Why love ?

[The French Unicorn]

To be clear I am not only talking about romantic love, but love in general.
Why is love seen as this pure thing that makes us nice and kind, or humans ? Why did our ancestors look at love and say "hello you, you will be the feeling that I will elevate above all qualities and declare the most important thing in the world ?"

If you say that you are unable to love, people will look at you as some kind of monster, even if you are a nice person. Som will say that you need to be cured, or will pity you. Or they will insist that you are in fact able of love even if you are supposed to know your feelings better than they do. Or they will try to convince you that love is in good thing that exists, in the same way some people do with God.
Same way if you say that someone else's love hurt you, people will either say you have to forgive cause they meant no harm, either that it was not really love cause if they did they would not hurt you. As if love was immune from doing bad things.
In some people mind, love even have the power to turn negative into positive. Like the people who insists that sex is bad except if you do it with the person you love, which makes no sense at all.

I know of course that media have responsibility in that. We all watch these movies or read these books that explain to us that the difference between good and evil is love, or that love has some magical power that can defeat evil. Latest I saw was the School of Good and Evil, and Disenchanted, not mentioning all the Christmas movies I saw, and all the movies that use love or its absence to humanize or deshumanize characters. So yeah I know that the idea is so persistant because we are taught from a very young age that love makes us good and the absent of love makes us evil, that love will defeat all the bad thingss thrown in our way and justifies everything, and that we need to be happy... even if none of that is true.

But my question is more : why do we come to this point, where the idea is everywhere in media and irl, and that everybody believes it ? Why love was chosen for that and not, I don't know, respect, or empathy, or politeness ? Not saying you need these things to be a good person or that they should have been chosen instead (nothing should have been chosen at all), I'm just wondering what people see in love that they don't see in other things, to idealize it like that  ?

To sum it up : why love ?

[EmeraldIce]

5 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

Why is love seen as this pure thing that makes us nice and kind, or humans ? Why did our ancestors look at love and say "hello you, you will be the feeling that I will elevate above all qualities and declare the most important thing in the world ?"

...
But my question is more : why do we come to this point, where the idea is everywhere in media and irl, and that everybody believes it ? Why love was chosen for that and not, I don't know, respect, or empathy, or politeness ? Not saying you need these things to be a good person or that they should have been chosen instead (nothing should have been chosen at all), I'm just wondering what people see in love that they don't see in other things, to idealize it like that  ?

I think it's because we choose and learn respect and politeness and stuff, while love is something that is fundamentally beyond our control, and there's something magical about something beyond our control that can utterly change us and our perspective on the world.

 

4 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

Same way if you say that someone else's love hurt you, people will either say you have to forgive cause they meant no harm, either that it was not really love cause if they did they would not hurt you. As if love was immune from doing bad things.

Fortunately, I think we're moving away from that mindset. Not to say there aren't still tons people like this. With every progressive change there are always tons of people who push back and take it as some sort of offense. BUT I would say that at least among the younger generation (i.e. under 40) in American society in general, it's a fairly accepted idea that you don't have to accept microaggressions or even worse just because they liked you and meant no harm.

 

9 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

So yeah I know that the idea is so persistant because we are taught from a very young age that love makes us good and the absent of love makes us evil, that love will defeat all the bad thingss thrown in our way and justifies everything, and that we need to be happy... even if none of that is true.

Yes, love is overrepresented and much exaggerated. I don't think it's untrue that it changes you though. Love does change you and it does make you do things you wouldn't otherwise do, think things you wouldn't otherwise think. Honestly, for books and media, it's petty much a lazy way to create a motivation for characters who otherwise don't have a motivation. And I don't think these elements are thrown in to justify things, but to make things more reasonable and understandable. Most people do have reasons for doing what they do. No one is a villain in their own eyes, and this just is one way to show it. I personally always like a character that's motivated by other more substantial things though!

[Destranix]

2 hours ago, Frenchace said:

Or they will insist that you are in fact able of love even if you are supposed to know your feelings better than they do.

Cause (nearly?) all people can do. That got nothing to do with knowing ones feelings, as it's about the possibility, not the current or past state.

2 hours ago, Frenchace said:

Why did our ancestors look at love and say "hello you, you will be the feeling that I will elevate above all qualities and declare the most important thing in the world ?"

