Talk:Love/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Love. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Split page

Scientific views

Throughout history, predominately, philosophy and religion have speculated the most into the phenomena of love. In the last century, the science of psychology has written a great deal on the subject. Recently, however, the sciences of evolutionary psychology, evolutionary biology, anthropology, neuroscience, and biology have begun to take center stage in discussion as to the nature and function of love.

Biological models of sex tend to see it as a mammalian drive, just like hunger or thirst. Psychology sees love as more of a social and cultural phenomenon. There are probably elements of truth in both views — certainly love is influenced by hormones (such as oxytocin) and pheromones, and how people think and behave in love is influenced by one’s conceptions of love. Hence, from time immortal, science, from naturalistic poetry to MRI neurochemistry, has since debated over the nature of love.

Cultural views

Although there exist numerous cross-cultural unified similarities as to the nature and definition of love, as in there being a thread of commitment, tenderness, and passion common to all human existence, there are differences. For example, in India, with arranged marriages commonplace, it is believed that love is not a necessary ingredient in the initial stages of marriage – it is something that can be created during the marriage; whereas in the United States, by comparison, love is seen as a necessary prerequisite to marriage.

Religious views

Whether religious love can be expressed in similar terms to interpersonal love is a matter for philosophical debate. Religious 'love' might be considered a euphemistic term, more closely describing feelings of deference or acquiescence. Most religions use the term love to express the devotion the follower has to their deity, who may be a living guru or religious teacher. This love can be expressed by prayer, service, good deeds, and personal sacrifice. Reciprocally, the followers may believe that the deity loves the followers and all of creation. Some traditions encourage the development of passionate love in the believer for the deity.

Does anyone object to this move? Wikipedia articles are certain to grow in the future; hence, it is advisable to be proactive in this progression. Leave your comments here, i.e. if you agree or disagree with this move. If we all agree (predominately) I will make the move shortly:--Sadi Carnot 14:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

O.K., I've waited a day, there doesn't seem to be any objections; so I'm going to begin to move the three main parts (science, cultural, religious) of the article to their own pages. If anyone has any major objections we can always revert.--Sadi Carnot 12:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Move completed! The four separate articles seem to be more workable now.--Sadi Carnot 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Edited just to capitalize the links. Good move, in my opinion. Nice work ;)--Hawkian 20:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

How about a section about 'the connection between love and death'?--JJMan 18:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Love

No one can ever talk about love. All I can say is that it is something best described between two people. The overwhelming feeling that people can feel is beyond anything. No person can or ever will figure it out. It's the greatest feeling that one can ever have.

Your heart beats, your blood boils and all you want to do is grab the one you love and hold on to them for the rest of time.
Faith to you all. - Anon [03/19/06]

Uh, amen. --Hawkian 20:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please take no offense, but I would kindly ask you to explain, if you realy believe that no one can ever talk about love, why do you do it? --SnakeSwordWings 11:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Love is the experience of a familiarity contradicted by a striking glimpse of the unknown.

Information is shared between two people to create a bond, if you will, a relationship of harmonious intertwining data.

--Tapsell 13:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)JEREMY 0100 nzt 26-05-06. (all my own opinion)

What Anon said is true, Love is the greatest feeling one can ever have. It can cause both positive feelings and negative. Love is a strong urge and emotion, not as much to have something, but to give something. I believe that when your IN LOVE it is a different feeling then to love. Love in itself has many meanings, but when you are in love you find one person whom you love with your everything and who seems so perfect in your mind and heart that you have no attraction physically, mentally or emotionally to another person in a romantic sense. This means you will believe this person you are in love with is the most beautiful and most wonderful person to be around. Being in love makes us blind to inperfections and everything seems to be okay when that one person is around. People often confuse love with obsession. Obsession is a desire to have someone or something for yourself because it would make you happy, and to be in love is to desire to give someone something and often everything because you wish to make them happy. By experience, when you are in love, you can love so much that it hurts, especially when the feelings are unrequited, but still you will be thankful that you are in love with the wonderful person and somewhere, even if deep down, you will be happy this person even exists because such simplicity and small formed thoughts of them bring you the greatest joy and strongest emotions you could possibly feel. (The previous is all based upon my own bias and opinion.) --AnJole.Love 9:03 A.M., 24 July 2006 (UTC)

'The hitchhikers guide to the galaxy has this to say on the subject of love : Avoid if at all possible!" '

That Ryan stuff

I've removed the more or less unattributed "Ryan" quotes from the pages, as that stuff had no encyclopaedic relevance, really. This is not the best place to gush about your partner, as it happens...Snowgrouse 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

When we think of love, in the dictionary it is deep attachment, personal affection/lust, and sex for a person.. this appears to be a crude version of love..

