What Mazuz said.
What Mazuz said.
Absolutely! But go tell that to the 'Jones', they will think that you are trying to invent another theory......perhaps for fear of climbing out of a clusterphobic, self-crushing paradigm that Thomas Kuhn (1962) accused the scientific world of. And then, with their eyes spitting fire, the next thing they will do is to ask you to prove it. You are right, seeing oneself in another does substantially count as love, it serves the purpose of self-identification both in your own eyes and in the eyes of he or she through which you see. And most importantly, the compensatory value induced is substantially real and empowering, especially when it comes to the notion of moving things forward existentially.Mazuz said:Love is seeing yourself in another.
I disagree. Love is usually very expensive. Let me explain why, from the perspective of a male, starting from the simple things. First, there's the price of condoms to consider (always practice safe sex boys and girls!). Second, there's the price of fasionable clothes (you are not going to attract a girl with $10 sweatpants). Third, there's the price of dinners and drinks and cinema tickets and presents. Fourth, you'll need a car; that almost goes without saying. Fifth, to afford all those things, you'll need a job, and a fairly decent paying one, which usually means an education, and educations are expensive. Sixth, as the relationship gets more serious, and/or you get older, things like starting a family start to be considered, and this is where it really gets expensive! Now, you can no longer rely on your good looks (they may be gone by now, anyway, assuming you had any to begin with) or your personality. You must become part of a serious team which will have to provide for the kids and the middle-class dream. Instead of a job, you'll need a career. Your happy-go-lucky attitude to work disappears, and you'll become a little bit nastier and meaner; if what it takes to save your career is some backstabbing, then that's what you'll do. The price is sacrificing some of your humanity, and that's very expensive.pace said:Love don't cost a thing.
I have to say, I think that's a rather limited and/or unrealistic notion of love. To treat each statement seperately:NeutronStar said:True love is not being dependent on the ones that you love.
True love is respecting the values of the people you love.
True love is accepting the people you love for who they are.
If we can't do these things, then we don't love people for who they are, but rather for what we are trying to mold them into becoming.
A lot of people depend on each other. Mutual support and dependency is part and parcel of a lot of loving relationships. It was part of my parents' relationship. And they're still together after almost 40 years, the love is still strong between them. You grow together.True love is not being dependent on the ones that you love.
All of the values? For example, I have no respect for alternative medicine. I think it's nonsense. But if my significant other decided to try it out, then I could live with that. And I think our relationship could live with that. The same goes with many things I think are nonsense. And if she had no respect for my obsession with cosmology, it wouldn't bother me much. My values can change. I prefer doubt over faith. I am open to criticism of my values. I am comfortable with differences of opinion over values.True love is respecting the values of the people you love.
Again, I don't think this is absolutely necessary. I think you're always going to see flaws and faults in your partner. Meekly accepting them is not productive, in my opinion. I would love feedback from her on how I could improve as a human being, and I would hope that she would love my feedback on how she could improve as a human being. The problem starts when at least one of you is unable to handle criticism.True love is accepting the people you love for who they are.
Well, I must say that I hadn't really thought of my comments from the vantage point that you seem to have taken them. I suppose that love can't really be put into words because words are too easily misunderstood.cragwolf said:I have to say, I think that's a rather limited and/or unrealistic notion of love. To treat each statement seperately:,...
Since I don't think anyone has offered an agape-like version of love, I'll give that a shot.XMLT said:I just wonder if you are really in love with someone, can anyone else stop you from loving them? If they can, then do you really love that person or just having some kind of a feeling?
Utter nonsense. Sex is a pleasurable activity. Pleasure is not immoral or degrading. There's absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex.AiA said:But what one must realize is in terms of love, ideas of sex are confused, sex is meant for a marriage for a good reason, one gets married when they are truly in love, that is when sex is apropriate, cause then they can procreate that love. Now when people have premarital sex they are using the other for their body which goes against what love is, premarital sex is for the sake of an orgasm, for self joy, for using the other for sexual pleasure, using a human soly for their body is degrading and is wrong.
Sex is a pleasurable acitivity. No one ever questioned that. It is not immoral or degrading, as long as you are not degrading anyone else or your own mind.cragwolf said:Utter nonsense. Sex is a pleasurable activity. Pleasure is not immoral or degrading. There's absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex.
I'm having some difficulty following the reasoning here. By analogy to your argument, we can conclude that jaccuzis is degrading and immoral, receiving a massage is degrading and immoral, eating a piece of cake, if it serves no nutritional purpose, is immoral. All of these acts treat a human body as purely physical and all serve no purpose other than self-pleasure.dekoi said:Premarital sex is extremely degrading and immoral. It is an act in which we are turning the body and soul of other humans into pure physicality.
I'm still having difficulty following the distinctions you're making. If a married couple has sex purely for pleasure, is that immoral? As it stands, you've only covered careless sex anyway. If neither party is infected and birth control is used, then there is no danger of either STD infection or pregnancy. Under your contraints, given these circumstances, sex should not be immoral. I would agree if all you were saying is that infecting someone with an STD or getting a women pregnant against her will was immoral.AiA said:STD's and pregnancy are a result of sex, hence why premarital sex shouldn't occur cause it causes these problems, and people who are in love should get married, if you are just as truly in love with some one that your not married to in relation to a married couple, then why not just get married then have sex, and also again, you must realize sex is not for pleasure.
But how are you disregarding the soul/mind of your partner if that partner wants you to have sex with her? Is premarital kissing immoral? What about some other non-procreative act that a woman derives physical pleasure from? For instance, my girlfriend really likes simply for me to lightly scratch my fingernails across her lower back. Given that I am paying no attention whatsoever to her soul/mind and simply pleasuring her body, is this immoral?And you say eating pie is immoral, your not disregarding its soul or mind are you, if you are I apologize for ever eating pie, or using a hot tub cause I disregarded the hot tub's soul, you want me to go apologize to the hot tub.
All right, you're really losing me here. First, you can talk to a person you're having sex with. Second, consentual sex in which both parties are pleased is not "using" either party. Third, when done with the proper precautions, sex is not dangerous to either party. Second, unless it's a therapeutic necessity, what purpose does a massage serve other than indulgence?Now when looking at the example of a message, (a good example), that is used for ones personal pleasure and is done by a human who you pay for the act to be done on you. the difference between a message and sex is first off, your not putting the other at risk in any shape way or form, secondly, your not indulged in any passion while receiving a message unlike when your having sex, see, while having sex it becomes for the sake of getting an orgasm for yourself, using the person for an orgasm, and if your really nice you'll help the other use you to get an orgasm, how great. But when given a message your not in any way indulged, you can very easily talk to the person giving you a message.