That\'s pretty amazing what those children already now about life
at their age. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
I got this from a website that I subscribe to. It\'s amazing what kids will say when asked a question. You\'ll be surprised at how great the answers are to this question. The children involved are between the ages of 4-8 years old. I thought you all would get a kick out of this...
\"What does love mean?\"
A group of professional people posed this question to a group of 4
to 8-year-olds, \"What does love mean?\" The answers they got were
broader and deeper than anyone could have imagined. See what you
\"When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn\'t bend over and
paint her toenails anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all
the time, even when his hands got arthritis too. That\'s love.\"
Rebecca - age 8
\"When someone loves you, the way they say your name is different.
You know that your name is safe in their mouth.\"
Billy - age 4
\"Love is when a girl puts on perfume and a boy puts on shaving
cologne and they go out and smell each other.\"
Karl - age 5
\"Love is when you go out to eat and give somebody most of your
French fries without making them give you any of theirs.\"
Chrissy - age 6
\"Love is what makes you smile when you\'re tired.\"
Terri - age 4
\"Love is when my mommy makes coffee for my daddy and she takes a
sip before giving it to him, to make sure the taste is OK.\"
Danny - age 7
\"Love is what\'s in the room with you a Christmas if you stop
opening presents and listen.\"
Bobby - age 5
\"If you want to learn to love better, you should start with a
friend whom you hate.\"
Nikka - age 6
\"There are two kinds of love. Our love. God\'s love. But God
makes both of them.\"
Jenny - age 4
\"Love is when you tell a guy you like his shirt, then he wears it
Noelle - age 7
\"Love is like a little old woman and a little old man who are
still friends even after they know each other so well.\"
Tommy - age 6
\"My mommy loves me more than anybody. You don\'t see anyone else
kissing me to sleep at night.\"
Clare - age 5
\"Love is when mommy gives daddy the best piece of chicken.\"
Elaine - age 5
\"Love is when mommy sees daddy smelly and sweaty and still says he
is handsomer than Robert Redford.\"
Chris - age 8
\"Love is when your puppy licks your face even after you left him
alone all day.\"
Mary Ann - age 4
\"I know my older sister loves me because she gives me all her old
clothes and has to go out and buy new ones.\"
Lauren - age 4
\"I let my big sister pick on me because my Mom says she only picks
on me because she loves me. So I pick on my baby sister because I
Bethany - age 4
\"When you love somebody, your eyelashes go up and down and little
stars come out of you.\"
Karen - age 7
\"Love is when mommy sees daddy on the toilet and she doesn\'t think
Mark - age 6
\"You really shouldn\'t say \'I love you\' unless you mean it. But if
you mean it, you should say it a lot. People forget.\"
Jessica - age 8
That\'s pretty amazing what those children already now about life
at their age. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
I know... Only through the eyes of a child...
I just asked my 7 year old boy and he said:
\"It\'s something happy.\"
I\'ll ask him again later though. He just woke up. :-)
Some pretty amazing vocabulary aswell.
THE KIDS ARE RIGHT...THEY HAVEN\'T BEEN INFECTED BY THIS CRAZY WORLD YET!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] Love is a painless circle of TWO...caring, respecting, one thinking of the other before themselves, filled with hugs, caresses, tender kisses, naughty whispers, nibbles, plenty of body dancing, and it\'s completely IMPOSSIBLE for a third party to enter. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
In another thread, there were comments about finding that someone special and how it changes your outlook on life. Until that happens to you, it\'s hard to understand what goes into and what you get out of love. It\'s the single best thing than can happen in any life.
Of course, that\'s just my unbiased opinion...
Yeah try explaining love to a friend who isnt the type to enter into relationships (i.e hasn\'t yet), and why the relationship exists.
I agree...when I\'m riding the high of love, even if the woman doesn\'t really love me, of course I didn\'t know it at the time...I feel like.......................................BATMAN! !!!!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
<blockquote><font class=\"small\">In reply to:</font><hr>
I agree...when I\'m riding the high of love, even if the woman doesn\'t really love me, of course I didn\'t know it at the time...I feel like.......................................BATMAN! !!!!!
And you chose Batman? The one man who cant have a relationship?
Joking of course!! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]
As a saying goes.