    From the Buddhist perspective, Love is Selfless Compassion.

Love is losing personal wanting/attachment/greed/lust, in order to focus on the other person's happiness.. To lose our problems is to lose our distractions, which is to be free to benefit others.. Also, love is not for just one person, definitely not exclusive to one person, but for all beings.. This is what makes sense more than the dictionary.. I think it should be in wikipedia.. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedimasterham (talk • contribs)

Love only between 2 people?

I was just wondering what people thought about the possibility of love being between 3 or 4 people. Assuming romantic love is formed exclusively between a couple is problematic when thinking of functioning threesomes etc. What do people think? .-Nadiamontague

I recently saw a man give a lecture on this. What it basically came down to is that love is exclusive to one person, but sexuality, which is very much chemically seperate, is satisfiable by virtually anyone.

Cultures lacking a word for love

The following two sentences are incorrect:

The views that love does not exist or is indefinable may underlie the fact that approximately 13 percent of cultures have no word for love. [1] [2] The remaining 87 percent attempt to define this abstract concept and apply it to everyday life.

I have obtained and read both references; A Natural History Of Love by Diane Ackerman, and A Cross-Cultural Perspective On Romantic Love by Jankowiak, and Fischer. Neither reference supports the above statement. Ackerman limits her own discussion to Europe, Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome, the Middle Ages, and Modern Days. She makes no claim to speak about other cultures.

The point of the Jankowiak and Fischer paper is to falsify the hypothesis of an affectionless past, the idea that romantic love, eros, or passionate affection is a recent phenomenon, or limited to wealthy countries which support leisure. They survey ethnographic works and find that approximately 88.5% of these do evince such a concept. They never state that the remaining 11.5% lack the concept of romantic love, much less a word for love. Indeed, they state:

These cultures are coded 'romatic love not present.' Nonetheless, we believe that these negative cases arise from ethnographic oversight rather than any set of cultural norms that prevent an individual from experiencing romantic affecttion

Because neither of the cites supports the statement that certain cultures have no word for love, I have removed the two relevant sentences. LeoHeska 05:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Close Relationships project

May I ask why "Rape" appears in the list of close relationships to love? It would be hard to think of something with less of a relationship to love than rape.-Sarfa 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Split proposal

The article is now 38 kilobytes. The limit is 32 (see: article size). Studies show that online reading is straining past 10 pages (printed), after which the typical reader will stop reading or quit, because of his ADD. I propose doing mini-articles (with links to main) for each of the three main sections of the article. We would leave the introduction the same (with some clean-up), then do the three main sections as follows (with some clean-up of course)

I did something similar with the Monogamy article and the Attachment theory article. The monogamy articles were all new and represented a complete revision of the old article. Many of the attachment theory articles were already written and just needed a home so readers could easily find them. (Kelly 18:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC))

Love

Love then Peace, You can not have Peace without Love.--68.216.187.39 18:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. The Moon is a far more peaceful place than the Earth but there is no love on the Moon. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

~~:That is because there are no humans on the Moon.--68.216.187.23 22:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)~~

The moon peaceful? Peace is a scentient experience; if nobody is at a place to experience peace, then it only exist in thought. It also depends on how one defines peace. Is it merely being in the flow of harmony?

True, peace comes from love; love for the self, love for the moment and love for others in the specific circumstances.

You don't have to love somebody to be at peace with him. You don't even have to love anybody at all to be at peace with other people. --Mr. Orange 62.168.125.219 17:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that if you have love then you don't have peace, love is turbulent. -- Anon

I say Anon makes sense. Still, even within the turbulence love and briong a sense of "peace of mind" because you will experience joy at the person you love's mere existance. In my mind peace is a matter of opinion because we all have a different idea of what would be peaceful.(P.S. There could be humans on the moon for all we know.)--AnJole.Love 9:08 A.M., 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Marquis De Sade hit it right on, you cannot have love without hate, peace without war, happiness without misery. By his thoughts, love would be the polar opposite of hate. (which could also be argued as an "abstraction".) In order to truely define "love" you need to be able to define "hate" as well. If you don't, then love is just an abstraction and nothing more. Any emotion has to be measured against it's opposite, that would be the only way I can think of to articulate it.

