Has Love Changed?

[Dragoon Knight]

Another random thought occurred to me at around 3AM a couple of nights ago.

[thomas]

love is the same and always will be, but how we show our love has definately changed

[Caid Ivik]

It's an illusion. We never took them as equals, they were always different to us. You take nobody as equal to you. Femality is a thing of differentiation as well. Women have, had and will have always another expectations, values and importance in view of men. Same as vice versa. And love is a feeling, not an act, you can't "love back". Love isn't recurrent force, in you it isn't sparked by love of the woman towards you.

[Edric O]

It's an illusion. We never took them as equals, they were always different to us.

Every human being is different from another human being. I'm not the same as you. Does that mean we can't be equals? Of course it doesn't. Equality is one thing, diversity is another. Women and men are different - just like women and other women are different, and just like men and other men are different - but they are equals.

Women have, had and will have always another expectations, values and importance in view of men.

What exactly are you trying to say here? That women will always be different in the eyes of men, or that women are actually different from an objective point of view?

Well of course they're different - just ask any biologist. ;) But the point is that both men and women have equal status, equal rights, equal importance and deserve to be treated with equal respect.

And regarding DK's original question:

This got me wondering... when men said that they "loved" women back in the days when women were unfairly treated, is it the same "love" that we show today?  Similarly, when women said that they "loved" men, did they love them in the same way as women do today?  Has love changed?

Love has always been the same. However, in the past, many marriages were arranged, not done out of love. In fact, it's possible that due to the inferior status of women, there were fewer people who actually fell in love - but those who DID fall in love felt the same thing that we do today.

[MrFlibble]

Can you give clear logical definitions of 'love' and 'equality' (applied to human beings)? I can't ;)

[Caid Ivik]

I need no biologist to see (why "see", I can simply feel it) the primary difference between man and woman. From this view we can say same about other attributes. I don't want to judge morality or rights, I strongly agree with you that you should respect everyone. When someone is "equal", I would say he has same abilities, chances and responsibilities as me, he has a same form of self-identification as me. But I don't know even how to indentify myself - correctly, I mean. I can say I'm a human and she is a human as well, we have a same right to live. There we are equal. However, when we lift up from this generalization, term of equality losses sense.

Flibble, love can be easily defined as positive attention to target person; self-demand to maximize good relation and help for that one. In dualistic love between a man and woman, this self-demand and attention are far stronger, yet strengthened by sexual dimension. If we are to describe word "equality", we need to define the subjects first...

[nemafakei]

I would say the definition rests more within the biological/neurological realm.

[Dragoon Knight]

Interesting replies... but I still think that the feeling of 'love' must have changed, though gradually.  The question is not whether or not we are equals, but whether or not a woman of 50 years ago felt the same 'love' for her man as a woman of today does.

Take for example the archetypal U.S. family of the 50's.  Husband and Wife, with a son and a daughter.  The husband is the head of the household - he works 9 'til 5, and not much else.  The wife plays a very subservient role - cleaning, cooking, looking pretty and raising the children are her goals as a housewife... yet she loves her husband dearly, and he loves her.

What I find difficult to believe is that the 'love' described above is the same as the 'love' seen today in modern couples.  As we have become more equal, has 'love' changed along with it?  Surely we must have changed our priorities... the values we desire in a partner are no longer those exhibited in the 50's, so the criteria for love seems to have changed.  Does this mean that love has changed, too?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Interesting replies... but I still think that the feeling of 'love' must have changed, though gradually.

[TMA_1]

scytale said it pretty well in my opinion.

In fact there is a growing problem of what people think love is in the first place. I think that it is dangerous to speak of the problems of the past concerning love. Especially since now there are so many divorces.

It is true that in the past many women were treated one way while men another. It is ignorant to say that this equaled inferiority. In fact in that day and age (talking from many people who lived then, during the 50s and 40s), they didnt see women as inferior, it was just their duty to keep the house while the man won the money. Personally I disagree with this philosophy, but it is being a bit harsh to say that this somehow equated inferiority, or that all men that felt this way thought that women were inferior. Personally I dont agree with it, and in the last chapter of proverbs the woman in ancient israel was usually the one that was the bread winner, taking care of and supervising the business' of a household.

It seems that nowdays though that there is such a push to right the wrongs, that it has turned to the complete opposite of the spectrum. Now the divorce rates are so high that it makes you sick. This isnt because now women are treated "like they should be". Iti s because there is no more understanding of roles. Now that the roles have been thrown off, men and women are in disarray, and it destroyes a relationship when both are equals in all ways. Whether it is the female that is in charge of the job or the male, or whether the female is in charge of the household or the male, it is important for relationships to have a stable foothold and grounding in duties. Afterall marriage is a commitment, and all commitments take work and responsibility.

in short, love hasent changed, but our perception of it has, and our perception on how we handle love and how we handle loved ones as well as the situations behind it have changed in my opinion.

[SpiceGuid]

love still is what it always has been: dependance.

no dependance, no love.

dependance is stronger than domination.

domination can be a poor attempt to dissimulate dependance, so sexual equality is not so important in my opinion.

also sexual equality leads to mutual indifference.

[Acriku]

The problem we have and probably have always had is misinterpreting our butterflies. Probably related to the evolutionary trend to secure a mate, a man as I see it has the desperation to emotionally invest in any woman that looks a second time at him. With my experience, people misinterpret their butterflies for something that can last in the long-term. Chemicals can fuck with our minds to no end.

[Dragoon Knight]

To Gunwounds:

Hmm... yeah, I can see how you might have thought that.

[Apollyon]

Love is just a word, and the definition of any word will change. I think 90% of words found in the English Language have shifted meaning slightly during their existence. The word 'love' is no exception. Even members of arranged-marraige couples said they 'loved' eachother in the past, although that 'love' would be considered anything but 'love' by today's definition and standard.

[Caid Ivik]

Apollyon, you're a champion of the memetic age  ;D

[nemafakei]

"I think 90% of words found in the English Language have shifted meaning slightly during their existence"

All but the most recently coined ones (mostly highly technical and incredibly rare), and the most inevitably basic (such as 'I' - but not 'you').

Love as should be permissible now is a mixture of chemical attachment, rigorous devotion, and deep understanding.

At a basic biological level, you have to have a long-held attraction. At the practical level, you need to be prepared to give whatever you have to help your partner, for the rest of your life. On an intellectual (and philosophical, and some might say spiritual) level, you must know this person, well enough to trust them, well enough to understand how they think, why they act in the way they do - and, of course, you must be comfortable whith their character. Furthermore, before you do commit yourself, you must know that your partner is prepared to do the same for you.