LOVE is many different things to many different people.
Well, since we\'re on the subject...I have a burning question I would like to have answered by the men on the forum. Could you explain to me the differences between the following: love, passion, lust. It seems to me that men make very fine distinctions -- well, not that you make them, that you have them to a degree that perhaps women do not - like women can identify more colors than men can - men seem to be able to distinctly identify more kinds of attraction. It becomes very confusing. For example. If you like a girl, you enjoy her company -- AND you have the best sex with her you ever had in your life -- AND you think of her when you\'re not with her -- what would you call that? ...
Between men and women, in a man\'s mind, what makes it \"love\"?
He uses mones, and is rich as hell....so he\'s getting laid. I say by him not having a relationship...he\'s smart. A woman would want the batcave pink or something flowery...BATMAN can\'t have that!! Before you know it, he\'d have a rose, a teddy bear, or something cute on his chest! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
You have asked a tough question. I\'m not poetic enough to have the right words to define love. I didn\'t even know it existed until it caught hold of me. Love can contain elements of passion and lust, but when you are ninety years old and passion and lust have burned out, there is that deeply held emotion that cannot be described as anything other than love.
I married my first wife for passion and lust, thinking they were love. Ok, so I was awfully dumb when I was young. Haven\'t gotten much smarter, either.
Let me try it this way. Lust is instinct at it\'s basic level, the drive to reproduce. Could be a response to mones and training. It requires only minimal if any thought.
Passion is a little more complex in that it uses more than the reptilian brain. It does not have to be associated with sex, it can be for football or ballet or learning.
If we could turn off the hormones in young people long enough to let them get to know each other, without the brain boggling effects of passion and lust, more marraiges would hold together longer. But that is digressing.
I think the kids had the right idea in large part. Not just a willingness to give without recieving but a desire to make the other person happy. It making your day when you are able to make he/she smile. Being able to laugh, talk and have fun at any level, not just in the bedroom. Sharing a sense of fulfillment by simply being together or even just talking on the phone.
I told you I didn\'t know the right words. I skirt the edges without ever getting to what I am trying to say. Love just is; to me, it defies description. Could it be when on their 50th anniversary one looks at the other and says \"Has it really been that long? It went by so fast.\"?
In your example, it could be any one of the three. I have a dear old friend, we used to be lovers in college. Good sex too! Now, there is no lust, no sex and no passion but I love her and think of her frequently.
I have a burning question for everybody as well. Is the human animal manogamous by nature? Only some? Only females? Only males? Some of each? We have all seen the people who marry for life but we also see the divorce rate.
FTR asked: \"Between men and women, in a man\'s mind, what makes it \"love\"?\"
My answer is simple as I\'ve noted this with all my buddies, and myself. If a man really loves you the surest indicator is simply this: He desperately wants to marry you.
Not if he\'s been there and done that.
Marriage for some of us is like a nice hot bath. ... once you get in and get used to it, it\'s not so hot anymore.
But thanks for your answer.
Its love when he wants you bad probably cant get anyone else or be bothered chasing anyone else, or when he is about to lose a woman to either breakup or another man it then becomes love, just to distract the woman back to him, we use it as an emotional anchor to keep our women interested and focused on us, as we know women (men to) but on an emotional/attraction/excitement thing become distracted by those roving hormones searching for a tradeup.
Women on the other hand love is when they are comfortable and want to keep a man around - its a support 7 year hormone realise thing.
Random ravings from me, on the other hand love is the romantic ideal that society says we must find ? anyone disagree.
I\'m beginning to think it\'s a crock. Why do they tell us this happily ever after stuff? It\'s worse than Santa Claus.
love is when their happiness makes you happy
dogs love their masters. when the master is sad, the dog is usually sad and quiet and sympathizes. when the master is playful, the dog is like \"YAY!\" [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] love is feeling bad when the other person feels bad, and feeling good when they feel good. apply to family, pets, and spouse.
I dont think that true.
I love my girlfriend, but I just dont go telling her every 5 mins.
I agree with Pantero. A good dog is the best role model for true love.
Lust is when you’re overwhelmed by desires. Passion is when you’re motivated by desires. Love is when you’re motivated by the other’s desire.
