# Love (questions to consider)



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Have searched the site and found nothing similar here.

I feel what it is. Curious why many see it differently.

What is love? 

Why do individuals make it conditional for a spouse yet unconditional, even for adult children?

We aren't talking of abusive relationships here.


----------



## Violet28 (Oct 4, 2018)

Love is feeling, a commitment, a decision, a caring and concern for someone. If it isn't unconditional, I don't think it's love. However, even though it is a commitment, you can still love someone and break up with them. It doesn't mean you don't love them, it means that something about them is not good for you or maybe you are hurting each other by being together.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

Violet28 said:


> Love is feeling, a commitment, a decision, a caring and concern for someone. If it isn't unconditional, I don't think it's love. However, even though it is a commitment, you can still love someone and break up with them. It doesn't mean you don't love them, it means that something about them is not good for you or maybe you are hurting each other by being together.


I agree with this. My love for my kids is unconditional to a point. For example if one is harming themselves in some way, I will not enable them.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Love starts as a feeling but grows into an action. True love is about giving not receiving. Love is about faith and belief. Love is the best thing about life, but not the most important.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

aine said:


> I agree with this. My love for my kids is unconditional to a point. For example if one is harming themselves in some way, I will not enable them.


If they are harming themselves, not enabling is showing them love. Just saying ....


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

For a marriage I propound from years of observation, and contemplation the quote, "love is a choice," and another, "love is a commitment."
Meaning, without commitment there can be no love. 

We commit to raising and helping our children to grow no matter how difficult. .

In a marriage, barring abuse, some forget to commit, and help each other to grow, for it often becomes selfish. The relationship itself is a living entity which also needs to be nurtured, 

One must be accepting of themselves before they can really love another. 

Love is validating/accepting who another is beneath the projections they portray.


----------



## StarFires (Feb 27, 2018)

red oak said:


> What is love?
> 
> Why do individuals make it conditional for a spouse yet unconditional, even for adult children?


Your question is not nearly as general as the way you asked it. It is very, even extremely, subjective, so the answer would have to be geared toward your particular situation per the reason you asked it. Tell your story and the reason you asked the question if you want responses that will make sense to you. It sounds like you may be a step parent, and general relationship responses that apply to non-step family relations are altogether very different from those regarding step parenting and step families. So sometimes (not always though), you have to program your brain accordingly, which means that asking the non-specific question of what love is as it pertains to spouses and adult children is not even remotely the same as asking the question regarding spouses and adult stepchildren. 

You can't get any real help or real answers without people knowing your circumstances and why you asked this question.


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Love is something earned.

Initially, offered as a gift.
A gift given with hope.

When hope is lost, love normally follows.

Love can be contagious.
Certainly is when chemistry permits.

It becomes uncertain when love is unrequited, not returned.

Love is a formula that only gels with another when it is:
At the right time.
At the right place.
With the right person.

And in sync with the other half's right conditions.

God willing.
God permitting.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

red oak said:


> Have searched the site and found nothing similar here.
> 
> I feel what it is. Curious why many see it differently.
> 
> ...




Read the Selfish Gene. It explains it perfectly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene

From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave selflessly with each other.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## arbitrator (Feb 13, 2012)

*We may think that love is unconditional, but it is still largely conditional! Whether it is a child or a spouse! If a child abuses us, another person, himself, violates criminal law, does drugs, alcohol etc., it can change our perception of them, and to wit can make us shy away from them!

The same is certainly true of a spouse, with the added norm that they pledge and execute mutual exclusive fidelity to us, and us to them!

In both cases, we may continue loving them, but no longer want to be in their presence. In the case of a wayward spouse, we may utterly come to despise them out of our own outright hurt and resentment, often wishing that God would personally deliver them to hell!

Such, thank God, is an unrealistic expectation, but none of it really diminishes the throes of our pain!*


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Love towards the spouse is largely imagined. We imagine an ideal, how we would want them to love us then we find someone approximating that image and project this image onto them.
It’s really all imagined, not real and self serving.

Genes and bacteria rule the world and are at the top of the food chain, not people. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense.
Genes mastered immortality, we haven’t.

The strongest bond is between mother and her child. One of the weakest bonds is between spouses, though it doesn’t feel like this at first, when it’s largely about procreation in order to pass on the genes to the next generation. Once that’s done, there’s not much purpose left, except ensuring the kids grow up to pass on those genes in turn. We are just slaves or vessels, rationalising stuff and trying to get by with minimal harm.

You can observe some crazy behaviour in nature because some species evolved a certain way through natural selection to behave so that maximum benefit is achieved towards ensuring that the genes get passed on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

Here’s a video that explains a bit:

https://youtu.be/6gE_IPTXznM

Talks also about why we are programmed to cheat. But then again, you might think (like I do) “how strange, I don’t feel like I AM programmed to cheat”.
There’s usually always an explanation for that too: once you have offspring to take care of, you could be more useful to the genes of the offspring of you stay faithful (by taking care of the family). 
And in other circumstances, you could be more useful inseminating everything and anything that is moving around you. If depends.

