Jump to content

Talk:Love/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Types of love

How about adding a section of types of love platonic love (Platos philosophy of love) True love Unwavering love fake love that does not have affection ect... -- said someone who didn't bother signing with ~~~~

This is covered in the article on Sternberg's Triangular theory of love. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unwavering love? How could there possibly be strength in something so weak? -- said someone else who didn't bother signing with ~~~~

or to to quote Iolanthe...
Queen: Oh, shame – shame upon you! Is this your fidelity to the laws you are bound to obey? Know ye not that it is death to marry a mortal?
Leila: Yes, but it’s not death to wish to marry a mortal!
Fleta: If it were, you’d have to execute us all!
Queen: Oh, this is weakness! Subdue it!
Celia: We know it’s weakness, but the weakness is so strong!
There's nothing new under the sun. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Artur: I'd like to add a section on "what is love". It will be a comprehensive guide on what ingredients are absolutely nessesary for love to "happen". the article does a great job on explaining the biology and Psychology of love, however, i feel that a contribution from the social interactions theory will be a nice addition to the article. I am a dating consultant and i have come across 4 absolutely nessessary requirements that make love happen. I would like to share my findings here and i wanted to see what are your opinions on it. wrote someone who didn't sign it with ~~~~

Well in principle it's okay provided your findings have been published elsewhere first. Wikipedia has a policy against publishing original research because it cannot be verified by others and thus is uncheckable. There's actually quite a lot published on the subject though. So you shouldn't find it too difficult to get some citations to back up what you add. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"Close Relationships" List

Why is paedophelia, incest, rape and violence listed in there? all of those are "close relationships." That's for removal, but I'm sure there's probably some I missed that should be taken out. I do have a suggestion for addition, however. I think "infatuation" should be included, considering "limerence" is on the list, even though limerence is a feeling and not a relationship. Perhaps another list should be created entirely, and be made up of the types of feelings of attraction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightskye (talk • contribs)

Well, incest can be considered a "close relationship" if the two consulting adults both love each other.(NOTE: I AM NO WHERE NEAR SUPPORTING OR GOING AGAINST "INCEST") rape and paedophelia should be removed. Because I doubt you'd force some child or someone else into have sex if you "love" them. Infatuation shouldn't be included (since there is no article for it, just a disambig.) Prostitution should also be removed. UnDeRsCoRe 18:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added this to the Template talk:Close Relationships. UnDeRsCoRe 18:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the template. I am having trouble understanding the relationship between this topic and others listed. This list of topics appears to be subjective. If we are going to include a template of related topics, then they should be concerned with love-related topics. —Viriditas | Talk 11:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ineffable

In the line where it says "Love is described as a deep, ineffable..," it should say something about the dictionary, since that's where it calls love "ineffable". But, ineffable means "Unable to be defined," so, maybe there should be a couple words saying what ineffable means.

Feel free to add a dictionary as a reference for this line. "Ineffable" is a common enough word that we needn't define it in this article, though we can link to the article explaining it. It does not, however, mean "unable to be defined", but rather "inexpressible, unutterable, indescribable". -Silence 04:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
And yet, that's somewhat of a paradox, is it not? I understand that emotions are not easy to explain, but it can be done, although it's often understood through images, metaphor, and symbols: in other words, nonverbal representations that are created in the mind. Might it not be more accurate to emphasize the experiential nature of love, in addition to multiple definitions, interpretations, and opinions on the topic, and that in order to understand love, one must experience it subjectively? We can describe the taste of chocolate, the feel of an ocean breeze on the skin, the sound of a seagull - but without anything to compare it to, these words are meaningless. —Viriditas | Talk 06:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


That was beautiful, Viriditas, and you made a good point. Someone should add something about it having to be experienced first-hand in order for it to be completely understood.


That's kind of the point that Viriditas was trying to make. We're not using POV with our prose here, just trying to get the reader to know that their POV matters with this feeling. --Knightskye 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Special Pleading

Viriditas seems to me to be special pleading when she says that love must be experienced first-hand in order to be fully understood. Indeed, without any evidence or logical arguments to support her claims, how can we possibly be assured of their truth? Just throwing this out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.87.214.115 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 5 June 2007.