Isn't it more like: "Hey, we call all good things 'love' or something like that."?

2 hours ago, Frenchace said:

As if love was immune from doing bad things.

Maybe due to its definition.

2 hours ago, Frenchace said:

and Disenchanted

Darn it! Even though I watched it a couple of time I'm not sure were exactly love plays a role in there.

2 hours ago, Frenchace said:

So yeah I know that the idea is so persistant because we are taught from a very young age that love makes us good and the absent of love makes us evil, that love will defeat all the bad thingss thrown in our way and justifies everything, and that we need to be happy... even if none of that is true.

I'd say, most children would say that love is disgusting. So not sure how true your statement is.

 

2 hours ago, Frenchace said:

why do we come to this point, where the idea is everywhere in media and irl, and that everybody believes it ?

Not everyone believes it. But what might happen is, that people search hope in or for good feelings, maybe aliased as "love".

2 hours ago, Frenchace said:

Why love was chosen for that and not, I don't know, respect, or empathy, or politeness ?

Empathy can be love. Respect and Politeness are no feelings.

2 hours ago, Frenchace said:

I'm just wondering what people see in love that they don't see in other things, to idealize it like that  ?

Hope maybe? Or a sense in life?

Also it's not only about seeing things in it, but also feeling things.

[Astrea]

I think it's a definition problem here. 'Love' is a very broad and hazy notion which generally is just used to mean 'positive feelings towards something / someone'. So yeah... it's seen positively. ^^

[everywhere and nowhere]

I am against elevating romantic love above all else, against presenting it as a condition of happiness and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which people who have never formed any long-term relationship are unhappy because they were told that without romantic love they must be unhappy and will be unhappy. But I am also deeply pro-intensity, so I will never support the idea that it's fine to live a life devoid of love. Despite all my problems, despite poverty, I love the world and this made the concept of non-personal love (love for something other than a person - for phenomena, for concepts...) an obvious reality for me. And I absolutely believe that it's better to passionately love the world than to calmly observe it.

Of course, your mileage may vary, I am simply openly opposed to rationalism.

[Tetus]

2 hours ago, Frenchace said:

To be clear I am not only talking about romantic love, but love in general.
Why is love seen as this pure thing that makes us nice and kind, or humans ? Why did our ancestors look at love and say "hello you, you will be the feeling that I will elevate above all qualities and declare the most important thing in the world ?"

I think that to answer this question, we need to look closely at the word “love”. You’ve noted that you don’t just mean romantic love, but “love in general” is a very broad category, and people use the word in a variety of ways: “love of country” “platonic love” “love thy neighbor” “animal lover” “I love chocolate” “make love” “love life” “self-love”, etc.

 

The thing that should be immediately apparent is that the word is used in a ton of ways, and many of them have very little to do with one another: saying you love chocolate and that you love your family are talking about two very different emotional states. When you love chocolate, you just really like chocolate: you enjoy it, but more than you enjoy other foods. Love is used here as a sort of intensifier to denote that you really like it quite a lot and enjoy having it around. A lot of people will note that this is not generally how we understand loving family: you might love your family while being intensely annoyed by their presence, for example. 

 

If anything unifies the varied uses of love, it is not so much a type of feeling, but a depth of one. To love is to care about something deeply, to give it a place of primacy within yourself. I think that there is, generally, recognition that love can be harmful: if someone loves violence, for instance, that is not seen as a good thing. And the archetype of the obsessive stalker or overzealous advocate of a cause are both fairly well represented in the media as stock villains. 
 

That said, you’re right that we tend to glorify and lionize love and passion, depicting them as saccharine and pure in ways that are at best eyeroll-inducing and at worst actively harmful. Especially when problematic and harmful actions are justified on the basis of love.

 

THAT said, I can’t help but agree that love, in some sense, is what we have to offer one another, and ourselves. Doing something that you care about deeply is fulfilling. Caring for other people is good. Caring for yourself is good too. The classic wedding quotation in cheesy Christian contexts from Corinthians is (translations obviously vary):

 

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails.”

