to dig those holes so deep in the first place."_

Tl;dr version: I don't see the saying as being about quarantining people with depression or disorders and putting them in leper camps until they learn to do better. Instead, I see the saying as being a type of constructive criticism (albeit a little preachy): "It's not always the other guy's fault. Sometimes it's *you* who needs to step up your game."


----------



## Steven_ (Jun 4, 2017)

I always found "you need to love yourself" abstract. I always throught what does that mean? However, I believe you can still love without loving yourself, might just not be healthy or sustainable.

For me loving myself means:
- understanding the strengths and weaknesses of my personality (generally as an INFJ)
- reminding myself of my health, social and career achievements
- knowing how to take care of myself when I'm stressed

Hope that helps


----------



## Jansen (May 7, 2020)

Necrofantasia said:


> What does this phrase even mean?
> And what do you think of it?


If you can't show yourself empathy and care, then how will you show it to others?

I think like all bits of knowledge like this, it's compacted and a lot of the meaning is lost but I believe it's generally true.


----------



## as7ro (May 9, 2020)

self loathing can and will sabotage your feelings especially love, that's not something you want affecting someone else.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

Perhaps, what it means is that people often lie to themselves. When people lie themselves, they essentially hurt others and themselves.

When I hear that phrase I think of "going through the motions" in life. A lot of people do things just for the sake for conformity.

In the end, they hurt especially their partners and children involved. Take for instance, people who know they're gay but stay in heterosexual marriages anyway. Half of the times, they repress their lies, and overcompensate, and take it out on their kids, or resort to other behaviors inconducive to the family unit. It creates a toxic environment. And also, for the spouse that marries that person, perhaps a part of them sort of knew but played along anyway. And if they didn't, that's the worst form of betrayal. You can't blame the spouses involved entirely 100% when we live in a bigoted and intolerant society that perpetuates hatred and a lack of freedom for others involved to _truly be who they are_. 

That's the one thing society seems to be allergic to: _authenticity._


----------



## leftover crack (May 12, 2013)

I think you can love others even if you don't love yourself, you just might not be very good at it. 

I could expound but I think it's fairly obvious where I'm going with this.


----------



## Hexigoon (Mar 12, 2018)

I think it's more that others won't love you if you can't even love yourself.


----------



## Dezir (Nov 25, 2013)

Necrofantasia said:


> What does this phrase even mean?
> And what do you think of it?


It means that if you can't like yourself then you can't like others. But it's wrong. You can perfectly like/love other people while not liking/loving almost anything about you. At the same time, you can not care about other people while liking/loving yourself a lot.

So which one is the best? The best is both to love/like yourself and to love/like other people. But you cannot force yourself to like yourself, of course you may have insecurities that you need a 2nd opinion you can trust on and may personally self-reflect on yourself and your own self-esteem and self-respect, which will help to make you like yourself more. I think ultimately and most importantly whether you like yourself has to do with external measureable factors. You have a pre-defined idea of what a good man or a good woman is supposed to do or be like. If you fit that vision of yourself you will like yourself, otherwise you won't like yourself, because you will feel like you're lacking. So start working in those areas that you feel you're lacking.

Obviously, you can never be perfect, you will always have something to complain about yourself, but this was never about being perfect, this was about being a good match for your pre-defined idea of what a good man or a good woman is supposed to do or be like. In other words, to like yourself, you must literally become more likeable towards yourself. 

Of course, it is equally important to become likeable to other people, as other people judge us and we tend to take this feedback whether it's positive or negative. If 50 people praise you then you will eventually come to the conclusion that they are right, if 50 people say your fence look terrible then you will eventually consider repainting it. You need likeablity and this is good. The best thing to do this is to have a pleasant attitude, not accuse people, be nice and treat people right. Do not seek to offend or upset people but if you genuinely believe that you are in the right and that the truth is more deserving or more helpful than the possibility of that other person being offended in that situation, by all means stand your ground, there is a limit. People can theoretically be upset about anything, people should only be upset or offended for a reasonable cause. When the reason is not justified, then you have no reason to listen to their plea of offendedness. The truth and fairness of a situation matters as well. Despite recent social justice warriors claims, it's not all feelings, a robber is in the wrong because he is robbing, not because the victim is offended.

If the same robber wouldn't rob but sell pancakes instead, but the now quote victim would be equally offended, now her reasons for being offended would be unreasonable, for the pancakes seller did nothing wrong, his behavior was impecable. The point is that it is the act that is in the wrong, not the feeling that came after it. As such, it is reasonable to apologise and admit that you are in the wrong only when people are upset for a reasonable cause, as the mere act of being offended proves nothing.