The video gets it a bit wrong though: there are also strong reasons (from gene’s point of view) why altruistic behaviour within a society is more beneficial than purely selfish behaviour.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## happyhusband0005 (May 4, 2018)

red oak said:


> Have searched the site and found nothing similar here.
> 
> I feel what it is. Curious why many see it differently.
> 
> ...


I actually feel my love for my wife is unconditional. She is the mother of my kids, we have been through a lot in life together which will never be shared with another person. I don't think there is anything that could happen that would completely wipe away the love we have. Sure there are probably things like infidelity that would irreparably damage the marriage but i think in reality I would always love her.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> Read the Selfish Gene. It explains it perfectly.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene
> 
> ...


I will let non other then the Purple One counter this opinion. 

Science may explain the selfish gene, but they can't explain why someone of this genius would chose to spend his considerable talent writing this song. Or the millions of people who wrote, or sang, or danced, or made love to songs just like this one. Why it's the subject of poets and painters and writers and every other human being since the beginning of time. Why most religions speak of God as love. 



> And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.


2000 years later - still true. May we all find someone who we can have all three of these things with. Wisdom will tell you that THIS is more important then THE NEW. IF you choose to live with your "animal brain" and not have faith, hope, and love, the loss is yours.


----------



## aine (Feb 15, 2014)

EleGirl said:


> If they are harming themselves, not enabling is showing them love. Just saying ....


Maybe, but then it is conditional on them doing XYZ, not harming themsleves, getting clean, etc. I think my understanding of unconditional love is different to yours. Unconditional love is without limitations or boundaries or conditions. Not enabling someone is placing conditions and boundaries....just saying


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't know how to define love but I recognize it. I'm on a business trip to an isolated, but very interesting location with lots of fun people to meet. I'm enjoying myself, but what I really want is to see an talk to and touch my wife again.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

uhtred said:


> I don't know how to define love but I recognize it. I'm on a business trip to an isolated, but very interesting location with lots of fun people to meet. I'm enjoying myself, but what I really want is to see an talk to and touch my wife again.




Familiarity breeds love too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

sokillme said:


> Science may explain the selfish gene, but they can't explain why someone of this genius would chose to spend his considerable talent writing this song.



It does actually. For the same reason why a peacock  will show off his feathers.

You mean science can’t explain why we FEEL certain things when we listen to a song or see a beautiful painting etc.

I’m also interested in where a thought originally comes from. Or why. Don’t think anyone can explain that either.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think familiarity with someone who makes you happy breeds love.



inmyprime said:


> Familiarity breeds love too?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

inmyprime said:


> Love towards the spouse is largely imagined. We imagine an ideal, how we would want them to love us then we find someone approximating that image and project this image onto them.
> It’s really all imagined, not real and self serving.
> 
> Genes and bacteria rule the world and are at the top of the food chain, not people. If you think about it, it makes perfect sense.
> ...


I agree with much of this, not all.

I like little of that which I agree.

Not that I have a choice.

The choice that I have is to love that which I have earned, love that which I have been given.
To roll in the love, smelling the clover, ignoring the dung that I roll around, not in.

Ignorance is bliss.

When love fades, bliss fades with it.

When a man has his manhood in his love, a lass; alas, though the light of the world may go dark, his love for her doth not fade.
His love comes from within him, not from his *environs.

His love light sprays outward, filling his lover with his nectar.



The Typist I-

*The environs impel, do not compel. 
As we are not alone, we are not free. 
Not free of outside forces. 
We are those forces, just a small part of the whole.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

aine said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> > If they are harming themselves, not enabling is showing them love. Just saying ....
> ...


Ya no....that isnt actually love.

Letting my child run into traffic with no boundaries isn't love lol


----------



## Betrayedone (Jan 1, 2014)

SunCMars said:


> I agree with much of this, not all.
> 
> I like little of that which I agree.
> 
> ...


OH MY!.....I have the vapors..........


----------



## SunCMars (Feb 29, 2016)

Betrayedone said:


> OH MY!.....I have the vapors..........



Ah, vapors....

Some, not many.... anymore....

They call them Vespers.

Given as Light, not ever offered in the Evening.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

StarFires said:


> Your question is not nearly as general as the way you asked it. It is very, even extremely, subjective, so the answer would have to be geared toward your particular situation per the reason you asked it. Tell your story and the reason you asked the question if you want responses that will make sense to you. It sounds like you may be a step parent, and general relationship responses that apply to non-step family relations are altogether very different from those regarding step parenting and step families. So sometimes (not always though), you have to program your brain accordingly, which means that asking the non-specific question of what love is as it pertains to spouses and adult children is not even remotely the same as asking the question regarding spouses and adult stepchildren.
> 
> You can't get any real help or real answers without people knowing your circumstances and why you asked this question.