 

You can read this as aggrandizing an existing thing in the world, “love”, and ascribing all these virtues to it. I read it as defining love, though. Love as aspirational: the willingness and ability to be patient and kind towards others, to forego pride and envy, to not hold grudges, to respect and honor the will of others above oneself and to have that commitment endure through challenge and hardship, as well as through pleasant times and distractions. If your love is jealous or petty or self-serving, then it isn’t really love: it is instead something lesser.

I confess to liking this idea. I think we should aspire to ideals, even if they are maybe beyond our reach. And as defined above, I think this kind of love is a good ideal to aspire to.

 

I think, ultimately, the most accurate and precise answer to your question is the same answer to many questions like this: “love” is a weird word that means a lot of super different things, and saying anything at all about all kinds of love is almost impossible to do in a coherent way. But trying to answer the spirit of your question kind of presents a challenge where I don’t really understand what you mean, since I don’t think you mean to say you are incapable of caring about other people or of being patient and kind, etc. So, I dunno.

 

In conclusion, I think love is p good. Thumbs up.

[The French Unicorn]

3 hours ago, EmeraldIce said:

think it's because we choose and learn respect and politeness and stuff, while love is something that is fundamentally beyond our control, and there's something magical about something beyond our control that can utterly change us and our perspective on the world.

Yes but there are other emotions like empathy, sympathy, admiration, enjoyment... Also I personally put more value in things I chose to do that things I have no control on.

3 hours ago, EmeraldIce said:

Love does change you and it does make you do things you wouldn't otherwise do, think things you wouldn't otherwise think. Honestly, for books and media, it's petty much a lazy way to create a motivation for characters who otherwise don't have a motivation. And I don't think these elements are thrown in to justify things, but to make things more reasonable and understandable. Most people do have reasons for doing what they do. No one is a villain in their own eyes, and this just is one way to show it. I personally always like a character that's motivated by other more substantial things though!

Sure but there are other things that can change you so again why it is always love and why love is treated like the most beautiful reason for a person to change ? For instance, in Harry Potter, I've seen fans talked about how Snape was a good guy because he betrayed Voldemort cause of Lily's murder and joined the good guy, but I only see there an evidence of his selfishness. If he had joined the good guy cause he realized that Voldemort's philosophy was wrong, I would see it differently.

 

1 hour ago, Destranix said:

Cause (nearly?) all people can do. That got nothing to do with knowing ones feelings, as it's about the possibility, not the current or past state.

Except that yes it is. If someone tells you "I don't feel love" and you answer "yes you do (because all people do)", you are telling the person you know better their feelings than they do. It's like people saying "you will one day" if you tell them who don't want sex and who could also dismiss your feelings by saying "it's all about the possibility, not the current or past state". If someone tell me how they feel, I believe them, I don't answer they are wrong.

1 hour ago, Destranix said:

Darn it! Even though I watched it a couple of time I'm not sure were exactly love plays a role in there.

How could you ? That's the most important song in the movie, the one you hear both in the movie and the generic ! It starts by saying "memories has power" and yes it switches with Idina Menzel belting "love power" during three minutes, saying love will save the day and will help Gisele remembered who she is... Even if it was about memories and not love.

1 hour ago, Destranix said:

I'd say, most children would say that love is disgusting. So not sure how true your statement is.

Romantic love maybe, and even then, depends on kids. And it still there very early in kid shows. I mean, do you watch Disney and fairytales ?

1 hour ago, Destranix said:

Empathy can be love.

The fact that empathy can comes from love doesn't mean that you need love to have empathy. That's the point.

 

1 hour ago, everywhere and nowhere said:

I am against elevating romantic love above all else, against presenting it as a condition of happiness and creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which people who have never formed any long-term relationship are unhappy because they were told that without romantic love they must be unhappy and will be unhappy. But I am also deeply pro-intensity, so I will never support the idea that it's fine to live a life devoid of love. Despite all my problems, despite poverty, I love the world and this made the concept of non-personal love (love for something other than a person - for phenomena, for concepts...) an obvious reality for me. And I absolutely believe that it's better to passionately love the world than to calmly observe it.

Of course, your mileage may vary, I am simply openly opposed to rationalism.

That's kinda what I disagree with : that apparently deepness and intense feelings equal love, or that the opposite of move could be being cold or super rational.