Etymology

I am a Wikipedia novice who doesn't know how to use the talk feature, but I'm quite certain the Old English for "love" didn't come from the Sanskrit, but rather both descended from some common ancestor. This can be looked up on the american heritage dictionary of indo-european roots. -- Wikipedia novice.

I am sure that you are right, novice. Please feel free to make the article more accurate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved to own header section per readibility of intro.--Sadi Carnot 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Soulsongs?

I can't find the book "soulsongs" on amazon? Or a link to "Sevi Regis", referring to the recently added insert? I like the insert, but we need a source. Can anyone help find this?--Sadi Carnot 18:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. A quotation that long may be a copyright violation. Also, I don't think it belongs in an overview. FreplySpang (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Love

Love has several different meanings in the English language, from something that gives a little pleasure ("I loved that meal") to something that one would die for (patriotism, pair-bonding).

I suggest that example "I loved that meal" uses the word as metaphor and should not be given as an example of the meaning (maybe mention it later under examples). SnakeSwordWings 11:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Online definitions of love versus this article's definition

The definition used in this article "Love is the desire for the wellness of a being" seems like a doctor's definition for health. This definition seems far from the definitions dictionaries use. I see a tightening up of this definition and the intro paragraph as they seem far from the genuine usages of love as seen below. To base a definition on colloquial polls is absurd...I suggest a glance at Esquire Magazine's NOV 05 article entitled Greetings from Idiot America to understand why.

Top Web Results for "love"

7 entries found for love. love ( P ) Pronunciation Key (lv) n. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

Sexual passion. Sexual intercourse. A love affair. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.

A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love. Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid. often Love Christianity. Charity. Sports. A zero score in tennis.

v. loved, lov·ing, loves v. tr. To have a deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward (a person): We love our parents. I love my friends. To have a feeling of intense desire and attraction toward (a person). To have an intense emotional attachment to: loves his house.

To embrace or caress. To have sexual intercourse with. To like or desire enthusiastically: loves swimming. Theology. To have charity for. To thrive on; need: The cactus loves hot, dry air.

v. intr. To experience deep affection or intense desire for another.

Idioms: for love Out of compassion; with no thought for a reward: She volunteers at the hospital for love. for love or money Under any circumstances. Usually used in negative sentences: I would not do that for love or money. for the love of For the sake of; in consideration for: did it all for the love of praise. in love Deeply or passionately enamored: a young couple in love. Highly or immoderately fond: in love with Japanese painting; in love with the sound of her own voice. no love lost No affection; animosity: There's no love lost between them.

[Middle English, from Old English lufu. See leubh- in Indo-European Roots.] Synonyms: love, affection, devotion, fondness, infatuation These nouns denote feelings of warm personal attachment or strong attraction to another person. Love is the most intense: marrying for love. Affection is a less ardent and more unvarying feeling of tender regard: parental affection. Devotion is earnest, affectionate dedication and implies selflessness: teachers admired for their devotion to children. Fondness is strong liking or affection: a fondness for small animals. Infatuation is foolish or extravagant attraction, often of short duration: lovers blinded to their differences by their mutual infatuation.

[Download Now or Buy the Book] Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

love

In addition to the idioms beginning with love, also see all's fair in love and war; course of true love; fall in love; for the love of; labor of love; make love; misery loves company; no love lost; not for love or money; puppy love; somebody up there loves me.

