People have a million different definitions for love, so I offer this one into contention. When I say love, I mean of one person for another. When I see that in play, the associated behaviors are often protective, possessive and loyal, as if they are afraid that what they covet will be destroyed or taken away. What do you think?
2006-09-11 18:18:57 · 13 answers · asked by Subconsciousless 7 in Social Science ➔ Psychology
I think you are smart.
And I think you have identified key components such as protection, possession, and loyalty.
However, it is not a matter of coveting or fear such will be taken away. Love is when they are offered w/o fear. In true love, giving of oneself is the core, not the possessing of the other.
2006-09-11 18:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is true but only to a point what about the giving in love the sharing of your self your time your experiences and your world what about the wonder of love the way you feel when you make that 1st step and the other notices and acknowledges your feelings what about the absolute amazing feeling of rapture that one feels at the birth of their child . the pain when love goes wrong . fear is only an essence of love you need to add every human emotion as well to show love. love is indescribable it crosses all boundaries being a possession is I suppose another part of love and being a treasure is a problem because do you raise your treasure upon a pedestal and let all look or invest your treasure so all can benefit as you do .
2006-09-12 00:30:24 · answer #2 · answered by slick 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While people do worry that something could happen to the one they love, that's not the main thing about love.
Love is about admiring someone, respecting them, enjoying being with them more than anything else in your life, feeling very close to them emotionally, not wanting anyone or anything to hurt them (yes, protectiveness if its not over-done to the point of being unhealthy); but its mostly about just having this overall nice feeling about the person you treasure so much for whatever reasons or lack of reasons you have.
Fear of losing someone is just a secondary side-effect of loving someone, but even then you have to put it in the back of your mind and assume that won't happen. Sometimes, too, though, you are so close to someone and so sure of them that you know you won't lose them unless sickness or accident occurs. That sureness if also part of love.
Romantic love is said to have an element of possessiveness to it, although there is a fine line between what is sort of normal in romantic love and what is unhealthy possessiveness. I have read (in a book that studied what love is) that respect is a vital element in love of any kind, and it is difficult to both respect and feel possessive of someone; so I kind of lean away from thinking possessiveness is anything more than just possessiveness (which is never too healthy).
2006-09-11 19:48:11 · answer #3 · answered by WhiteLilac1 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Some may have a fear of losing their love, but if it is genuine and mutual the only fear, will be loss of that love, like death, where you will not be able to spend any more time with that person. Also depends on what level of protection and possessiveness, etc you mean. Is one person totally possessive to a point of jealousy and rage, etc or is it a comforting protectiveness where they are watching out for you and your safety, etc. A real love holds someone dear but not tight.
2006-09-11 18:31:00 · answer #4 · answered by mrsroxyladyn 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The earliest definitions of love that occurs to mind is what you feel, and when there a fear of losing it, and also an experience of losing, then the mind starts inquiring further, and if situation does help, the search deepens, till the source of love is found, and then it stays, since ultimate love is a personal quality, not situation dependent.
2006-09-11 18:57:40 · answer #5 · answered by Spiritualseeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think the 'associated behaviours' aren't necessarily negative, but such qualities are also found in stalkers and those who are obsessed (and therefore not in love).
in reply to your heading question, i know it sounds corny but love isn't about fear. at the very least, love is about the other person/ creature, not about one's selfish desires. think about a typical mother (not necessarily yours or mine) and how she feels toward her child: at least a little protective, possessive, and loyal, no?
the problem is when one fears losing something/someone that one has, one is expecting to be able to change the OTHER's actions/condition, like imposing one's will upon the other. in this kind of situation, one fails to recognise or respect the other who is involved, and that's oppressive, not loving. what do YOU think?
2006-09-11 18:37:23 · answer #6 · answered by Somnambulist 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Love to me is when you can actually feel a persons pain their joy when you can look into their eyes and know what they are feeling. When you lose someone that you love, which is a shared connection, you lose a part of yourself. If they die a part of you dies, and there is know way to get that person back. Going on with what is left is a complicated process.
2006-09-11 20:09:03 · answer #7 · answered by dancinintherain 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If love is the fear of losing something, then it is not true love. It is love born of ego; or ego-love. Its attributes are neediness, attachment and possessiveness.
True love does not fear losing the object of its love. Just like true joy and peace. If you do not expect anything in return when giving, true love is born.
Best way to NOT lose something is to let it go...
2006-09-11 20:44:09 · answer #8 · answered by Yoda 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, you do feel that at times especially when you love and you're on your own and not really having a relationship. You want to believe in the situation but what's there to go by? Imagination, hope, dreams, or fact? It's lonely......
2006-09-11 18:24:50 · answer #9 · answered by silhouette 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Love is the art of gently leading one back to oneself.
2006-09-11 18:24:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