48 minutes ago, Tetusbaum said:

The thing that should be immediately apparent is that the word is used in a ton of ways, and many of them have very little to do with one another: saying you love chocolate and that you love your family are talking about two very different emotional states. When you love chocolate, you just really like chocolate: you enjoy it, but more than you enjoy other foods. Love is used here as a sort of intensifier to denote that you really like it quite a lot and enjoy having it around. A lot of people will note that this is not generally how we understand loving family: you might love your family while being intensely annoyed by their presence, for example. 

That's another problem I have with the word, that it is used to mean everything and anything, and so people will always find a way to say "but yes you love" if you feel disconnected from that concept, because you have other characteristics and feelings that they associate with love, as love can mean anything and everything.

 

 

1 hour ago, Tetusbaum said:

You can read this as aggrandizing an existing thing in the world, “love”, and ascribing all these virtues to it. I read it as defining love, though. Love as aspirational: the willingness and ability to be patient and kind towards others, to forego pride and envy, to not hold grudges, to respect and honor the will of others above oneself and to have that commitment endure through challenge and hardship, as well as through pleasant times and distractions. If your love is jealous or petty or self-serving, then it isn’t really love: it is instead something lesser.

 

That's something I disagree with, that the negative part of love is not really love, and that's what I mean about people idealizing it so much.  Love is still love if it leads to bad things.

 

1 hour ago, Tetusbaum said:

But trying to answer the spirit of your question kind of presents a challenge where I don’t really understand what you mean, since I don’t think you mean to say you are incapable of caring about other people or of being patient and kind, etc. So, I dunno.

I speak with loveless aros in mind, actually (I don't remember if the specific label is used in the article but it explains well the experience).

And what you just say is exactly the thing I wanted to address. I ask "why love" and there your mind immediately jump to care , patience and kindness, even if these things don't have to be related. People don't need love to be kind or to care, or just to be a good person in general. My, it even happened to me to care about someone that I didn't like at all (hate is a strong word but yes, come on).

 don't like to conceptualize my relationship with love. What I care about is whether or not we enjoy each other's company and give each other support or help. I don't get the societal pressure to bring love into any of this, because no matter if I feel it or not, love is not important for me ans is not what I seek.

 

Of course love will be define differently by everyone, but it has a tendency to replace all the positive things : it seems to me that people treat being good and being full of love as synonymous, and I just don't get it.

[Tetus]

 

2 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

 

That's kinda what I disagree with : that apparently deepness and intense feelings equal love, or that the opposite of move could be being cold or super rational.

That's another problem I have with the word, that it is used to mean everything and anything, and so people will always find a way to say "but yes you love" if you feel disconnected from that concept, because you have other characteristics and feelings that they associate with love, as love can mean anything and everything.

I understand where you’re coming from, but I don’t think you can enforce usage of words in the way that this implies. Like it or not, all these usages of the word love are common, and to say that one is more right than another is wholly arbitrary. It’s like if I say I think you are “cool” and you were to respond (seriously, not as a joke) that you are not cool because your body temperature is average, that would be a weird response. Like, it is true that in some senses of the word “cool”, it could apply, and in others, it wouldn’t, but that’s not to say that I’m wrong to think of you as cool, even if you don’t use the word cool that way.
 

2 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

That's something I disagree with, that the negative part of love is not really love, and that's what I mean about people idealizing it so much.  Love is still love if it leads to bad things.

I mean, leading to bad things is different from being a bad thing, right? So if my love is actually orient, kind, and selfless, it can be all those great things but still like, if someone I love gets hit by a truck on their way to come see me, it led to something bad. It is strange to say that we’re only allowed to define love one way and that way has to include things like jealousy or cruelty or whatever.

 

2 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

I speak with loveless aros in mind, actually (I don't remember if the specific label is used in the article but it explains well the experience).

And what you just say is exactly the thing I wanted to address. I ask "why love" and there your mind immediately jump to care , patience and kindness, even if these things don't have to be related. People don't need love to be kind or to care, or just to be a good person in general. My, it even happened to me to care about someone that I didn't like at all (hate is a strong word but yes, come on).

Two notes:

 

First, I mentioned complicated relationships with others as love. I think the one people relate to the most is family - my mother, for instance, is very difficult for me to like due to her politics, the way that her choices when I was a child led to me bouncing between homes and experience a number of traumatic things, etc. However, I still care for her, and I care what happens to her, and that is a type of love. It can and does hurt me, to be sure, but I don’t think the world would be a better place if I didn’t have that love for her. 