Yes it is that general. The question has nothing to do about anything in my life.

I ponder life. One of my many ponderings.

It goes back to love being a choice. A few hundred years ago live got romanticized....

If love is a choice do we, or do we not, choose to love a spouse based upon our preconceived idea of what we want them to be instead of learning who they are first and loving them for such?

An example. At elvis's funeral people he never met were wailing and crying, about how much they were going to miss him, and how much they loved him. In there mind they loved that which he meant to them, not the actual person....


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

arbitrator said:


> *
> 
> The same is certainly true of a spouse, with the added norm that they pledge and execute mutual exclusive fidelity to us, and us to them!
> 
> ...


Good points.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Although not a Christian, I do believe the verse, "there is no greater love than a man to lay down life for a friend." Such doesn't necessarily mean one having a physical death.


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

red oak said:


> Yes it is that general. The question has nothing to do about anything in my life.
> 
> I ponder life. One of my many ponderings.
> 
> ...



That’s because things only exist in our minds (pass around that joint  ). 

And also: if the person itself doesn’t know who they are exactly, how are you supposed to find out or know it?

I do think we carry the ability to love someone within ourselves and just find the person to project it onto. Doesn’t mean that person is this way in real life or in our imagination. Obviously if the two diverge too much, the you need to get them off the ****ing pedestal. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> I do think we carry the ability to love someone within ourselves and just find the person to project it onto. Doesn’t mean that person is this way in real life or in our imagination. Obviously if the two diverge too much, the you need to get them off the ****ing pedestal.


LOL. Reckon that's where the selfish gene kicks in?
So selfish they project the love for who they want them to be instead of who they are?


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

red oak said:


> Have searched the site and found nothing similar here.
> 
> I feel what it is. Curious why many see it differently.
> 
> ...


Love is both a choice and an action.

Real, genuine, deep love is also unconditional. If my husband was unfaithful I would divorce him, but I would still love him, you can't just turn that off. I could never trust him again, nor stay with him, but I would still love him.

If my child were abusive to me, I would cut them off. I would still love them, not like them perhaps, nor would I tolerate the abuse, but I would still love them - albeit from a distance.

Love doesn't mean defending the indefensible.


----------



## FeministInPink (Sep 13, 2012)

A friend posted this on Facebook, and it seemed to fit the topic.









Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

FeministInPink said:


> A friend posted this on Facebook, and it seemed to fit the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I used to think that. Well I still think like that to some extent, but mainly because I realise that we NEED to think that, otherwise everything will fall to ****.

You see it reads like an excuse why love is so hard. It SHOULDN’T be but people who lived know that it is, because long term love between spouses is futile by nature. It is ‘unnatural’ and there are no biological reasons to stay bonded with someone for life that’s why it’s so bloody hard. You don’t need to ‘commit’ yourself to love your children or your parents? You just do. That’s not the same between spouses. And no ceremonies, promises, contracts or pretty poems in the world will make it more permanent that it is meant to be. Unless you make a ****ing effort and lift mountains.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

red oak said:


> LOL. Reckon that's where the selfish gene kicks in?
> 
> So selfish they project the love for who they want them to be instead of who they are?



We can’t know ‘who they are’. Do YOU even know who you are? We can approximate of what their nature is like through their character traits and behaviour patterns. But that’s about it.
In any case, the irony is, I personally do feel the majority of the time that I have absolutely found The One; I do not feel I need anyone or anything else nor that I could’ve love anyone more. I also know that it is a feeling that I imagine, or at least the intensity of it. If I ended up with someone else and we were similarly compatible (in the sense that we wouldn’t be always ripping each other’s throats), I might feel the same - who knows? 
It’s difficult to know whether feelings is what we feel/imagine (because they come from inside), and how much it is due to the other person. I think the majority of it comes from the inside, and it’s not black and white.

Plus I’m sure many people feel the same way and at some point get disillusioned and their whole world breaks down when things don’t work out. The question is: how much are you willing to risk projecting that love onto someone, when you know deep down there’s always that possibility they may shatter it?

While on the other hand: what is the purpose of life if you have to hold it back?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 269370 (Dec 17, 2016)

red oak said:


> LOL. Reckon that's where the selfish gene kicks in?
> 
> So selfish they project the love for who they want them to be instead of who they are?




