Well, I didn't interpret it as a generalization. For me, she said that it was the ONLY place where pure love can exist. Not that it DOES exist in every parent child relationship—only that it was a possibility. Reason why such a possibility for 'pure love' exists in that specific relationship alone, is because the love felt between parent and child is devoid of attraction and lust. The parent feels responsible, they're the kids guide. The child looks up to their parents as a protector, for guidance and support—it's a beautiful thing. So, you don't believe attractions are involuntary? You believe that our life choices or experience have an effect on what we as individuals feel attracted towards? You describe love as some kind of external energy. I personally, think of love as nothing more than a label. We as human beings like to label things. We needed something to describe the powerful collections of emotions we felt towards our significant other, someone came up with the term love. That's all there is to it in my opinion. I don't really consider love to be an actual emotion. Anger is an emotion. I can feel angry towards someone. But when I say 'I love something', can I really break down what I mean by that? Not really. All I can do is give you examples of other emotions that collectively summarize my feelings towards it.
Beautiful. The learning isn't free. 2nd hand book shops and Goodwill show what others have owned, so what they used or read. Historical museums are free. Your time isn't. How much is your time worth? Your characters know what their time is worth. What do you love? What do your characters love? What is lovable about yourself? Your characters?
Photogenic and good looking only mean the same thing when referring to photos. Or maybe your grocery store is digital -_-
@Laze, you misinterpret me. The labels are the result of our human condition and limited comprehension. I believe is an energy yes, but not something that is external or internal, but something that just is. It is inside us, it is around us, it is us. It cannot be owned and given, only experienced and shared. Love is deeper and far more complex than words can appropriately conveyed, but in my limited observation love has many frequencies in which to manifest in our experience. Take that how you will, but in short, I think of true love as far grander, for more complex, far more perfect than anything described here or even put in the box of purely romantic.
You speak as if it's some kind of entity though, as if we humans are affected this 'incomprehensible energy.' To me, that's as fantastical as ghosts and vampires.
Well hey, interpret it how you will. That is my stance and I'm sticking to it. You could take Love as an entity or as an energy or as an emotion. As far as I'm concerned, love is not something controlled. We are only affected by it, and we only experience it, but in our current condition/state of mind we cannot comprehend it. Love is more than we conceptualize in my opinion. What was your point in calling my view fantastical? What have you gained?
You can't just declare it incorrect with no backing. To generalize anything to do with human emotion is kind of stupid, that's the only reason why I didn't take it as one. I didn't gain anything from calling your view fantastical, it was my opinion of your concept. I didn't intend to gain anything from it. It's just to me personally, the idea that love is something other than a label for a collection of all the human emotions we go through with another person, is silly. But hey, when you're with your partner, feel free to explain to her that you feel the way you do about her because some magic entity is making you to feel that way, and that it wasn't a result of spending time with her and feeling emotions that caused your body to release certain hormones.
Well, your pessimistic, naturalist/determinist view is no better than mine, bro. You clearly do not understand anything I just said, and it's okay. I never called love an entity, nor did I say anything about magic. All I said is that true love stretches far beyond the realm of romantic. Romantic love is just one manifestation that we experience. As far as you're concerned--according to how your post read to me--you'll have to tell a girl you're only with her because of certain biological responses, that may not go over well. Sooo... I'll take my chances because the girls I talk to tend to be fascinated by my view anyway.
I'm not a pessimist—I just believe in logic. Why does that automatically mean that I'm negative? It doesn't. I quote, "I like to think of love as a form of energy." Clearly, you didn't even consider the meaning of energy. It implies that love has some form of power. Which is ridiculous. Again, false. I said it was the result of spending time with her AND the biological hormones that are released during that time. Which is in fact, accurate.
And I didn't. Earlier in the thread I gave examples of how and why it was incorrect. You may also recall that I mentioned that it wasn't usually helpful to draw general conclusions based on one's own negative experiences. And yet, you offer this view with absolutely no backing.
Brilliant. You gave examples of dysfunctional relationships between child and parent. You didn't give any example of what true love is and why it can exist in two human beings not related by blood. You didn't even explain what your concept of true love is. I did and so did Mamma within her article, which you didn't even seem to acknowledge. You just replied with 'incorrect le.' Wrong. "I personally, think of love as nothing more than a label. We as human beings like to label things. We needed something to describe the powerful collections of emotions we felt towards our significant other, someone came up with the term love."
Backing your opinion up with your opinion. When I went to school, that was called "begging the question".
Those are common things that happen in common relationships. Anyone with a basic set of morals does those things in a normal healthy relationship, there's nothing true or pure about it. You still don't even see the point, that the love felt between parent and child is devoid of attraction. It's completely different. That's what makes it pure in comparison. Because it isn't lustful in anyway. The parent doesn't need anything from their child, it's a completely unconditional bond between them. (in normal parent child relationships) I'd rather call the love you're describing as 'successful love.' It in no way deserves the title as 'true' or 'pure.' But, I suppose this is only my opinion on this. And I can't prove any of it to be true. Ha, I can't prove any of those opinions yes. But you can't deny the plausibility of it. However, it's exactly what you're doing here as well. You are also, "begging the question". Both of us can prove nothing.