 

Second, I did review the article, and it is worth noting that the author vacillates between the performance of love and the experience of love. The negative impacts were based on abusive relationships that are excused by someone’s professions of love. That isn’t a problem with love, it is a problem with lying. And the idea that the author cannot perform love and is thus perceived as loveless, which leads to a perception of inhumanity. But this again isn’t actually about love, it is about perception, performance, and ableism. I also struggle with performing the traditional signifiers of love as advertised in media, but I don’t think it makes sense to say that is evidence I don’t experience love.

 

2 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

 don't like to conceptualize my relationship with love. What I care about is whether or not we enjoy each other's company and give each other support or help. I don't get the societal pressure to bring love into any of this, because no matter if I feel it or not, love is not important for me ans is not what I seek.

 

Of course love will be define differently by everyone, but it has a tendency to replace all the positive things : it seems to me that people treat being good and being full of love as synonymous, and I just don't get it.

Again, if you understand them to mean love as caring for other people, that might help. You certainly aren’t forced to use the word that way yourself, but it does seem strange to refuse to understand a word in the way that other people use it and insist that it cannot have that meaning.

[Destranix]

17 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

If someone tells you "I don't feel love" and you answer "yes you do (because all people do)", you are telling the person you know better their feelings than they do.

Also depends on the context. Sometimes people really don't know what they are feeling.

But definitly invalidating their opinion is usually not good.

19 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

That's the most important song in the movie

Oh you are talking about the movie. I though it was named "Enchanted", not "Disenchanted". My fault then. I wanted to see the movie but didn't yet.

21 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

Romantic love maybe, and even then, depends on kids. And it still there very early in kid shows. I mean, do you watch Disney and fairytales ?

I'd say that kids usually think of "romantic love" when thinking about "love". That's definitly something media seem to propagate. Though not all do and some even use that kind of popularity for interesting plot twists.

 

I'd definitly like to watch more Disney movies and fairy tales, but I somehow don't manage to do, executional and emotional, not sure.

23 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

The fact that empathy can comes from love doesn't mean that you need love to have empathy. That's the point.

I meant: "Empathy" can be interpreted as "love" somehow.

25 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

it seems to me that people treat being good and being full of love as synonymous, and I just don't get it.

Interpreting it my way as "People assume other people that are full of emotions and empathy are good in any way" or something like that (like being against such a person is bad somehow) I'd definitly aggree that this is a wrong and annoying statement. People are blinded by emotions, not seeing reality.

 

I don't have to do some typical "good deeds" to be a good person, I can help people in different ways. And, despite many other peoples, I am self-aware, having a concept, not just doing good things cause they are good things or to be loved, but because I see, that doing good things helps me and others reaching their goals, whatever these goals may be.

 

Not interpreting the statement, I must say, that I don't divide people in good or bad or something like that.

[The French Unicorn]

9 minutes ago, Destranix said:

Oh you are talking about the movie. I though it was named "Enchanted", not "Disenchanted". My fault then. I wanted to see the movie but didn't yet.

Enchanted is the first movie, Disenchanted is the second one.

[Destranix]

1 minute ago, Frenchace said:

Enchanted is the first movie, Disenchanted is the second one.

That's confusing.

[uhtred]

Part of the issue is the wildly broad use of "love".  I love my child, I love my cat, I love chocolate, I love my wife, I love my father, I love my teacher,  Jesus loves you.    Same word, completely different meanings.  So if someone can't "love" its not clear which of those they mean.

[The French Unicorn]

2 hours ago, Tetusbaum said:

Again, if you understand them to mean love as caring for other people, that might help. You certainly aren’t forced to use the word that way yourself, but it does seem strange to refuse to understand a word in the way that other people use it and insist that it cannot have that meaning.

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm not saying the word can't have that meaning. What I'm saying is that though care can be included in love, it doesn't mean that love have to be included in care. They can be linked without being synonymous, And my question still remains : why people always assumes it has to be ?

I would say it is like romance and sex. For most people, a romantic relationship means there is sex in it, even if we may forgot it is that way in the ace community. I also saw people argue that if you are in a sexual relationship that isn't casual, then you are in a romantic relationship with them. For them one implies the other, and yet, everybody in the aro and communities can say this is not necessary the case.

