Ethical Love and the Courage to Choose Restraint

Love.
What is love?

We all need it, feel it, are inspired by it, and in many instances, make choices directly because of love.

Love, grammatically speaking, is function-flexible.

As a noun, love is patient.
As a verb, perhaps the most familiar expression: I love you.
It can also act as a gerund (a verb acting as a noun): loving takes courage.

In many ways, love imitates art — and in this context, grammar — it is as complex as its usage.

And the most complex form of all is ethical love.

Ethical love is care that never overrides another person’s autonomy, dignity, or consent — regardless of closeness, affection, or responsibility.
It is love governed by respect, not entitlement.

Ethical love is the practice of caring for someone without claiming ownership over their inner world, their choices, or their becoming.

It does not ask, “Do I love you?”
It asks, “Am I loving you in a way that preserves who you are?”

Ethical love requires that we see each person through the lens of their humanity.

Because behind every person — whether we know them or not — is their history: lived experience, internal narratives, beliefs, and a worldview shaped over time.

And almost none of that is visible.

We may make assumptions based on clothing, skin colour, energy, or expressed views — but these are, at best, guestimates.

The deeper truths are simpler.

We have far more in common than what divides us.
We all want to be loved, to feel safe, to have access to medical care, secure housing, and the ability to feed ourselves and those we love.

A necessary caveat: these reflections exclude situations where abuse or clearly toxic behaviour endangers another person.

So how does ethical love behave when it feels threatened?

This is where the difference between love and ethical love becomes clear.

Ethical love behaves very differently from anxious or possessive love when under threat.
The difference is restraint, not withdrawal.

Ethical love pauses before acting. When fear, jealousy, or the possibility of loss arises, it notices the threat internally and allows the emotion to register — but it resists impulsive action, understanding that emotion is information, not instruction.

This distinction matters.

Feeling threatened is real. But when threat is processed as information and met with restraint, it opens space for choice.

Even then, ethical love continues to honour another person’s sovereignty — their right to autonomy.

At its core, ethical love operates from a simple internal truth:
“I am afraid — but fear does not give me rights.”

This is crucial.

No matter how threatened we feel, ethical love refuses to interrogate, invade, or control. Instead, it contains fear in order to seek clarity, understanding, honest dialogue, and internal grounding — rather than compliance.

Ethical love invites truth.
It does not demand reassurance.

This is the crux of ethical love: it makes room for the possibility of loss.

The hardest aspect of love is the willingness to risk distance, tolerate uncertainty, survive misunderstanding, and endure grief if necessary.

Why would ethical love allow for the possibility of loss?

Because it does not trade dignity for security.
It does not collapse into self-erasure.
It does not escalate into domination.
It does not manipulate emotionally.
It does not moralise fear (“If you loved me, you would…”).
It does not confuse urgency with intimacy.

These are threat responses — not love.

When we operate from ethical love, especially under threat, the body may feel tense but grounded; alert, not panicked; sorrowful rather than frantic; restrained rather than urgent.

There is pain — but not chaos.

When I began operating from a place of restraint, I was finally able to face a lifetime of grief. In that space, I was able to process it.

Only through processed grief can I now sense whether I am acting from ethical love — or from grief itself.

Unprocessed grief, more often than not, sits at the centre of how we navigate situations where we feel emotionally threatened.

And perhaps this is the quiet truth:

Love does not become ethical by how intensely we feel, but by how carefully we behave when we are afraid.

Ethical love is not the absence of fear.
It is the refusal to let fear decide who we become.

~ Evgenia Pimżin

From Performing Empathy to Precise Empathy

I am on holidays in the wonderful Moree, in NSW, Australia. Moree is famous for its therapeutic Artesian Hot Springs, its rich agricultural land (wheat, cotton, pecans), vibrant Art Deco heritage buildings, significant Aboriginal culture, and its role in the history of Australia’s Civil Rights Movement, notably the Freedom Ride protest at its public pool.

In this space, my mind went into what is empathetic performance vs precise empathy.

Empathetic performance is displayed care that is driven by fear of judgment rather than genuine feeling.