It could just say "inexpressible" or any of the other synonyms that Silence mentioned. --65.27.237.250 04:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I wasn't signed in. Well, the above was me. --Millancad 04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

reworked intro para

It seemed to have a slight bias toward the "eros" aspect of love as well as slightly duplicate content. Does anyone feel an intense, passionate desire to keep that single footnote in the intro? If not, I'd like to take it out and move it further down in the article. dr.ef.tymac 08:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Only humans?

"Love is a basic dimension of human experience...."

This implies that by definition, no other species are capable of love, which I do not think is fact. Is a revision in order?

  • I'd say, humans are the only species that are verifiably capable of love. - Sikon 02:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Moreover, in addition to the point made by User:Sikon, the article does not say that *only* humans experience love (indeed, it makes direct reference to love of nature, the unseen, and spiritual love, which ostensibly can flow both ways, or even between two non-humans). Humans are simply one (of infinitely many) possible points of reference. Since humans are: 1) the primary form of living organism that contributes to and reads Wikipedia; 2) entities whose existence is not subject to considerable debate (at least among humans anyway); and 3) inclined to debate the very notion of love itself [see Talk:Love for authoritative proof]; it would seem the central focus on Human love is appropriate for the sake of brevity, clarity, and authoritativeness. (Although I personally don't mind contributions by goldfish, meteors, and inhabitants of the planet Queldar, its just that such contributions would by their very nature warrant inclusion in another article). dr.ef.tymac 03:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Hear hear. Speaking on behalf of (but not as a part of) the zoophiliaic editing community, I demand the inclusion of the love between a man and his (or her) dog/cat/swan/pet furry. ;-) GreenReaper 05:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Silliness aside, GreenReaper, love is a broad concept that includes topics from romantic love to love of country. For the sake of brevity and clarity, I agree with Sikon and dr.ef.tymac, and think that we should restrict this entry to love between human beings. It's complicated enough at that. Jcbutler 16:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"Romantic love is also present in the Bible" "love is a broad concept that includes topics from romantic love to love of country" Romanticism and love are things completely differents guys. "Romantic Love" is a most stupid expression. I don't really see the point in associating romanticism and the bible in the same sentence. That's just a complete nonsence. There is no romanticism at all in the bible, just because the Bible has been written three thousand years before the begining of Romanticism (end of XVIII century)...

Disagree. "Romantic love" is a very meaningful expression for the kind of bonding that has been occurring as long as men and women have been reproducing their kind. That has been going on far longer than Romanticism which was an art movement. Please sign your posts. You who don't sign seem to be the only one who thinks anyone has associated romanticism and the Bible, because the text you quoted certainly doesn't say that.Cuddlyable3 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-vandalism comment in the article

As the original creator of the comment I suggest to remove the rather formal addition that does carry the message, but not in such a way that would stop the vandals. That's not the form you should talk to people in love. -- Kirils 23:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am glad you agree it is formal. This is, after all, an encyclopedia article. It is only a single sentence header, and the rest of what you put in there I left completely intact (despite many reasons suggesting why it should be changed, and even why it was removed to begin with). I left it as a courtesy to you. Here is a humble suggestion: we allow both contributions to peacibly coexist, as they have for days, and we continue to work together in other ways to keep this article improving. There are specific reasons why that was added, and it will be a win-win for all involved if we can simply drop this issue. dr.ef.tymac 01:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I just thought about that. In that case I insist the order of the two to be changed and recommend to remove one or both of the "starry" lines. People editing (vandalizing) the article will NOT read formalisms, so will just go straight ahead and write "Sasha loves Pasha". If you talk to them in a manner that might seem understanding and caring they will probably understand. It has been working for months a year ago. -- 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a header. Do you really insist to press this issue? How about give it a couple of days. dr.ef.tymac 12:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Please check the article history. We can already see that speaking formal language to people driven by passion has failed. And any psychologist would tell you that it would, even without trying. I don't see why we need that formality, but if you wish, add it at the bottom, so that comment reaches the ones it's aimed at. -- Kirils 00:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
The article history is precisely what motivated this discussion and attempt at a compromise in the first place. Pursuant to WP policy: "Before adding any sort of content, ask yourself what would a reader expect to find in an encyclopedia." the relevant text has been changed. dr.ef.tymac 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

max loves mia?

I found this vandalism near the top of the article.

I tried editing it out, but for some reason, I couldent locate "max loves mia" anywhere in the article... Could anyone mind to fixing it? DiamondDragon contact 22:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Template was vandalized, it´s not that common. See Template:Love table.--Pethr 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Too religious?