love

n 1: a strong positive emotion of regard and affection; "his love for his work"; "children need a lot of love" [ant: hate] 2: any object of warm affection or devotion; "the theater was her first love" or "he has a passion for cock fighting"; [syn: passion] 3: a beloved person; used as terms of endearment [syn: beloved, dear, dearest, loved one, honey] 4: a deep feeling of sexual desire and attraction; "their love left them indifferent to their surroundings"; "she was his first love" 5: a score of zero in tennis or squash; "it was 40 love" 6: sexual activities (often including sexual intercourse) between two people; "his lovemaking disgusted her"; "he hadn't had any love in months"; "he has a very complicated love life" [syn: sexual love, lovemaking, making love, love life] v 1: have a great affection or liking for; "I love French food"; "She loves her boss and works hard for him" [ant: hate] 2: get pleasure from; "I love cooking" [syn: enjoy] 3: be enamored or in love with; "She loves her husband deeply" 4: have sexual intercourse with; "This student sleeps with everyone in her dorm"; "Adam knew Eve"; "Were you ever intimate with this man?" [syn: roll in the hay, make out, make love, sleep with, get laid, have sex, know, do it, be intimate, have intercourse, have it away, have it off, screw, fuck, jazz, eff, hump, lie with, bed, have a go at it, bang, get it on, bonk] Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

love

What many users feel for computers.

"I don't really love computers, I just say that to get them into bed with me". (Terry Pratchet)

[What did you expect in a computing dictionary?]

love

This word seems to require explanation only in the case of its use by our Lord in his interview with "Simon, the son of Jonas," after his resurrection (John 21:16, 17). When our Lord says, "Lovest thou me?" he uses the Greek word _agapas_; and when Simon answers, he uses the Greek word _philo_, i.e., "I love." This is the usage in the first and second questions put by our Lord; but in the third our Lord uses Simon's word. The distinction between these two Greek words is thus fitly described by Trench:, "_Agapan_ has more of judgment and deliberate choice; _philein_ has more of attachment and peculiar personal affection. Thus the 'Lovest thou' (Gr. agapas) on the lips of the Lord seems to Peter at this moment too cold a word, as though his Lord were keeping him at a distance, or at least not inviting him to draw near, as in the passionate yearning of his heart he desired now to do. Therefore he puts by the word and substitutes his own stronger 'I love' (Gr. philo) in its room. A second time he does the same. And now he has conquered; for when the Lord demands a third time whether he loves him, he does it in the word which alone will satisfy Peter ('Lovest thou,' Gr. phileis), which alone claims from him that personal attachment and affection with which indeed he knows that his heart is full." In 1 Cor. 13 the apostle sets forth the excellency of love, as the word "charity" there is rendered in the Revised Version. Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

love

LOVE: in Acronym Finder

love

love: in CancerWEB's On-line Medical Dictionary

WTF??

Not as a troll or anything like that, but this article is pretty wack. The definition of love on this page reminds me of that Star Trek episode where Kirk asks the Enterprise's computer to define love and it shorts out. The intro to this article is confusing, haphazard, and uninformative. Can something be done? Where's the love? RiseAbove 08:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

definition of love

I came back to ck on definition and also read (a bit quickly) through the discussion page.

I'm probably going to leave this alone (maybe...) but, it seems we are missing some of the fundamental definition of love.

The definition I found talked about attraction, passion, etc., but no inclusion of what one could feel for, say, a child. Come on, folks! Does it seem that we can start off with a definition of love at the top of the page that would not give a clue about the feelings of love one might have for a child, a close friend, etc.?

(It may not be clear from our article but Sternberg's triangular model would state that normal parental love for a child consists of a strong commitment component and an intimacy (ie friendship) component which might be anything from weak to strong.) -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In italian, we the main verb for love is a phrase: "volere bene a..." Translated literally it means: "to want good for someone." Ponder on the concept. leaving that concepts out has me baffled beyond expression,

So, without getting into a beef about the whole definition (at the top), for now I at least included the word "care" and left it at that.

Definitions are tricky. The point is not to sound this way or that way. The point is: how would you best describe it as if to someone who has no idea what the word means? Let's reflect.

Passaggio 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

User Love Headlines

I noticed that this page had been editted to say "Love. Nathan and Melinda" at the top. Some would call this vandalism, but honestly, I think it should be allowed as long as it doesn't get out of control with people changing information on the page that prevents others from learning. I changed it to say my name and my fiance's name and someone sent me a message saying "Please don't do that." I appreciate the tone in which the message was sent, and I understand why the message was sent. But honestly for the definition of love, why not allow users to post their two names on the page? Then someone else can erase it and put their name there. And so on and so forth. Is that not the most accurate definition of love anyone could ask for? Hundreds, Thousands, Millions of people every day (or minute), posting their two names on the site in a constant show of love for one another. I don't think that wikipedia could have a more perfect definition of love, personally. Just a thought.

