@123456789 Why are you even bothering to post if all you are doing is being childish? @obsidian_cicatrix And you, you made a nice valid post with your own personal experiences included, then for some reason you went on to make yourself look like a complete utter moron with the next thing you posted—I find that truly odd. This isn't an argument by the way—this is a conversation. I'm not saying I'm right. I'm simply giving my opinion here. So stop acting like a child. Anyway, I think you kind of contradicted yourself with: Then going on to say: And then further down, you then display your ignorance to a lot of things I made clear while talking to Ed. You have barely even read my point—like most people. You said: Now, read this carefully. The point I made wasn't that of: The love between parents is ALWAYS pure and true. I specifically made that clear. My point is that the love between parent and child is the only case where it COULD be pure and true. The reason being is because the feeling doesn't require anything. It's an automatic selfless bond. I'm speaking of the most optimal cases of parent and child relationships, and that love between them is far more pure and true than the love that can be achieved between two partners. It's the only instance of love that can be that pure because it's devoid of lust and need. The parent doesn't require anything in return from their children in order for them love them, a parent will always love their child no matter what they do. Yes, there are plenty of dysfunctional parent and child relationships, which has nothing to do with the point I made, and to be honest it sounds like yours ins't exactly an example of a good one. Especially when I read: Like wow, you really think you're doing your child a favour? It was your decision to create that child. Anything that child does is your responsibility. You're the person who is supposed to teach them right from wrong, you're the person who is supposed to nurture and guide them. You made that choice when you let someone impregnate you. And no, I'm not a parent. I'm merely empathizing with what I'd assume it's like. And yes, that does make me completely incredible. But, I never claimed to be that. I even agreed with Ed when he saying I was "begging the question." I am doing just that. Also, answer me this. In your case, you didn't have a successful marriage as you're a single parent, but I'd image you know what it's like to be loved. Hypothetically, say you were in a situation where your husband/partner and child was about to die, and that you could only save one of them. You'd pick your child every time—that's the difference. @EdFromNY That isn't proof. That's your experiences over mine. Yours are considerably longer, that is true, but it still proves nothing. I'm curious, you only mention marriage, are you not a parent?
okay. Writing takes experience. Remember they say: Write what you know. Well, write what you're used to but don't make it mundane. Write what you're born with and keeping your writing style really present.
You should note that the segment of mine that you quoted was not in response to you but rather Laze. I found your comment quite amusing.
@Laze - If I were trying to use my negative experience in saying that something is never possible, that would not be proof. When I say that I have experienced something that someone else is saying is never possible, that is proof. A sample of results does not prove that something is universally true, but it can prove that something is not universally false. We appear to have lost the OP long ago, and this is becoming tiresome, so I will leave the discussion at this point. If you would like some interesting insights into true love from a philosophical perspective, I recommend Tiehard de Jardin. From a social sciences perspective, Erich Fromm. I suspect that with experience you will come to see things differently. From your posts, I would deduce that you are not a parent and not in a long-term committed relationship, and I would recommend that you not rely on such experience to draw conclusions on either. Have a nice day.
I'm also one that doesn't believe in the unconditional thing. As soon as you segregate your child from another parent's child in consideration, you've placed a condition on it. The word "unconditional" is pretty absolute in my mind. There is always conditions. Always and forever shall be conditions, like Jesus' "unconditional" love for his followers, who must be baptized and believe.
Are you a parent or not? The reason I ask is because if you're not, it would explain why you feel so strongly to defend your feelings towards your wife of 37 years. Besides, all I meant by that is that you can't claim my opinion to be incorrect—which you explicitly did—simply based on your own experiences. I never claimed to be correct, all I did was disagree and give you my reasons why. My point was that when a child is born, the parent (in normal cases) loves said child automatically. Even if it's born with down syndrome or something, a parent will love the child because it is their child. There's no conditions to be met in order for the parent to feel love. Like Cicatix said, she loved her child even before she had given birth. That is unconditional. The conditions for two people to achieve love however, require attraction and intellectual similarities.