The section on religious views seems too preachy, and too centered on Christianity above other religions. Clairedactyl 00:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a section on "religious views" ... and the section does not ask people to join or even accept the validity of what is presented. The very subject matter of the entire article is subject to debate, which is indicated in the article itself. Moreover, no one is prohibited from adding information on other religions or world-views to the article. Any authoritative research you'd like to add? Feel free! dr.ef.tymac 02:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, the sentence, "Also, the Bible defines love as being God himself." should be removed. This is a logical fallacy, since the quote then given points out that God is love. A is B is not the same as B is A. I am 'a man', but 'a man' isn't necessarily me. 194.81.188.120 13:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's only a logical fallacy under the premise that one must be a proper subset of the other. Such a premise (at least in this instance) is contestable, given the nature of the claim presented. One may disagree with the statement, but that is a separate issue from whether it is internally consistent. dr.ef.tymac 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
"It depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is." --Bill Clinton
Heh, we all thought he was crazy when he said that, but in this case he is right. "Is" is ambiguous in this context. "A=B" implies "B=A." But "A is a subset of B" does not imply "B is a subset of A." Does "is" mean "equals" or "is a subset of"?
I would argue that in the Bible verse in question, "is" means "equals." But yeah, all of that is irrelevant because it's all a touch religious. Heh... I actually think most of this article is a bit unencyclopedic, but I'm not sure how to fix it. I just have it on my watchlist because it's funny to watch all the people who vandalize it with "I LUV MARY!", etc. ha ha ha :D --Jaysweet 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems that first paragraph here (Love in early religions...) is poorly sourced and perhaps OR. But I agree in general with dr.ef.tymac. Views about love in different religions is a perfectly encyclopedic subject. This needs to be extended and better referenced. I do not see any POV or other serious problems except first paragraph.Biophys 19:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

