There’s No ‘I’ in Love

You know, I’ve always been a sucker for words, phrases, and how they tend to unexpectedly stick to your heart like Velcro. There’s this saying I’ve heard often, “There is no ‘I’ in love.” And every time someone casually throws it into a conversation, it feels like this quiet thud in my chest. Like, wait… what do you mean? Does love erase who I am as an individual? Am I supposed to just disappear for someone else when I love them? Or is it saying something bigger — more complicated, like, maybe love isn’t about obsession with yourself, but about giving? Unpacking this idea honestly feels like peeling layers off an onion, the kind that makes you cry halfway through because it gets so real.

It got me thinking: What does love even mean if there’s no “I” in it? I’m not sure about you, but love for me has always been this tender blend of vulnerability and a little bit of courage. You know, letting someone into your world, trusting them not to tear it apart — but that’s where it gets tricky. How much of me do I keep in love, and how much do I give away?

Think about it for a second. We grow up consuming all these epic love stories in books and movies, and almost all of them revolve around sacrifice. Look at Titanic. Rose lets Jack into her heart, they fall madly in love, and in the end, who freezes to death in the Atlantic Ocean while she’s floating on the door? Yep. Jack. Or Romeo and Juliet — two teens so wildly obsessed with each other that they choose death over facing a world without love. It’s almost as if every grand love story screams at us that to love someone is to lose yourself in the process. Is that where the “no I” part comes in? That when you love, it’s not about you anymore — it’s about “us”?

I used to think that made sense — it sounded romantic. But the older I get, I realize how dangerous that could be if taken literally. Losing yourself for love might sound poetic, but in reality, that’s when love can get toxic, even suffocating. No one should disappear to make another person whole. I mean, love isn’t a hostage situation, right? But at the same time, love isn’t just a self-service station for your own ego, either. It’s that crazy balancing act of staying you while also pouring into someone else. That’s the part no rom-com truly prepares you for.

You know what makes this phrase hit differently though? The idea that love — real love — requires you to dissolve your ego a little bit. And I’ll be honest, this is the hardest lesson I’ve had to learn in my own relationships. Ego puts up walls. It screams, “I matter more. I before you. My needs over yours.” If there’s one thing I’ve picked up from the chaos of loving people, it’s this: Love doesn’t thrive when it’s “me versus you.” It thrives when you both quietly choose, “us.” But choosing “us” doesn’t come naturally. It takes work — sometimes uncomfortable, messy, soul-stretching work.

I’ve seen how religion and spirituality talk about love and selflessness in this deeply profound way. Like in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 13 — you know, the classic “love is patient, love is kind” line? There’s this part that sticks with me: “It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.” Not proud. That’s big, isn’t it? True love doesn’t puff itself up. It doesn’t demand a spotlight or parade its way through someone’s heart. I don’t think that means you can’t be proud of who you are individually, but maybe it’s a reminder to set pride aside long enough to actually see someone else wholly. Real love asks for humility — and okay, let’s be real for a second. That’s terrifying. Humility means putting someone else’s joy, pain, and dreams on the same pedestal as your own. Not lower, not higher — equal.

But you know what else blew my mind? Scientists have studied what happens in the brain when we love. Apparently, when you’re in love, parts of your own self-concept literally blur. The lines between “me” and “you” twist together — chemically and emotionally. That formulaic “I love you” turns into something much more layered: “I care about your happiness, needs, and well-being as deeply as my own.” Basically, love naturally starts chipping away at the “I” without you even realizing it. Crazy, right?

I can’t help but think about cultural takes on love too. In Buddhism, there’s this concept of metta — loving-kindness. It’s love that comes from a place of compassion, not attachment. You wish someone well not because they belong to you or fulfill your needs, but just because… you want them to be happy. It’s completely ego-free. I kind of admire that. Romantic love doesn’t always hit those notes — it likes to claim, to hold, to want. But imagine if we loved people with that same sense of radical selflessness? How freeing would that be?

And don’t even get me started on how messy this idea gets in modern relationships. Everywhere I look — social media, dating apps, you name it — there’s this hyperfocus on what I want, deserve, or refuse to tolerate in love. Swipe left on anyone who doesn’t “check all your boxes.” Ghost anyone who doesn’t text you within three hours. It’s like we’ve turned love into this exhausting contest of self-preservation. But isn’t love supposed to feel like a risk? Like letting someone’s imperfect humanness collide with your own and seeing what you can build in that chaos?

Of course, I’ll admit, love without “I” doesn’t mean turning into a doormat. Healthy love has boundaries. It’s not about erasing your needs entirely. But maybe it’s about understanding that love asks us to bend — not break. To listen instead of pushing to always be heard. To ask, “What can I give?” instead of “What’s in it for me?” I’ve been on both sides before — sometimes selfish, other times selfless — and I think real love is found somewhere in the middle.

So, I guess I don’t take “there’s no ‘I’ in love” so literally anymore. It’s not about giving up who you are but about choosing to share parts of your soul with someone else. It’s about realizing that while you’re still a “me,” loving someone means you’re also part of a “we.” And that’s where the magic lives — in that quiet, messy in-between.

Read more at otgateway.com