People who can make themselves likeable will be liked by other people and this will give them a lot of confirmation that they are liked, which in turn will make them more likely to like themselves. If 50 people behave as if they like you then you will be more likely to like yourself. The decision whether we like other people is mostly emotional, if we feel good with or around them then we like them, if not then we don't like them. First they have to care about you, then they will care about what you have to say. So the best way to make yourself likeable is to make people feel good around you, to be supportive, to make them feel appreciated and included but to not go over the top with it, to make you look like a clown or exaggerated. A little bit of supportive phrase now and then is enough. That being said, it also depends on the relationship you have to that person and what you can consider appropiate to say and do with each other.

You should also be prepared for people who don't like you. And by that I mean to ignore it and not be bothered by it. Because it will happen, nobody on the planet is going to be liked by everyone, no matter what you do. You may have the wrong idea that pleasing everyone will make everyone like you, but that's not how it works, some people will apreciate, other people will see it as a weakness and you as a doormat, other people will actually like you and respect you more when you stand up for yourself and show you deserve respect. Have integrity, that is not the same thing as being rude or rash, be yourself, the default version that you can be without effort, but in the limit of common sense, people like common sense. You can stand up for yourself without necessarly being aggressive going into a fight, but merely stating and imposing your will. Of course, even that may not always be the best solution, as one should only take attitude against who deserves it as standing up for yourself is only necessary when there is no other alternative. If you can solve your conflict with a good chat, then by all means do that. But the best solution, almost always, when you aren't physically assaulted, is to simply ignore and walk away.

And about liking other people, is not really a choice, is it? We don't choose to like, dislike or hate another person, we just do. But what I think this tries to say is to be nice to other people, to be kind to them, to treat them right, to be respectful, to be polite, have manners and be civilized with them. People will like you for this, so again linked to the point above. It is not only for personal gain and keeping harmony this one, but also to make life better for other people around you. There is a certain pleasure you get when you make other people feel good. I recommend you watch Doctor Mike on Youtube, also known as "that hot doctor", he is appropiate and funny. Of course, he mentioned that he sometimes deal with inappropiate patients that make him feel quite bad, but he tried to not get bothered by it and slowly deviate the conversation towards something that's truly appropiate or to the reason why the patients really are there, he's trying to take control of the conversation without being rude.

This is kind of how you get to be liked and how and why you should like other people. There is a connection between them, as I said, if you are liked it's a lot easier to like other people, if you like other people you will probably behave nicely towards them and make them more likely to like you, but they are not in a cause and effect stiuation, one without the other is quite possible. There are people who like themselves but hate others, usually narcissists, or who hate themselves because they see themselves as failing in some areas they are not supposed to fail based on their personal definition of what a good man or good woman is, but at the same time love other people.


----------



## Lovable (Apr 1, 2017)

For many years I didn't get it... And now that I do, I find it very hard to get others to understand it. From what I have learned, it is like a container/ cup for feelings. But there is a small hole in it. If you don't know how to fill it up by yourself, you will need the approval, love, and what not from others to fill it up. In some cases this take a bad turn and people will end up filling it with drugs, food, random sex and so on. 

Therefore if you love yourself, you won't need your partner to fill your cup therefore making a more equal relationship. If you don't "need" your partner, but you are with them not to for them to fill your cup but just because you love them, then that is a healthy and pure relationship. 

I hope this makes sense.. to some at least..


----------



## Clyme (Jul 17, 2014)

Necrofantasia said:


> What does this phrase even mean?
> And what do you think of it?


I think it's rubbish. It depends on the person. I take that phrase to mean that you really can't have a healthy relationship and find happiness in someone else unless you've been able to source that intrinsically already. I also take it to mean that self-acceptance and self-love comes from within and that attempting to find that in someone else will not work.

For me, I suffered from a chronic sense of emptiness that really only healed when I met my now wife. It was the security and love from my relationship that gave me the support system that allowed me to work on myself and persevere through my disordered thoughts and unhealthy patterns of behavior.


----------



## Skimt (May 24, 2020)

Necrofantasia said:


> What does this phrase even mean?
> And what do you think of it?


Sounds like one of those inspirational posts on Facebook. 

Good thing I don't have Facebook, anymore.


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Not loving yourself (or having low self confidence) makes it really fucking hard to be in a relationship sometimes. Personally i've done and said a lot of things in relationships because of it. It creates trust issues with your partner,and doubt in your mind. For example, "why would they love me" or "do they even love me anymore?". It can be resolved by a reassuring partner but it's still very difficult. It has also made me want to withdraw sex from my partner and i've said things that have came out wrong because of it. The worst part is your own insecurity can hurt your partner too even if its unintentional.
I've questioned people i've dated almost demanding they reply and questioning them, despite us not even being in a relationship. They ended up ghosted me, and the cycle of lack of trust and my own insecurity continued to my next relationship.


----------

