Exploring Love: What Do You Think It's All About?

[CeeAnne]

L'amour est fantastique.

 

[NeutronStar]

I haven't read the whole mushy thread, but I tend to agree with what some others have 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.

 

[cragwolf]

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.

I have to say, I think that's a rather limited and/or unrealistic notion of love. To treat each statement seperately:

True love is not being dependent on the ones that you love.

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 respecting the values of the people 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 accepting the people you love for who they are.

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.

But coming from a southern European cultural heritage, where we talk and argue a lot, spend a lot of time together in large groups, blow steam without keeping things bottled in, where the family is just as important as the individual, well, I might have a different perspective on these things than you.

 

[NeutronStar]

I have to say, I think that's a rather limited and/or unrealistic notion of love. To treat each statement seperately:,...

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.

 

[Rothiemurchus]

You know you love someone when you are willing to suffer instead of them!

 

[0TheSwerve0]

Anyone want to hop on over to the Is it wrong for people to have more than one partner? Or branch off into that here as part of a definition or limitation on love?

 

[Les Sleeth]

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?

XMLT

Since I don't think anyone has offered an agape-like version of love, I'll give that a shot.

The last 1/4 of my life I have often felt love without an object to love. It is like being in the experience of love without my friends or mate or cute kitty around bringing it out of me. This is just my own interpretation, but sometimes I sense that my consciousness is part of something bigger than myself, and when I feel that most strongly it seems to create a feeling of being in love.

I remember this song by Joni Mitchell ("A Case of You') where she sung, ". . . love is touching souls." That's not exactly the love I've been describing, but it helps to complete the explanation. Maybe love (leaving hormones out of the picture) is the feeling of unity one feels with some greater conscousness. That would explain why some feel the object-less kind of love; but because other beings are present there too, one can actually "touch souls," feeling-wise, and experience love also with other beings.

I realize there are also a lot of behaviors that one can practice which help preserve or express the feeling. When it's love between two people, being tolerant or affectionate, for example. But the more I've separated relying on having someone to love for love, and learned to just sort of be "in" the experience of love by myself, the more I seem able to enjoy love. :!)

 

[AiA]

Simple, easy to understand

Love first off is NOT an emotion nor is it a feeling, you can't love an animal cause it can't love you back, you can't love an object because it can't love you back.

Now as to what love is: First and for most it is the act of will, you need to be willing to love, you don't "fall" in love, its not accidental, it requires will
Second, Self sacrifice, that's pretty self explanatory, I'm sure all of you heard at one point of your lives "relations need work", well that involves self sacrifice.
Thirdly, not putting the other in danger, of course accidents happen so you can't hold that into acount, but when one desires to put the one they hurt (when in full control of their mind at the time, passionful events would most likely result in hurting the one you love.) See, pretty simple right, right.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Leaving aside the sexual component for a moment, I would say that love begins with friendship, caring, and appreciation. I don't think it can really exist on a basis that excludes any of these three.

juju

 

[AiA]

love and sex

Juju's statement is quite correct, love must come from some foundation.
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.

 

[cragwolf]

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.

Utter nonsense. Sex is a pleasurable activity. Pleasure is not immoral or degrading. There's absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex.

 

[dekoi]

Utter nonsense. Sex is a pleasurable activity. Pleasure is not immoral or degrading. There's absolutely nothing wrong with premarital sex.

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.

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.

But, let me guess, you don't believe in a soul.

 

[loseyourname]

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 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.

In fact, I cannot even see a moral difference between premarital sex (provided it is consentual) and married sex performed for a purpose other than procreation. There is no law that says two married people are any more in love or less objectifying toward one another than a non-married couple simply because they are married.

You've yet to give a good reason why a consentual act of mutual pleasure should be considered immoral. What could be more moral than two people getting together and agreeing to perform an act upon each other that increases the happiness of each, even if only for a half hour at at time? I might see extenuating circumstances you can cite as being immoral, such as one party being pressured by another, one party forming an attachment while the other does not, both parties being careless and getting pregnant or contracting a disease, but these are all circumstances separate from the act of sex that are themselves immoral. None points out any intrinsic immorality in the act of premarital sex itself.

