Many experiences require more than one metaphor to explain. Think of these in terms of compatibility, not consistency, not that each metaphor explains a disjoint part of the experience.
A model like Love Is a Journey is a a model in the George Box sense: wrong but useful.
> But it is one thing to impose a single [...] model in some restricted situations and to function in terms of that model – perhaps successfully; it is another to conclude that the model is an accurate reflection of reality. There is a good reason why our conceptual systems have inconsistent metaphors for a single concept. The reason is that there is no one metaphor that will do. Each one gives a certain comprehension of one aspect of the concept and hides others. To act in terms of [one Target Domain or a consistent set of them] is to hide many aspects of reality. **Successful functioning in our daily lives seems to require a constant shifting of metaphors.** The use of many metaphors that are inconsistent with one another seems necessary for us if we are to comprehend the details of our daily existence. – Lakoff and Johnson, p. 221, my emphasis.
A design method due to Jim Coplien and Trygve Reenskaug called Data, Context, Interaction 
has some of the flavor of shifting the Source Domain metaphor.