Yes, I was hoping somebody would say this. If you have any doubts about the character/s you create, have a few beta readers of your characters' gender read what you write and give feedback on the male/female issue. If they think you've missed something or have written the character unconvincingly from that perspective, they can point out the flaws. I know when I first wrote a main character who was male (I'm not!) I wondered if I got it right. To some extent I did, but after getting male perspectives (several of them) I did tweak certain things to make the male's thought processes seem more ...male-aware, for want of a better term. I tried to write him less as a female would see him, and more as how he sees himself. I don't know if it altogether worked, but it was great fun to do!
@Laze Trying to understand your standpoint. I''m curious... several of us are considerably older than you. Many might not agree with what I'm about to say, and I may even come off looking like a bad parent. But I'll say it anyway. You don't give your age—it's hard to tell from your pic—not that that really makes any odds... you could be 18 or 27. Are you a parent yourself? I've never believed that parental love is unconditional. Just like you describe sexual attraction the same, to me, is true of the initial bond that forms between parent and child. It's a biological thing. (Except in cases of post-partum depression and the like.) But as time goes on, I feel it to be more like Ed describes... it something that requires work, persistence, and a willingness on both sides. Yes... I loved my daughter before I'd even squeezed her out, but much of that is to do with hormones and brood survival instinct. What makes you think that just because, in normal circumstances, there's no attraction between parent and child that there is no need. Maybe you haven't been around long enough yet to realise how nonsensical that seems to some? There are many estranged parents and children. Maybe you haven't got to that point in life when you start staring at you own mortality. I've done my bit to repopulate the planet, but it's not like I don't get anything in return. I'm not talking cute smiles, seeing them grow, or or pride when they get good grades, I'm talking about having provided myself with the means to be taken care of, when I am no longer capable of taking care of myself. I'm just about reaching that stage with my own parents. I'm single by choice, I have a disabled brother and both parents are ill. From here on in my life is going to become considerably more difficult, more physical stress is going to be placed on me, and at a time in life when I can feel my own body is starting to be less than cooperative. Because my daughter and I have nurtured that initial bond that existed between us and, believe me, we have tested each other to our very limits over the years, I'll not have to do it alone. Even now she reaps benefits. She need only ask, and I'll be there to mind my grandson, so she and her partner can have some time to themselves, to kindle the flame that keeps their attraction and sense of joint purpose intact. There's more you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours involved than might be supposed. I believe I've been a decent enough parent that when my time comes to be taken care of, she'll step up to the plate without hesitation. From her perspective, and we've talked about it, she feels she owes me that much. That why she doesn't feel it to be a burden, just as my parents and I have a relationship, where they know I'll do the same. This flies in the face of biologically borne survival of the fittest, and comes down to human understanding and empathy. But like I said up post, I don't believe there's anything truly unconditional about it. When she was going through her teenage years, fighting to establish her right to self-determination, she pushed so hard my single biggest fear was that she'd do something I couldn't forgive her for, and that would have made me feel like a failure and a bad person, precisely because of the amount of concentrated effort I put into her. Luckily, in our case, it never reached that point. So I ask again... do you have children?
They did a 60 Minutes special on falling in love about a year ago I think. It's reduced to hormones and body chemistry at first. From there the brain kicks in and ruins everything.
Actually, you are quite wrong. My statements are based on 37 years of successful marriage and observation of other relationships, both successful and unsuccessful, which have come under intense and sometimes desperate strains. What you attempt to casually dismiss as "common things that happen in any common relationship" are the very things that make the relationship. If they were so common, there wouldn't be so many who find committed relationships so elusive. Moreover, it has been documented that the element that you seem to think is the be-all and end-all - physical attraction - is actually a process in the brain that is not very mysterious (or discriminating) at all and goes to the instinct to reproduce. A man who gets only a brief glimpse at a woman is likely to think she is more attractive than she ultimately turns out to be when seem up close (David Eagleman discusses this in his book, Incognito). That, however, is not love, and only a fool would pretend it is. And, as I said initially, neither is that wonderful initial rush we call "falling in love". True love is what lasts.
Funny co-inky-dinky. T and I went walking in the nearby graveyard last night and talked about relationships and stuff, how to portray them credibly in writing, what's true love etc. This is the conclusion we arrived at:
You mean it was really 48 Hours and I mentioned the wrong documentary? From the physical aspect, I tend to agree with the documentary. The study took note of body language characteristics that men and women change when someone attractive to them is near. The question is "Why are they attracted?" As for the cynicism about the brain, it was intended in jest, Ed. In truth, though, I've seen more brains mess up an otherwise chemically balanced relationship than the chemicals themselves. (Barring substance abuse of course, that, naturally pointing back to the brain anyway.)