69.135.184.135 14:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If my fiance was cheap enough to spend twenty seconds writing "Love. Nathan and Melinda" on the Wikipedia, the Taj Mahal or the Mona Lisa, I'd ditch the loser fast. Vandalism is not romantic. Just a thought. -- 204.209.24.2 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

_Pros_and_Cons_

Wikipedia seeks to involve people in the effort vs. Wikipedia seeks to be a reliable source akin to the Britannica
This concept gives "Love" vandals an accepted outlet vs. the "Love" page has had a very bad time with vandalism, why encourage them?
No vandalism should be condoned in our encyclopedia vs. the above idea could be nice acceptation to the rule (even automated into Wiki)
This a great way to shout your love to the world wide web vs. There are better ways of doing just that!

A better way to shout your love to the world wide web might be to register the domain name NathanLovesMelinda.org. Post some great graphics and love poems, and publicize the site to your hearts content. My two cents' worth. -- Charles Gaudette 23:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche's charge that love is merely an ideology constructed by the weak to mask "resentment" about their lack of power

-um, what? Hanshans23 00:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

you wouldn't know, you aren't cool enough, n00b 205.188.117.14 04:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The comment about Nietzsche in the first paragraph is completely wrong. As a former chairman of the Warwick Nietzsche Society, I can state that Nietzsche praised the French knighthood for spiritualising 'love'. Furthermore, 'ressentiment' did not foster love but rather self-hatred, quite the opposite (see Genealogy of Morals).

Pete Hughes MA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.223.191 (talk • contribs)

I have thus removed relevant paragraph. Also, self-interest is not, on a close reading, a Nietzschean belief as such (as was stated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.223.191 (talk • contribs)

Good! Nice to see someone such as yourself around here! Aey 19:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Love is subjective

So, everybody is looking for the meaning of love. I can tell you that since the beginning people are trying to define it and that's what life is all about! Keep looking for it and you'll find your own definition. What matters most is that love is giving and receiving good feelings and if that makes most people happy then the world would be a better place to live.

SPINOZA and love

In a discussion of emotions, of love and hate in particular, Spinoza's definitions are worthy of consideration. He thinks love is "pleasure attached to teh idea of an external cause" and tha hate is "pain attached to the idea of an external cause". ALthough a detailed discussion of these definitions is best done through an analysis of Spinoza, it is worth noting that these definitions explain all the ways we use the terms in languange. The different kinds of love then depend on different causes and degrees.

Can love be described inside our heads.

love is what us human beings live for; it is an array of emotions all mixed up together in a large jumble; you can begin to unravel the jumble but nobody has every accoplished this, nobody has showed us the right way to interpret love but, perhaps we all have our own ideas, our own definitions of love. it cannot be described outside of ourselfs, and that is a distinct part of love that makes it so special. -- (love) Kat McKenzie

Unconditional Love is to Infatuation as Instantanious Love is to Lust.

It's very loaded; something to be thought about.
What is it that draws one in? What is it that keeps one around? It's really case-by-case, you sort of just have to "know" you love someone. Might need to step back and examine the feelings, the bonds, the experiences. Love is an amazing thing, albeit a terribly confusing one. And I'm quite aware love is all just chemical, but I still like to believe in magic.24.159.49.7 11:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sexual

Someone should get rid of the sexual box. There should be paragraphs on different perceptions of love, such as Homosexual, Bisexual, etc. --66.218.18.237 03:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Love and sacrifice

Whatever the definition it seems to me that in ever case it is like air, we don’t know its there until the wind blows. And so it is with love, the true test is sacrifice, and the depth of love can only be measured by the willingness to make sacrifice. It is the willingness to make personal sacrifices for another that distinguishes love from lust. Not that a sexual relationship cannot deepen into love, but sexual gratification is not in itself love.

Another important feature of courting and the love that is engendered by this activity is that it often involves a suspension of reality of the object of the love. The negative points of the character are often “romanticised” or rationalized by seeing these as “good” or positive points. This phase is also marked by an intense desire to be together.