 

[AiA]

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.

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.

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.

 

[loseyourname]

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.

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.

I also cannot see why two consentually and knowingly putting themselves at risk is immoral. That would seemingly make it immoral to engage in any dangerous act. Is it immoral a cab driver to speed up beyond the posted legal limit when asked to by his charge because of the chance of accident? (Consider the case separate from the morality of breaking the law.)

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.

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?

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.

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?

 

[AiA]

You have to realize that sex and scratching some one or somethin like that are completely different situations, sex properly is procreating love, back scratching properly used is to scratch a back, sex is not for pleasure, cause as I said before it is using the others for their body only. What is the difference between that and getting a back scratch is that while receiving a back scratch your not degrading the other, and in no way are you undermining their soul, but in sex you are.

Oh, and find woman who have had a lot of sex have a tendency of having damaged tubes or whatever (I don't know the technical term) which prevents them from having children and stuff, so that is just one example of how even with protection and what not how sex can be harmful.

 

[dekoi]

loseyourname: It seems that you have a misunderstading of what a human is. A human is more than just a body filled with emotion and the strive for pleasure. A human in its simplest definition is the unity of a body and soul.

You gave the example of eating cake and jacuzzi's; that is not immoral because you are not degrading the cake (since it has no soul). Contrary to that, by using the human body as a means to get pleasure, you are completely ignoring the human soul -- and thus, degrading it as well.

If a married couple has sex with say, a condom, that is "immoral" (im scared to refer to immorality, because many do not know what that is). They are ignoring human life -- or rather, rejecting it.

If the same couple is in love (which they should be if they are married) and have sex without that same condom, that is completely moral. In fact, it is beyond moral; it creates a transendental bond between the male and female, who are in the unity of marriage and love.

Now, continuing the example of premarital sex --> When one has sex with their partner (who they are not married to), they are doing it for the sole purpose of gaining pleasure from the partner. NOT giving pleasure; but GAINING it. That is what one means when they say "degrading the soul"; we are not only ignoring the soul, but rejecting it.

Most important of all, we are using sex for the wrong reason. The purpose of sex is the unity of the male and female, out of which the natural product is a newborn. If we have premarital or marital sex with a condom, we are rejecting this human life from coming into existence. A massage is not like that. Nor is eating a cake.

What is so difficult to understand?

 

[loseyourname]

loseyourname: It seems that you have a misunderstading of what a human is. A human is more than just a body filled with emotion and the strive for pleasure. A human in its simplest definition is the unity of a body and soul.

Can you find me a reputable source for that definition? I've never heard it before.

Contrary to that, by using the human body as a means to get pleasure, you are completely ignoring the human soul -- and thus, degrading it as well.

Well, I've asked numerous times if using the human body as a means to get pleasure in other ways was immoral and so far you haven't answered in the affirmative. Receiving a massage, or having someone suck on your finger, and many other acts unrelated to sex are using that person for self-pleasure. If using another person for pleasure is the reason you give for sex being immoral, then these acts are also immoral. If not, then there is some other reason that you think sex to be immoral, and I'd suggest leaving behind the notion that it's because you receive pleasure.

If a married couple has sex with say, a condom, that is "immoral" (im scared to refer to immorality, because many do not know what that is). They are ignoring human life -- or rather, rejecting it.

What about people that are infertile? Is it immoral for them to have sex?

Now, continuing the example of premarital sex --> When one has sex with their partner (who they are not married to), they are doing it for the sole purpose of gaining pleasure from the partner. NOT giving pleasure; but GAINING it. That is what one means when they say "degrading the soul"; we are not only ignoring the soul, but rejecting it.