pls provide rationale for modifying intro

The intro text underwent fairly meticulous review by more than one editor over the course of several days. Modifying without discussion seems inappropriate. dr.ef.tymac 01:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm combining the current intro with an older version of the intro which had a lot of important, and much clearer, information that was subsequently lost or made opaque. The original intro underwent extremely meticulous review by more than one editor over the course of several years. If you disagree with the change, then explain what's wrong with it; it is absurd to revert a change without citing any problems with that change other than the fact that it's new. In any case, the compromise-change to the lead section I implemented was only the first stage of the overall article revamp, which is long-overdue. I'm now implementing a substantial rewrite of much of the rest of the article. Feel free to critique and discuss any aspect of it you wish, so we can work out if there are any problematic areas, and change the text accordingly. -Silence 02:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, it seems you agree with me: "is absurd to revert a change without citing any problems with that change" which is what you did when you modified the existing text to restore "years" of prior work, without any discussion (other than vaguely in the edit history). I'm glad you are undertaking a revamp, and are willing to discuss. I will address your initial, undiscussed revert that started this; and we can work together to further improve the article content in discussion. Thanks for your work and contributions! dr.ef.tymac 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I didn't bother to list problems with the original edit is because there were so many of them. In the lead section alone:
"Love is a basic dimension" - What does this mean? POVed, unreferenced, poetic and wishy-washy wording.
That sounds like a matter of personal opinion, which you are entitled to, but is unfalsifiable. As far as references go, that's one of the perennial "todo" items. It seems as though you and I both at least have added footnotes to this article, so it seems we agree that is a good thing. dr.ef.tymac
"of human experience" - So animals and God can't experience love?
That has already been discussed, by more than one editor, on this very discussion page. See "only humans" above. dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"that is variously conveyed" - "Conveyed"? Poor word choice. The correct word would be something like "conceived of" or "understood" or "defined".
Minor wording changes are always acceptable, especially when they clear up ambiguities. No need to nitpick over that, 100% agree with you. Now, how does that justify removing an entire section? dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"as a sense of tender affection, an intense attraction, the foundation of intimacy and good interpersonal chemistry," - These are being listed as though they were separate things, but they're just different descriptions of the same thing, which causes confusion because the next things listed are conceptions of love distinct from this romantic definition.
Perhaps, but that would justify discussing what the distinctions are, different people can interpret this differently. dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"willing self-sacrifice on behalf of another," - Is war based on love, then? Again, unreferenced and POVed.
Love of country (patriotism) is one of many obvious justifications. If you really insist on a cite, it can be easily gotten. dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"and as an ineffable sense of affinity or connection to nature," - This needs a reference too. This and a few of the other definitions here don't seem like mainstream enough ones to merit inclusion in the lead section; we can't list every definition of love in the lead section! That's what the body of the article is for; specifically, this seems like good stuff to include in the "Spiritual/Religious views of love" section, accompanied by refs.
What is your justification for relegating a major aspect of the article to the body of the text? Whose definition of "mainstream" are you invoking? Which seems more POV, including every noteworthy aspect of the article subject, or "cherry picking" ones that are (in your opinion) "mainstream." dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"other living beings, or even that which is unseen." - What does this mean? Seems like a coy reference to God; encyclopedias should never be coy.
What is your justification for deleting a major aspect of the article content? "Coy" is a matter of opinion and not falsifiable. One person's "coy" is another person's "neutrality". Unseen could include anything from a spirit, to friendly ghost, to dead friends, to distant relatives, or to the flying spaghetti monster. If the text is flexible enough to permit multiple interpretations, and is not factually incorrect, (just like "love" itself) what is your basis for abrogating content that was specifically designed to acknowledge this? dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"It manifests itself in feelings, emotion, behavior, thoughts, perception and attitude." - The same could be said for most other aspects of the "human experience", so this isn't a very informative or meaningful line. It tells us next to nothing about what love actually is.
That's the whole point. This article has undergone hours of debate from people trying to define the undefinable, the *ONLY* thing that has found widespread agreement (and is falsifiable) is the fact that this "whatever it is" 1) relates to humans and; 2) influences specifically identifiable aspects of human experience. These are axioms, they are falsifiable, and therefore an excellent basis for an encyclopedic, analytic, NPOV, article introduction. dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"It influences, underlies and defines major patterns in interpersonal relationships and self-identification." - This line is a bit technobabble-ish, having a small text-to-meaning ratio (albeit significantly larger than the previous line). Why say that love "influences, underlies, and defines major patterns in interpersonal relationships" when you could just as easily say that love is a "major pattern in interpersonal relationships", or better yet shirk the ambiguous and uninformative "pattern" wording altogether and just explicitly state love's relevance to interpersonal relationships. If a word is ambiguous, it becomes all the more important to be specific, clear, and precise in how we describe that word; otherwise we will exacerbate, rather than remedy, readers' confusion. The idea that love "defines major patterns in self-identification" seems especially poorly-phrased and useless; how is this true in any but the most trivial sense? This sort of stuff is better handled lower down in the article, where it can be discussed in enough depth to actually give our readers useful information, accompanied by reliable sources.
It doesn't glibly say is because any invocation of the verb "to be" requires *falsifiability* ... the very nature of this article subject is going to harm the article credibility if anyone invokes a definition other than one that: 1) relies on falsifiable aspects of the subject matter; or 2) discusses the subject matter in ways that do not overreach. This is very common tactic in encyclopedias and dictionaries for entries that carry inherent ambiguities. dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
As you can see by the above, it is exhausting and time-consuming to bother to list even a handful of the problems with a section of the article; for this reason, it is simpler to just make the changes and discuss the ones that have problems with them. Discussing unproblematic changes is unproductive; instead, simply look over the edits I made and bring up whichever ones you object to, so we can discuss how best to resolve the issue. -Silence 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Working together to improve article content takes time, that much is true. This is probably especially so for articles that are subject to considerable debate (like this one). Does that mean we should just make wholesale, undiscussed and unsubstantiated modifications because we "dont want to be bothered?" Anyone can come along and flash the magic word "NPOV" and delete content that they don't want to be bothered discussing, without even having read the article! This is the sort of thing that discussion helps prevent, so that your very thoughtful contributions and rationale don't go completely ignored, and so we can indeed work together to improve the article, something I know we both agree is the ultimate goal. dr.ef.tymac 04:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

would be good to hear other major religions views on the subject, none the less, very thought provoking

intro discussion

Discussing issues: with changes by User:Silence:


  • 0 distinct? what is the basis for this separation? whose definition?
  • 1 what about definitions that do not include emotion and affection?
  • 2 most often romantically? according to whom? what is the basis for this factual assertion?
  • 3 what about definitions that do not include tender attraction?
  • 4 what about definitions that do not include sexual desire?
  • 5 this is the first mention of other contexts, and yet it still leaves out definitions that do not rely on "feelings"?
  • 6 why are these "other contexts" presented as somehow being less relevant?
  • 7 why are these "other contexts" presented as somehow being mutually exclusive of the "emotion/sexual/romantic" context?