Further Discussion

With regard to the opening sentence - "Love is a profound feeling of tender affection for or intense attraction to another." - Perhaps this should be changed to "Love is a profound feeling of tender affection and an intense attraction to another" - This way it cannot be confused with limerence. Any thoughts? - SolitaryWolf 05:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In addition people differ in their attitude to how "love" is demonstrated, so it is possible that "love" shown by one is not recognized as "love" by the other - sometimes, in fact, the reverse. Is love shown by gifts? Or is love shown by self-sacrifice of ones own comfortable position, by puting oneself into uncomfortable or perilious position for the other, or foregoing ones own desires and needs to the benefit of the other? This may raise moral issues as to a personal debt owed as a result, but this may or may not be love returned - the test is the degree of self sacrifice!

Types, Free Love

Free love – sexual relations according to choice and unrestricted by marriage, or cultural norms and values.

Sex is lust, not love

Sex is lust and not love. It is humans giving in to their primitive animal urges and as long as one lusts, they can never love, assuming there even is such a thing. Masturbating, viewing pornography and sex are all lust, and are sin. Sex is ONLY for procreating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.172.220 (talk • contribs)

Agreed. But, someone can still be sexually attracted to the person they love without it being lustfull. UnDeRsCoRe 18:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

...The love may not be lustful, but the sexual attraction part of it is. Maybe this could be clarified? 64.231.97.54 04:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If by "Sex is ONLY for procreating!" you are attempting to simply factually describe a state of affairs, you are clearly mistaken: if sex was "ONLY for procreating", why would it so commonly be used for other purposes (such as improving happiness and relieving stress), and very effectively used at that? If, on the other hand, you are attempting to normatively prescribe what love should be for, then your ethical basis seems rather unclear: who is harmed, in any observable way, by nonprocreational sex? If this moral of yours is not based on any reliable fact, but merely on your personal convictions or distaste, then what right do you have to dictate that anyone else abide by it? In either case, keep in mind that this article must abide by WP:NOR (so you must cite sources if you want such claims included), and this talk page is only for discussing the article, not for discussing love in general (so if your comments above are a general observation, not a constructive criticism of the article, then they are misplaced on Wikipedia). Sexual intercourse is indeed an aspect of lust, but it is also a not-uncommon aspect of love: love is not purely emotional or psychological, but is also physical. You also seem to be mistaken in saying that "as long as one lusts, they can never love"—lust and love are often partners in crime, and it is, in fact, not at all unknown for deeper love to develop over time out of initial lust or infatuation. They are not enemies or sharp opposites; they're just different, but related, states. -Silence 04:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I made a mistake with my wording, you could be in "love" (as in your both sexually attracted and emotionaly) but if you just want to have sex, that's lustfull. I'm not trying to shower my morals on things, since I'm basically open others opinions. Sorry if I didn't state that. And i know this was for discussing the article, I just wanted to set 81.159.172.220, who started the discusion, straight about it. Or were you reffering to their comment and not mine? My mistake if you were. UnDeRsCoRe 15:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please put Love in the category: Freedom

Category:Freedom

Why? That category is redundant, I'm going to request it for deleation. UnDeRsCoRe 19:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, is nothing sacred any more? You'd throw away our (Category) Freedom just like that - not even in the pursuit of greater security, but in the name of merely avoiding redundancy? Fie, I say! -- Oolong 20:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sentence

Please clarify this sentence, or at least make it less ugly: This diverse range of meanings in a single word is commonly contrasted with the plurality of Greek words for Love, reflecting the word's versatility and complexity.. Rintrah 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Modifications to Agape

This is autonomous1one1. The previous definition seemed weak in that it missed the universal nature of agape. Also, the prior definition in having "..unconditional acceptance, favour and affinity toward a person" was singularly self oriented and missed the 'other' nature of agape. Lastly, Agape has an element of feeling within it and is not solely a 'decision.' So, a sentence expanding agape was added and the statement about decision only was deleted. For support on these comments see the writings of Paul Tillich and the particular reference: "Systematic Theology, Volume One," page 280, The Chicago Press, Ninth Impression 1965, by Paul Tillich.

What's the distance between friendship and love?

It's easy to happen that someone loves his or her best friend. If to choose to tell the best friend that you love him or her, maybe he or she will accept your love, your relationship from friendship to lover. But maybe he or she would refused, and you may break up even can't be friends anymore.

How can I choose? Emilyou 14:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)