And I feel this way about all the things that people attached to love, like care, empathy, kindness, enjoyment, pleasure, etc.

And it confuses me that when I try to explain this, people say that I am mistaken or try to change the meaning of word.

 

2 hours ago, Tetusbaum said:

mean, leading to bad things is different from being a bad thing, right? So if my love is actually orient, kind, and selfless, it can be all those great things but still like, if someone I love gets hit by a truck on their way to come see me, it led to something bad. It is strange to say that we’re only allowed to define love one way and that way has to include things like jealousy or cruelty or whatever.

The thing that confuses me is that for me, excluding the "bad side" of love from the definition leads to situation like it is expressed in the article, where someone can't expresses their own feelings towards love and how it hurts them in the past, by telling they are mistaken because it was not love, when it was.

I'm not saying that there can't be different type of love. What I don't understand is why people want to disqualify the problematic types as not being in love in the first place. Because I have the feeling this is happening because love is glorified in a way that becomes unhealthy.

 

To sum it up I just want to know why it is so hard for people to recognize that everything good or kind that happens in this world is not necessary an expression of love, and that lacking love doesn't make someone a serial killer or a Hitler. And I want people to be able to claim the loveless label without people saying "but you love because you care about this or because you enjoy company or whatever". If loveless aros have to respect the love's definition of others, then others have to respect theirs as well.

 

Sorry I'm not sure if I am clear.

 

[Gloomy]

I’ve wondered something similar to this about the way people view psychopaths and sociopaths. Many psychopaths and sociopaths go their whole lives without seriously harming people even if they can’t feel love and empathy and all that because they don’t want to spend their lives in prison or getting sued, or they logically know that cooperating with people when you live in a society is more beneficial to you than burning bridges with everyone. But many people will still automatically label all people under the psychopaths and sociopaths as bad people and even advocate for them to be locked up even if they’ve never harmed anyone. Is someone who avoids doing bad things to people because of logic really worse than someone who avoids doing bad things because of love? I guess it scares many people if someone is incapable of those “human” emotions.

[Destranix]

3 minutes ago, Frenchace said:

What I don't understand is why people want to disqualify the problematic types as not being in love in the first place. Because I have the feeling this is happening because love is glorified in a way that becomes unhealthy.

I guess it's more like they glorify love because they see it as something very valueable and something that is part of their identity. If they disqualify their love they disqualify theirself and then what are they?

 

So they do things like e.g. different attribution (not the love was the problem but other poeple that abused it) or changing their definition (it wasn't true love) or something like that.

That's a very normal thing, keywords are "cognitive dissonance" and "self-serving bias".

[The French Unicorn]

15 minutes ago, Destranix said:

I guess it's more like they glorify love because they see it as something very valueable and something that is part of their identity. If they disqualify their love they disqualify theirself and then what are they?

 

So they do things like e.g. different attribution (not the love was the problem but other poeple that abused it) or changing their definition (it wasn't true love) or something like that.

That's a very normal thing, keywords are "cognitive dissonance" and "self-serving bias".

Sure I get it but I find that annoying.

 

19 minutes ago, Gloomy said:

I’ve wondered something similar to this about the way people view psychopaths and sociopaths. Many psychopaths and sociopaths go their whole lives without seriously harming people even if they can’t feel love and empathy and all that because they don’t want to spend their lives in prison or getting sued, or they logically know that cooperating with people when you live in a society is more beneficial to you than burning bridges with everyone. But many people will still automatically label all people under the psychopaths and sociopaths as bad people and even advocate for them to be locked up even if they’ve never harmed anyone. Is someone who avoids doing bad things to people because of logic really worse than someone who avoids doing bad things because of love? I guess it scares many people if someone is incapable of those “human” emotions.

Yeah exactly that really is annoying ! Aros tend to say things like "we can still love we are not psychopaths", and yes the statement is true : aromanticism and psychopathy are different things. But also we know what the statement really means is "we are not like these monsters we mean no harm", which is very ableist.

 

 

That's also why I open this subject. In the ace community there were the "don't worry we can still fall in love" and then in the aro community that was replaced with "don't worry we still love platonically". Though the statements are true they are say in a way that makes people who can't feel these things like look like the worst possible people ever.