In my youth, I performed empathy because I did not want to be seen as cold, bad, or immoral. This showed with me knowing the right words to say while feeling nothing in particular, helping others because others were watching and judging me in my community, staying longer than I wanted to at a celebration because I did not want to come across as uncaring, seriously over-explaining my good intentions, sacrificing my comfort, time, or boundaries to maintain a moral image but ultimately feeling resentful, drained, or faulsely exposed afterward.

I performed empathy not because it was arising inside of me but because I felt socially pressured to do so.

Is this wrong though?

How many times, do we encourage our children to say “thank you” when given a present?

How many times, even as adults, do we say “thank you” for a present that is clearly not something that we want, need or desire?

 Afterall, at no point in time, was I being cruel, or lacked empathy, nor was I being selfish.

I stopped performing empathy in my 40s which coincided with healing my nervous system and thus my gaining the skills to retrain my nervous system.

My nervous system had adapted intelligently to an environment where moral safety depended on appearance, not truth.

The covert message I received in my youth “How I am perceived matters more than what I intend.”.

The learning did not come from one event. It was a social pattern I picked up that communicated my tone and not my meaning was important, that behaving neutral was interpreted as being emotionally cold, being corrected emotionally rather than being emotionally understood was the norm, and appearing good prevented escalation,

My nervous system optimized for social survival.

What happened in my 40s that was the beginning of me being able to heal my nervous system?

My father died.

I performed a lot for him. I was the good girl, the dutiful daughter and the child he was extremely proud of because I had achieved my father, as a migrant in Australia, what he had not been able to achieve – a successful career, a lovely home, a good family and financial security.

So, when he died, something inside of me cracked open, like a volcano that erupted from the centre of its core.

I no longer wanted to identify as the good girl, the dutiful daughter or the child who sought my fathers pride and fundamentally approval.

And it hit me like a brick in the head – I NO LONGER FELT THE NEED TO SEEK MY FATHER’S APPROVAL and by definition, I no longer had to shift ANYONE’S approval.

This whole and big world opened up to me and I started shaking off beliefs that I no longer believed, narratives that were not mine to carry, dreams that I never cared for, relationships that had long ago not served me but drained me, clothes that I had outgrown….I sifted and springcleaned my life.

I felt empowered.

I also bled onto others and that was my only and biggest regret.

Strangely, it was the ability to truly feel and own regrets that opened up a lifetime of grief and being able to look at my life with acute truth and without judgement that gave birth to me healing my nervous system.

Within the space of regrets is the birth of humility. The voice that that knows what is mine to carry, what is not, and to act without needing to appear important, good, or superior.

And I stopped proving my goodness, stopped defending my image, embraced my limits without shame, accepted my strengths, admitted my limitations without collapsing, discerned the boundary what was not mine to fix and I was able to admit when I was wrong without losing my dignity.

And I found this amazing calm, unhurried energy and quiet confidence and I was able to behave with ethical clarity and in that space I learned the power of “I will care where care is actually needed.”

I found home in precise empathy and I started to live in truth.

I cannot be everything to everyone.

I have finite capacity.

And the most powerful truth – not all suffering belongs to me.

Interestingly, my heart has become bigger, not smaller. I feel emotionally safe now — safe enough to feel, and safe enough to say no.

I applaud my younger self, because behaving in socially appropriate ways, even when I did not yet feel them, was not deception — it was adaptation. It was intelligence. It was a nervous system doing exactly what it needed to do in order to survive an environment where belonging depended on appearance, not truth.

That version of me was not wrong. She was learning.

But I no longer need to live there.

Today, empathy no longer needs to be performed. It arises – or it doesn’t – and I trust that distinction. I care where care is actually needed, not where it is demanded, expected, or socially rewarded. I can stay present without self-erasure, compassionate without collapse, ethical without exhaustion.

This is what precise empathy has given me:

  • clarity without cruelty,
  • humility without shame,
  • and a deep, embodied permission to be truthful.

I have learned that I cannot be everything to everyone.

That my capacity is finite.

And that not all suffering belongs to me.

And in accepting this, I have finally found something I never had before – a sense of home inside myself.

~ Evgenia Pimżin