If I like a girl, enjoy her company AND have the best sex of my life, I call that “lucky”. If I like a girl, enjoy her company AND have the best sex of my life AND think about her a lot, I call that “obsession”.
I think it’s obvious that there’s a nesting instinct which tends towards monogamy and a procreation instinct which tends towards polyamory. I don’t see either instinct being inherently dominant over the other. And it doesn’t seem like morality or fantasy are ever completely successful at eradicating the inner conflict. (Although society would be a complete mess if it wasn’t for those two things.)
I don\'t think the nesting instinct is related to monogamy. The point of a male in that situation is to provide for and protect the female. the bigger, stronger male will be able to provide better protection and bring home more bacon. In most pack animals, the females are sheltered by the dominant male. We are pack animals with a thin layer of civilization overlayed. If the dominant male is killed or driven off, the first act of the new dominant male is to kill off his rival\'s offspring causing the female to go into heat again. That way, all future offspring carry his gene. In nature, the only function of sex is reproduction. It feeling good is Mother Nature\'s way of encouraging us to try to reproduce more often.
More likely, monogamy is the result of civilization. The function of marriage and monogamy in society is to provide for and protect the young, that is the first function. Marriage promises that there will be a provider to feed mom and the children. Of course, mom does not want the provider to go out getting tail elsewhere and dilute his ability to provide for her offspring.
I could be way off here and imagine I will be quickly corrected if so. When we use mone, aren\'t we sending the signal that we are an alpha male? That would make us a better catch in the human pack, wouldn\'t it?
But human females are on heat all the time - the thing about recreational sex and the fact that in humans other women bring them onto heat moreso than other males (the female period syncronisity thing related to pheros) men just produce the pheros to influence other males, but the fact we have taken sex to a 24 hour all the time thing has given rise to a new level and new direction in our evolution. THe fact that offspring need to be raised for up to 18 years also changed the rules, evolution took leaps and turns and kept changing in new ways. Thats what sets us apart from the other dumb animals. That is what made us the destructive and intelligent creatures we are today and the fact we now are able to alter our DNA provides us with yet more options and dangers.
Yet the balance is maintained for the good of the species survival.
a.k.a., I like your answers, and xxxPantero, too, although I quibble this far -- what you\'re talking about in dogs is sympathy/empathy -- and dogs and women have it more than most men, who can rarely tell what a woman\'s feeling, much less empathize, and sympathy tends to be of the well meant lip service (not a criticism, just an observation). If love depended on that, we\'d be in big trouble. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]An astrologer can tell you a person\'s love nature by studying his/her chart. Because of this fact, I believe that the inclination towards monogamy or not is an individual thing. One tends to generalize from biology or from experience, but there seem to be so many exceptions to any rule one might make that it\'s hardly worth making the rule. There is a rise of narcissism in our culture and I think that has to do with the running around more than anything else. One of the hallmarks, if not the signature, of narcissism is an inability to empathize -- it doesn\'t matter if you hurt someone by your actions, since you can\'t feel it/therefore comprehend it. Also there is growing tendency to view other humans as objects for one\'s use. Intimacy/relationships are undervalued rather than cherished and protected. People are seen as fungible. We are more transient now than we\'ve ever been and lack the kind of real ties that it is purported we once had. Lack of ties/people to witness/social sanctions contribute to opportunistic behavior.Romance is somewhat out of fashion, I think. Sex, and the desperation to be found sexy, has become its substitute. This reflects a general trend toward immediate gratification/attention deficit disorder.Specifically for women, greater financial independence and passage of laws protecting women from physical abuse by their husbands/boyfriends as punishment I believe may play a part of women\'s behavior -- although it may be that the behavior hasn\'t changed so much as become acknowledged, as there is less need to be discrete, since the consequences are not as dire as they used to be. I think these things contribute more toward the lack of pair bonding than anything else.
<blockquote><font class=\"small\">In reply to:</font><hr>
More likely, monogamy is the result of civilization.