I'll address your the former argument first. You say the sole purpose of sex is to receive pleasure, but what kinds of sex are you considering? What about oral sex? If I perform oral sex on a woman, which is obviously for her pleasure and not mine, is that still immoral? What about anal sex? Many women who do not enjoy anal sex are still willing to do it because their partner enjoys it. In this case, they are doing it solely for his pleasure. Is this now moral, or would you still consider it immoral? If you would, then there has to be some other reason than "because they are receiving pleasure."

In regards to the degradation of the soul: I'll assume for our purposes that a "soul" exists, something that is not exactly a proven or even entirely coherent notion. You claim that sex ignores the soul because it is used for purposes of bodily pleasure. THEN WHAT ABOUT OTHER ACTS THAT ARE ALSO SOLELY DONE FOR BODILY PLEASURE? What about kissing? Fondling? Masturbation? Asking your wife to get you another beer out of the refrigerator? All of these asks are done solely to promote bodily pleasure and none of them do anything to acknowledge the fact that the wife in question has a soul. So are they immoral?

Most important of all, we are using sex for the wrong reason. The purpose of sex is the unity of the male and female, out of which the natural product is a newborn. If we have premarital or marital sex with a condom, we are rejecting this human life from coming into existence. A massage is not like that. Nor is eating a cake.

Now we're beginning to get somewhere. Perhaps now you can see that your belief that premarital sex is immoral has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that it entails bodily pleasure. It is because you think it is a denial of the basic purpose of sex: procreation. Then I ask you this: If an unmarried couple has sex with the intent to procreate, is that immoral?

Perhaps we should address some other bodily functions that are used for purposes other than what nature intended (although the assumption that nature intended anything or that, if it did, we know the intention is presumptious to say the least). The best we can tell, nature gave us feet to walk on. So is a person with a foot fetish, who endulges in the adoration of feet, immoral for using them for another purpose? The best we can tell, nature gave us armpit hair to alleviate skin chafing caused by the constant friction between arm and chest. Is a person who shaves her armpit hair immoral for ignoring that purpose? The best we can tell, nature gave us an opposable thumb to make tools. If a person is using it in a thumbwar, is he immoral for ignoring that purpose?

What is so difficult to understand?

It is becoming apparent that you are having difficulty understanding the fact that arguments have forms, and the form of your argument results in nonsensical conclusions when extended to actions other than sex. Best I can see you have two:

1. x is being performed purely for physical pleasure.
2. It is immoral to perform any consentual act between two or more people purely for physical pleasure.
Therefore, x is immoral.

Replace x with "sex," and you seem to agree. Replace it with anything else (massaging, kissing, toe-sucking), and you don't. You're contradicting yourself.

1. Nature intended x for a certain purpose.
2. Using any action for a purpose other than what nature intended is immoral.
3. x is being used for a purpose other than what nature intended.
Therefore, x is being used in an immoral fashion.

Again, replace x with "sex," and you seem to agree, but replace it with anything else and you don't. You've again contradicted yourself.


Addendum: To you people making the "soul" argument. You are the same people who are arguing in other parts of this forum that the mind, and conscious experience, is entirely non-physical and a thing of the "soul." This entails all feeling, including feelings of pleasure, and so to say that pleasurable activity is neglectful of the soul - when it is the soul that experiences this pleasure - is yet another direct contradiction in your argument.

 

[Justinius]

I have to go with dekoi on this one...

Every human looks for truth, goodness, unity, beauty, and justice, all objectively. Many would tend to think that because of this desire for unity, premarital sex should be fine. What we neglect to take into account, however, is the soul, as mentioned by dekoi. In premarital sex, we make the other a completely physical object rather than looking at that person's nature, in order to gain pleasure for ourselves. There is no doubt that sex, be it premarital, or within marriage is pleasurable, but one must ask a question of justice. Is it just to put this other person at risk? Is it just to put myself at risk? In sex, studies have shown that the female makes more of an emotional connection than does the male. As a male having premarital sex, he must examine the emotional trauma that his female partner could go through as a result of their actions together. What if they have to break up, or choose to break up? What would play on the mind of the female that has established a huge emotional connection to her partner?

