the Nature of Love... (or, "ugh, me like cave. uhm, you no hate me?")

[marduk_lok]

The post I made earlier has kept rattling around in my head... so I figured putting it down here would let me get to more relevant notes. What follows is a train of thought that has been stewing for 19 years, so before you start throwing stones at me, think about it for a bit - as I've gotten pretty good at catching them and winging them back. lol

Comments

[thecloris]

I have a book called _Why Is Sex Fun?_ by Jared Diamond from the "Science Masters" series that agrees with you on a lot of your evolutionary points.

I agree, without understanding the harsh reality of our genetic imprints, it is even more difficult to have a satisying love life. We've talked lots and lots about that here at home!

[lordlothair]

Sometimes it doesn't matter how often you do things for someone else, if the situation is a double standard, it is useless to bother...

But that's just me being me...

[littlebella1980]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here....

[kurtreznor]

i used to be a staunch believer in 'true love' (whatever that really meant). i suppose maybe ive just become more cynical about it, but i dont think of love that way anymore. to me, 'love' is a language tool comprised of many different qualities that would be difficult to describe (at least concisely) without the word 'love'. this doesnt lessen it's meaning for me, love is still an intense feeling combining many good qualities. the problem, of course, is that different people will include/exclude different qualities as to what constitutes 'love', and recognizing that i could use 'love' in many different contexts. by my understanding, you seem to have a very minimalized meaning of love and dont actually need the word 'love' except to communicate how important those four qualities are when talking to others who dont conciously prioritize them so.