It is, in the last ice age humans roamed in small groups (3-15ish), but as the ice subsided people started to congregate. There is evidence of gathering of about 100-200 people meeting for social reasons, such as trading, educating...and sex. Around this time the first evidence for \"rules\" regarding sex are found. In one such site a grave was found containing three people, two men and a woman (can you guess already?), the woman in the middle. She and the man on her right were holding hands, and she was facing him. His head was facing the ground. The other man was on his side with his hand on the womans vagina. A flint knife was also found in between her legs pointing towards her vagina.A stake was pushed through the second mans genitles. It was obvious that the second man was an intuder into this couple. This had obviously become a crime, punishable by death. As people began to congregate more extensively, marriage became a common practice. Women once had a powerfull sexuality, which got them status in social groups, but as humans gathered and civilisations started, womens sexualties were subdued, and they became possessions to be owned. They were also reduced to labour tasks (along with the children, something that these new cities needed a lot of, hence marriage to create more, and new food for earlier weening, and so better turnaround times), which can be seen from the way the bones in their feet have become distorted, caused by a life of crouching.
And as populations increase there is a further advance/evolution. Technology is making life easier in western countries which means that women are moving away from mundane house chores and more into having spare time and with reproductive technologies and the pill etc. its easier for women to move around mating with more men, now they expect men to put up with this as they are the ones with more power now, (discrete changes happening here) men on the other hand want stability as it takes more energy to woo a woman then to maintain a constant relationship with her. So we tend towards comfort and consistancy as this makes it easier.
Now this would all be alright if men were to be laid back about women cheating around - but most betas cant get many women to be attracted to them (and men are horny all the time - so having a constant companion around keeps things stable there to)
But with women being on heat 1 week out of 4 more so than the other 3 then they are comfortable 3 weeks at a time but are 2.5 more times likley to cheat in the period week.
And the fact that they dont need a \"provider\"around as much as they are now increasing their capacity to earn and keep assets and to take over the provider role. So confusion reigns supreme with competing forces at work in the underlying social structure. I beleive the human species is about to make a huge leap forward in the way of genetic improvements and technology.
The current conflicts will always be present until artifical reprodutive techniques utilizing something like an artifical womb if this is possible (sci fi here) - probably acheiveable however and then women can be done away with with a small number around for egg donation. Same could be said for men to. All interesting however to discuss.
There is actually evidence that women had total equality during the ice ages, even as far as providing aswell. When we became civilised we needed more babies so that became the womans job. Men also wanted to control their women.
But hey, cheating is just plain BAD, there is no excuse.
If you say humans are not monogamous of nature, how can you say cheating is BAD without exceptions? Are we not cheating ourselves when we damn our own nature. [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img]
Oi! How dare you use my own arguments against me! [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/wink.gif[/img] [img]/ubbthreads/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img]
It is bad, but then that doesnt stop most people.
There’s some tribe in China (can’t remember the name or region) where the kids are raised by a household of brothers and sisters. Sex is arranged through special visitation privileges that aren’t necessarily monogamous.
Sounds like a more rational arrangement to me.
Good point about generalizing from biology. Firstly, most mammals are social by nature and therefore subject to “outer” pressures/enticements — along with “inner” drives/needs. Secondly, our linguistic/symbolic capacity far outstrips any other animal. We can manufacture desires that have little, if any, biological basis.
On the other hand, some drives are very hard to talk yourself out of, which makes me think they’re “hard wired”. Also social pressures mean less when you’re horny.
In the end, it all boils down to a choice. But sticking to it (Whether it’s “I will let this person have other partners.” or “I will live with this person for ever.” ) is never easy.
I have to agree that women are more empathic, but can’t decide if it’s nature or nurture.
I like to think that society stifles male empathy and nurtures female empathy. That someday, in a more evolved culture, sexual relations will be open, sincere and harmonious.
Then the cynical part of me says, “Yeah, right.”
Psychoanalysis claims that men can only experience “phallic” desire: it builds and builds until we can’t stand it anymore, but, once satisfied, it diminishes. Women can experience “infinite” desire: it builds until satisfied, and then builds some more.
Hence men have certain behaviors that frustrate women’s comprehension (eg. I won’t be happy unless I have you, but, now that you’re mine, you’re not so special.) and vice versa ( You’re everything I’ve been looking for in a man, but, now that I have you, I expect more.)
So... I’m sure we could do better. But maybe there’s a point were we simply will never understand.
Actually, what made me think of dogs was the old “love is blind” thing.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)