But there is the condition that it is their child. As I said, unconditional is absolute and very desegregating. I'm not disparaging Cicatrix love for her child, but we are getting into proper definition, not the hijacked version. Unconditional is without conditions, constraints or barriers. Cicatrix may very well kill for her child, but that's still not unconditional, just extreme.
I guess I never really considered it being her own child as a condition, but I suppose it is now that you've brought it to light. I retract me labelling it unconditional, as it merely being her child is a condition. However, it still doesn't change the nature of the love between parent and child—which is devoid of lust. That kind of love is simply unattainable between partners.
Y That's one of the drawbacks of ignoring people. From my monitor, I saw your post directly beneath mine and, if the counter counted his, I may have failed to notice...
This is the norm and how it should be, but we do see occasions where something breaks down. Something fails somewhere back in family history and gets passed on like an ugly heirloom no one seems to be able to throw away. That is why I will never have children. I am a sufferer or survivor or what ever one wants to call it and I don't trust myself enough to not do the same.
It doesn't matter that it's the way it's supposed to be—what matters is that it is the way it is. What matters is that it is devoid of attraction and lust, thus, making it something more pure. We cannot change our nature towards other people, that instinctual notion of wanting to reproduce. Yet, when a parent looks at their child it's the only case where that reproductive instinct is not applied. (in normal cases) Which I think is something really special.
@Laze I have a response but we will end up hijacking this thread with our discussion of definitions and meanings.
I have two children, ages 29 and 26. They are part of the universe that has shaped and reshaped the relationship my wife and I have with one another. And I do not have to defend my feelings toward my wife. I was simply giving you the benefit of an experience with a long-term committed relationship that I have had and you apparently have not. Are you aware that, as late as the 1970s, parents of children with Down Syndrome (and other developmental disabilities) were told to put their child in an institution and forget them? And many did. And today, 90% of children identified in utero with Down Syndrome are aborted. The agency on whose board I serve, which provides services for people with developmental disabilities, was founded mostly by parents of children with Down Syndrome, but only a small percentage of the people we now serve are of that population. Another generality spouted on the basis of what you think should be. But I'm not going around that loop again.
parents come in all sizes, colors, backgrounds... and characters... becoming one does not automatically imbue every person with all the good qualities of a 'loving' parent... nor even a 'loving' mother... my reference in the piece 'love and sex' to the love between a mother and child being the only 'true love' was clearly referring to the optimum, exluding those cases where for one reason or another, the mother is incapable of same... so carrying on a heated debate re good parents vs not-so-good ones is just a waste of time and source of dissension we don't really need more of here... do we?
I just found it weird how you didn't bring up that you were a parent. Any other parent would of felt inclined if they'd experienced parenting themselves. You on the other hand, don't. Maybe you didn't have a good experience of being a parent. I don't know. Like I said, it was only in the most optimal cases that this purer more true form of love existed, I never said all kids born with down syndrome are loved. There's plenty of parents with children with down syndrome that love them though, that's a fact. I already retracted me labelling it unconditional. But it still doesn't change the differences in the nature of loving your wife and loving your children. Honestly, explain to me how you can attain the same selflessness you do with your children, with your wife? You cannot—unless you truly are twisted, and don't feel genuinely selflessness towards your children. Maybe you are a case of a bad parent. It certainly seems that way if you're incapable of differentiating between love for your wife and love for your children.
There are two things that you're ignoring here, @Laze : 1) Adopted children have no biological or genetic connection to the parent. (Ok, some do, but most adoptions do not.) Parents love their children that they adopted just as much as those they birthed. 2) There are lots of people who do choose to find their partner attractive. Many people don't view their spouse as initially attractive, but come to find them attractive later, through knowing them. (Just as there are people who initially find someone physically attractive, but then they talk to them and lose the attraction entirely.) Love often grows through taking care of another person. With a spouse, sometimes there is a moment of realization where one determines that he or she just can't imagine going through life without that other person, and couldn't bear the thought of someone else taking up that person's available time. There is something to be said for an initial spark, and although a lot of people do have it, and often people can tell very quickly that they've "clicked" with someone, that isn't quite love. Real love comes later.