And I just wonder why the concept of love took this value of "if you don't feel it then you are dangerous".

[TormentDubz]

I want to know if it’s such a good thing why is it a motive for evil

[what the face]

6 hours ago, Frenchace said:

And I just wonder why the concept of love took this value of "if you don't feel it then you are dangerous".

Trappings of the

love / hate  duality

 

”if . .  .  .  then . .  .”  causality?

Verbal misinterpretation of 

Love’s essence

which is beyond spoken word.

 

6 hours ago, Frenchace said:

That's also why I open this subject. In the ace community there

Here

a fair, important topic.      (fairly imp)

imho

[Destranix]

17 hours ago, Frenchace said:

Sure I get it but I find that annoying.

People are annoying, that's just a fact.

I also wich people would not be so annoying.

 

[Aelfwin]

I generally agree with the statements that we view love as positive and important because we use that term as a short-hand for all feelings positive and important. 

 

It's used as a catch-all category, in the same way that "animals" is a catch-all category for a variety of things.  If I'm talking about my drive in to work, could I use a more specific term to describe the furry, four-legged entity sitting on the side of the road?  Yes.  But maybe I didn't get a good look as I drove past, so I'm really not sure if it was a raccoon or a large cat or a possum or something else.  Or maybe the type of animal isn't as important as other parts of what I'm describing in that story.  So I use the catch-all phrase and move on.

 

I think people use "love" similarly.  And that's probably why even in this discussion there's been a lot of need to distinguish what type of love someone's referring to.  "Romantic" love vs "platonic" love vs the love of objects.  And the fact that "love" covers really any feeling positive and stronger than "like" also probably has something to do with why people push back against claims that someone might not feel love.  Because the person using it (presumably) is referring to love of others, as a very particular type of feeling towards others.  When people hear terms like that, they tend to default to the broader category (excluding "gotcha" examples and remembering that these claims are based on averages, not individuals).  So part of that pushback is also an unconscious bias of "there's no THING you love?" like chocolate, bacon, soccer, whatever other items or experiences bring them joy, in addition to the interpersonal version.  Because in order to avoid that definition of love, you'd essentially have to not have positive emotions at all - potentially possible, but not necessarily what you just claimed.

[Epitaph]

On 12/31/2022 at 1:21 PM, TormentDubz said:

I want to know if it’s such a good thing why is it a motive for evil

 

To understand evil we have to understand that it is not an arbitrary line we cross. It is a reflection in a mirror, and every human is capable of it, succumbing and decaying to it. Why is love a motive for evil? Because if you look closely at evil, it is a reflection in a mirror that's warped. And that is because "evil" corrupts everything as it is the antithesis of everything. Evil can twist every single motive we have.

[Epitaph]

Tetus already summed it up pretty good. Here's what I can add. The basis for empathy, the basis of many good qualities and traits? Tis a form of love. Without an aspect of love, or better said, care, our other decent qualities don't exist. It's a foundation block for many things.

 

Part of it is advertisement. We live in a hyper advertised world that tries to sell every angle it can find. So let's call that hype. There is a truth to love, but there is also hype.

 

And lastly, I think this only applies to the folk that know strong forms of love in their life. For any that know what strong love feels like, it has the power to destroy someone on one hand, and empower them beyond their expectations in another. Few emotions match its strength and what this causes people to do with them.

[Lord Jade Cross]

I dont experience "love" or infatuation as I would personally call it and Ive gone through life where all sorts of "love" scenarios have been nothing more than a manipulation tactic used by others that flies under the radar because "its done out of love"

 

I think people have been sold a lie and theyve gotten so hooked on it, that they dont dare question it 

[coyote55]

Ah, "Love". Is there any language more benighted than English when it comes to expressing such a complex emotion? Even the ancient Greeks recognized six to eight different varieties, depending on what you read. The beauty of it comes when one experiences those quiet moments with a loved one, when hearts speak volumes in silence, and all the words about it don't matter. 

[Lilibulero]

From my favourite poem 'if'.

 

'If all men count with you, but none too much.'

 

It's that blind bias that makes those ' in love' stand by people they wouldn't otherwise stand with. I'm thinking the murderers' terrorists partners as just one example. It blinds the lover to the reality of the loved.