‘Selfish’ was a stupid part of the title. That’s a characteristic that should be assigned to individuals. It’s inappropriate to assign this to genes or things. They don’t KNOW what they are doing. 
The point of the book is, that everything is set up in a way to benefit the propagation and ensure the immortality of genes. Even we would like to tell ourselves otherwise (because that’s how the world otherwise appears to us). That’s a very powerful realisation. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> I used to think that. Well I still think like that to some extent, but mainly because I realise that we NEED to think that, otherwise everything will fall to ****.
> 
> *You see it reads like an excuse why love is so hard. It SHOULDN’T be but people who lived know that it is, because long term love between spouses is futile by nature.* It is ‘unnatural’ and there are no biological reasons to stay bonded with someone for life that’s why it’s so bloody hard. You don’t need to ‘commit’ yourself to love your children or your parents? You just do. That’s not the same between spouses. And no ceremonies, promises, contracts or pretty poems in the world will make it more permanent that it is meant to be. Unless you make a ****ing effort and lift mountains.


The bold is reason for this thread. 
I agree love shouldn't be hard, and as in opposition to new age ideology, propose long term Love as The natural state unable to be turned off.

As @frusdil stated, " If my husband was unfaithful I would divorce him, but I would still love him, you can't just turn that off."

As a hunter gatherer people, which genetically we are, our world once revolved around 50-75 people our entire life, except for 3-4 times a year when there were annual gatherings and huge parties. 
Consider those here on TAM who, even though they were wronged, still find it so hard to divorce (in our hunter gatherer days they were ostracized until they were willing to show true remorse and make reparations.)? Instead of being from some egotistical need or projection, it is our need to belong to be loved. To be part of a group. Tribe. The loss of anyone effected everyone. (Without an idea where counting coup came from, and why it was so important it can be difficult to understand the last statement?)

Without writing a book to connect all the dots it's hard to get you here from there. Try to keep this short and still get point across. let's try a synopsis of human nature. It's unnatural to split a group or tribe as such is a need. The severest punishment, usually only for crimes such as deceit, stinginess, and intentional killing was banishment. No one anywhere would have anything to do with them, speak to them, help them. In other words what they did showed a selfishness which wronged every member of the tribe. However, if they made reparations, or redeemed themselves they would very often be accepted back. 
Accepting them back showed love was still there. 

Love is only hard because of excess demands of modern life and contentions created thereby. Modern era demands on relationships set them up for failure from the start. 
Women sense something is wrong more than men. Although there are some men who have the feeling something isn't right. 

I will guesstimate only 20% of people even know how to form a bond/love if sex isn't involved to create the needed sense of belonging. If some one doesn't know, how can they possibly have a marriage based on love anyway?


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

inmyprime said:


> *We can’t know ‘who they are’. Do YOU even know who you are? We can approximate of what their nature is like through their character traits and behaviour patterns. But that’s about it.*


Don't you think it is ironic we are supposed to know who we are, instead of what we are first; are somehow supposed to be self-actualized before we have our baser needs met; simply because belonging, and love are the base needs which must be met before one can self-actualize and know who they are!!
:scratchhead:


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

Seem to be having website problems.


----------



## personofinterest (Apr 6, 2018)

> We can’t know ‘who they are’. Do YOU even know who you are? We can approximate of what their nature is like through their character traits and behaviour patterns. But that’s about it.


Very astute.

This whole "love me for who I am" is almost always code for "Don't make me do anything uncomfortable/change destructive habits/do anything I don't want to." Yeah....it really does.

Now, there are times when people try to change or quell us. My ex wanted me to cut out the parts of me that needed intimacy or wanted to be expressive.

But most of the time when we DEMAND that people "accept us for who we are" we are demanding that they do nothing to make us uncomfortable, nor do they call us on our crap behavior.

A simple example of this is the rude, caustic person who says, "I'm just blunt. Take me or leave me!"

An extreme example would be the serial cheater or abuser who expects their spouse to love them AND stay with them anyway. Sadly, churches sometimes encourage this (like the pastor who told my friend to pray and submit more after her husband tossed her down a flight of stairs).

Unconditional love, in the way some think of it, isn't actually love. It's laziness.


----------



## red oak (Oct 26, 2018)

personofinterest said:


> Very astute.
> 
> This whole "love me for who I am" is almost always code for "Don't make me do anything uncomfortable/change destructive habits/do anything I don't want to." Yeah....it really does.
> 
> ...


LOL. Like the way you put it. Very well said, and unfortunately too often true.

Seriously a "pastor," told a woman such? A good "pastor" would have publicly reprimanded the "man" asking him, since you believe in doing unto other, as you would have them do unto you, should he be thrown down as well?
How does the verse go, "if you see your brother doing wrong reprimand him, and he may do well. Reprimand him not, and he die in his transgression his blood is upon you." (Paraphrased)
Why we kind of got kicked out of church. :smile2:

I look at comfort zone as stagnation. One can't grown nestled under the hen.


----------