Okay, okay ...that really is not called for, is it? You're chucking unpleasant remarks of a very personal nature at someone you know nothing at all about. Time to pull in the horns...
I'm somewhere in that category, but at the same time, I think this may help clear up some misinformation. I agree that selfless is optimal, but there are many cases where a parent murdered their children, not by excessive beatings, but outright drowned them or poisoned them with the intent to cause death. Saying a parent loves their child no matter what being the way it is is not taking into account the darker side of human behavior. The world is not so binary.
Laze, let me see if I can help on this. You're viewing love as this unrequited act of selflessness that you can only render to a child of your genes. However, there was a mass shooting at the premier of Batman in Colorado in which some men fell on their women to protect them and they were killed. Can it really get more selfless than to sacrifice your life for another? I thinking or speculating you're viewing the world in a very yes/no, 1/0 binary way. It is or it is not, but the world is a lot more grey than that. You can't apply formal logic of any kind to the world because formal logic is square with very hard edges and the world is round.
I said in the most optimal cases. Do you understand what that means? This conversation isn't regarding the vast range of parent and child relationships. It's simply about the fact that there is a love shared between a parent—or what I'd consider, a good parent—that is unattainable between two partners. That's what this is about, and that only. Not really. It's fine to assume if you're willing to change your assumptions accordingly—I am. However, calling me ass because I assumed something makes you more of an ass. I didn't do it a rude way, I merely speculated something based on my own experiences with my parents. Which is exactly what you're doing here, everything you have said is based of your own experiences. Also it was the fact that someone in this very thread who is a parent declared that when she first gave her opinion. I just found it odd, that you didn't even mention any of your parental experience when we were talking about notion of being a loving parent. You know, it seems like a pretty important thing to bring up. I'm not being nasty. Everything I've said is relevant. It's just I'm actually quite baffled that he can't seem to differentiate the way you and I can on this matter. I'm not saying you can't be selfless with your partner. All I said was that when it comes to a life threatening situation between someone choosing their partner or child to survive—as awful situation as that is—that the child would be saved. If was me, I would want them to save my child opposed to me. It was just an extreme example to illustrate that children are prioritized. That there was no work involved in attaining that feeling. You didn't have to know your child for years and years like you do with your partner—with your child it's an innate instinctual connection.
First of all, yes, I understand what "in the most optimal cases" means, but you're defeating your own argument by limiting it in that manner. But, that's not what I'm addressing here -- you have, in several posts in this thread, tied the parental-child love to DNA. My point is that it is *not* tied to DNA, although that can be a component of parental feelings. Your argument was that you choose your partner, and more specifically, that it is random, whereas your child you choose to actually create from your own body, and therefore the love is different. I'm pointing out that you don't always create your child from your body, and there are many cases where it is "random" that you end up with a particular child. Yet, the parental love is the same as it is for the DNA-linked child. So that is not the determining factor. You were the one who brought up this idea. I'm pointing out that it's not universally true, and while it can be a factor, it is not decisive.
How have I defeated my own argument by saying it only exists in optimal cases, when that is the argument. You're thinking far beyond my point here. The point was, that it's innate. You love your child before it's even born—it's an instinct. It doesn't require years of socializing like it does with your partner. The point was never even to do with adopting children, either. It was quite a simple point that you yourself have made far more complex. The point was that you cannot feel the same type of love for your own child, towards your partner. It is a different type of love. And that type of love for your child is more 'pure' because it's devoid of attraction and lust. That's it. Adoption is irrelevant. This isn't a generalization. It's just a specific point that there is a love that exists that is much more pure than the ones you develop through socializing. So many people on this forum don't have any reading comprehension.
This is pretty much what I meant when saying "...then the brain ruins it all." We ARE biochemistry sets. Some of our chemistry is a chelate to another's isolation. May be good. May not be. As you've shown, brain chemistry is the deal maker or breaker. Can we tolerate the imperfections? Is the sex great enough to make them transparent? For the novel, some of the most intriguing twists are those where people so removed become so indispensable to others. Consider "Dances With Wolves."