Sex is meant to occur between two people in covenental (marital) love. It is widely known that the act of having sex is a sacred act between two people who love each other. In marriage, the man and woman take vows, telling one another that each will love the other and stay with the other "until death do [them] part." This is a covenant, that is meant to be consummated in the act of eros, or sexual love. Premarital sex does not involve a covenant, nor does it necessarily involve any type of love. So by having premarital sex, one is not just seeking his/her own pleasure, but is degrading the other to an object because complete covenental love is not necessarily present in their act.

 

[Justinius]

Addendum: To you people making the "soul" argument. You are the same people who are arguing in other parts of this forum that the mind, and conscious experience, is entirely non-physical and a thing of the "soul." This entails all feeling, including feelings of pleasure, and so to say that pleasurable activity is neglectful of the soul - when it is the soul that experiences this pleasure - is yet another direct contradiction in your argument.

loseyourname

How can the soul, something metaphysical, experience physical happenings? Concious experience only becomes part of the soul in that the physical senses take it in, and make it part of your knowledge of physical events. Your knowledge is part of your intellect, which is non-physical. I think you've mistaken this when you say that conscious experience is entirely non-physical. Feeling (touch, if you will) is a physical sense. Your soul cannot experience touch because it is not physical, so the soul is not getting pleasure out of sex, the body is, because it is momentarily satisfying its want for concupisence (desires of the flesh).

 

[cragwolf]

What on Earth is wrong with premarital sex? Sex is a physical activity. Like any physical activity involving two people it can be imbued with all sorts of emotional and spiritual content. Often very nice content, too, if you ask me. Like love and rapture. But even without this nice content, sex is a very positive activity. It feels wonderful. The mingling of human bodies is a great stress reliever. It releases endorphins in the brain. It's good exercise. It makes you happier, assuming you don't have any repressive guilt feelings or bad memories associated with the activity. Premarital sex has inherently nothing to do with objectifying the other person. As long as the sex is consentual, you are giving pleasure at the same time as you are receiving it. Of course, like any interaction between two people, one person can take more than they give. Oh well, that's life! The person who feels robbed or deprived, can find another partner, or choose to wait until marriage, or opt for lifelong celibacy.

As for the idea posited in this thread that non-married partners have sex solely to gain pleasure from the partner ... sigh ... how dare you be so presumptuous and insulting to countless millions of fine people to state such utter tripe! People have sex before marriage for all sorts of reasons, more than you can possibly imagine. As just one example, sex is one of the ways that two people can really get to know each other very well, and thus can serve as a way of strengthening love and trust in one another. But yes, it is also a way two people can give and receive mutual pleasure. And they will do this safely, unless the nutcases among us, who refuse to sanction condom use or educate children about safe sex, take over all or most of the institutions of power in the world.

 

[dekoi]

Cragwolf: May i have your stand on the whole degrading-soul issue? You reply is simply a reiteration of what others have said earlier.

loseyourname: Most of what i wanted to say has been answered by Justinius.

Apart from that, i would like to answer some specific questions.

If an unmarried couple has sex with the intent to procreate, is that immoral?

Yes. The two partners are not in unity of marriage, and thus are not really in love. If they were in love, they would be married. Marriage is the finalization of love. It puts love in its final form.

Regarding your whole syllogistic reasoning used to show my contradictions:
It seems that you are underestimating the power of sex. Sex is in unity with love. It is similar to say, writing on paper and a pen. The writing could not properly be produced without the pen. Sex is therefore a part of love. If we do choose to perform premarital sex, we are using sex out of context. We are in fact, not only degrading the soul, but also degrading the concept of sex! The entire purpose of sex seems to diminish; its significance is no longer very significant to us.

Other things which cause physical pleasure are meant only for physical pleasure. They are not bonded with any metaphysical aspect. Contrary, sex -- the physical aspect -- is bonded with love -- the metaphysical.

Another point; you said "when it is the soul that experiences this pleasure". The primary purpose of sex is physical pleasure; the primary purpose of love is metaphysical unity.

 

[cragwolf]

Cragwolf: May i have your stand on the whole degrading-soul issue?

Irrelevant. You think that's it relevant, but it's not, and no one here, including you, has shown that it is relevant.

The two partners are not in unity of marriage, and thus are not really in love.

This is presumptuous arrogance of the highest order and an indication of the lack of respect for other human beings, to pronounce who and who isn't really in love. Where do you get the gall to say such things? It's the first step to psychopathy, which is based on the complete lack of respect of other human beings.

 

[AiA]

Irrelevant. You think that's it relevant, but it's not, and no one here, including you, has shown that it is relevant.



This is presumptuous arrogance of the highest order and an indication of the lack of respect for other human beings, to pronounce who and who isn't really in love.

If two people are truly in love, then there shouldnt' be any reason for them not to get married, and if there are doubts of marriage, then obviously there not in love.

Secondly, how could you say that the notion of sex degrading the soul is irelavant, it is the most important issue to discuss. When you have sex, your using the partner solely for their body and are disregarding their mind and soul, it goes against the nature of what sex is. sex is to be used for procreating love and having children.

 

[juju]

Love is the law, love under will. Nor let the fools mistake love; for there are love and love. There is the dove, and there is the serpent. Choose ye well!

from the Book of the Law by Aleister Crowley

 

[cragwolf]

If two people are truly in love, then there shouldnt' be any reason for them not to get married, and if there are doubts of marriage, then obviously there not in love.

Sure there are reasons, once again more than you can imagine. One possible reason is that the couple sees marriage as superfluous. The mere fact that they're together and loving each other is enough.

Secondly, how could you say that the notion of sex degrading the soul is irelavant, it is the most important issue to discuss.

Nonsense. You have not shown that sex degrades the soul. Like all forms of human interaction it can have positive as well as negative effects on the participants. That's life. Deal with it how you choose, but don't condemn other people for their choices. In other words, mind your own business, and stop projecting your myopic morality on to other people, especially people you don't even know.

There's too much arrogance and not enough humility in this thread. I don't know what love is. If two people feel like they're in love, who am I to question them?

 

[loseyourname]

Regarding your whole syllogistic reasoning used to show my contradictions:
It seems that you are underestimating the power of sex. Sex is in unity with love. It is similar to say, writing on paper and a pen. The writing could not properly be produced without the pen. Sex is therefore a part of love. If we do choose to perform premarital sex, we are using sex out of context. We are in fact, not only degrading the soul, but also degrading the concept of sex! The entire purpose of sex seems to diminish; its significance is no longer very significant to us.

Translation: Regarding your showing that my arguments are inconsistent - I will not address them.

Tell me this, since you find it so sacrosanct that sex is an activity intended only for those who are married. Do you consider early humans, who had sex before there was any such concept as marriage, possibly even before they had any concept we would recognize as "love," were immoral for having sex and thus bringing us into existence?

 

[Justinius]

Tell me this, since you find it so sacrosanct that sex is an activity intended only for those who are married. Do you consider early humans, who had sex before there was any such concept as marriage, possibly even before they had any concept we would recognize as "love," were immoral for having sex and thus bringing us into existence?

In morality there is something called autonomy. Its also a term familiar to those in a law-related field. This term defined tells us that people who are unaware of the actions that they are committing, are not committing any falsities. For example, if it can be proven in a court of law that a person was sleepwalking and killed another, the "killer" is not convicted of murder because he/she was unaware that they were committing this crime. The same goes for sex. The early humans had no idea of morality, let alone an idea of love, as you pointed out. Before Pythagoras, humans had little or no idea of the concept of metaphysics. So can we say, speculatively, that the early humans who brought us into existence were immoral? No, because they didn't know any better. However, now that people are aware of metaphysics, morality, and autonomy in morality, we are indeed able to say it is immoral, unless the act itself is autonomic.

 

[cragwolf]

The early humans had no idea of morality, let alone an idea of love, as you pointed out.

Unsupported claim.