*8 this specific item is already conveyed in the text of the article, redundant. *9 this specific item is already conveyed in the text of the article, redundant.

  • the intro modification acknowledges that there are "multiple contexts" defining the article subject, and yet promotes one context as more prevalent than the others, without substantiation, and seems to imply that the different contexts are somehow mutually exclusive.
  • simplify, NPOV? it seems to promote a specific POV (eros-centric), thus reducing neutrality of the intro and article.
  • the first undiscussed change by User:Silence progressed from 'romans/sexual/emotional' and then obliquely introduces "secondary" contexts as somehow subsidiary, and still subordinate to "emotion and feelings"
  • the removed content progressed from the most general aspect, (the most general elements as the foundation) and refined toward more specific elements, in parallell, no element given more "weight" than the others
  • the removed content included a wider cross-section of psychological and affective corrolaries
Follow-up: First off, NPOV and OR are very familiar, so no need to flash generic links to policy pages, or accuse people of violating policy. This discussion is hopefully purposed to move the article forward toward improved quality based on compromise. When we talk about policy, let's try to keep on specifics. dr.ef.tymac 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 0 - That they are distinct is clear by the fact that people recognize a difference between "I love ham" and "I love my wife". If they were not distinct, the two would be recognized as having the same meaning for love. However, if you think this is problematic because the distinctions are sometimes vague or contentious, then I'm fine with changing "distinct but related" to just "related".
In other words, what you are saying here is that there are "various definitions for love?" Ok, that's funny I seem to remember seeing that already, change 'conveyed' to 'defined' and voila! Moreover, how do you substantiate "distinction" as opposed to "continuum"? The whole notion of 'distinction vs spectrum' is a debatable point. Doesn't seem to promote NPOV to make the article come down on the issue one way or the other. dr.ef.tymac 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
"Various definitions for love" and "love is any of a number of X" are indeed both true and informative, but the latter is preferable to the former for the start of the article for two reasons. First, it is more informative, because it is more specific and concrete, actually explaining what love is. Second, it is preferable to discuss an article's subject matter, rather than the word used as the article's title, when beginning an article on something other than a word. For example, "Squid are a large, diverse group of marine cephalopods." is preferable to "The word squid refers to a large, diverse group of marine cephalopods." If we used love as a word, rather than to refer to the concept, we would also have to italicize it, which is potentially confusing to readers. So it is overall better to begin the article by discussing the notion of love, rather than the word love.
  • 1 - Such as? All common definitions of love incorporate an element of emotion, even ones that are more vague or spiritual (e.g., "God is love"). Emotional significance is one of the only near-universal characteristics of love.
Such as "I love how politicians are always lying." Such as "tough love." Such as Philia, Agape. I noticed you re-introduced the section on Greek meanings, this was good IMHO, but then this "versatility" seems to be discarded when one focuses specifically exclusively on (romantic) "emotion" and "affection" as the cornerstone for the lead section of the *entire article*. Indeed, it seems a bit POV to assume "love" is always butterflies and warm fuzzies, as opposed to one point on a wide continuum. Also, did you notice what you said "vague or spiritual"? How is that *not* POV? How is religious "love" any less "vague" than warm fuzzy feelings for your pet hamster? dr.ef.tymac 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • 2 - This article already stated this as fact 2 or 3 times lower in the article; not mentioning it in the lead section is misleading our readership. It is a clear fact that love most often refers to romantic love; this is shown by the fact that the entire Love article, in both versions, solely discusses romantic love unless otherwise specified. That is, the paragraphs on "cultural views", "philosophical views", and "scientific views" all deal with romantic love, even though there are also cultural, philosophical, and scientific views on the other definitions of love too. This clearly demonstrates that people assume that the English word love is intended romantically unless something in the context indicates otherwise. That's why people associate romantic imagery like the heart with the word "love" even when it isn't specified whether love refers to romantic love or filial love or platonic love; the "default" variety of love is interpersonal and romantic/sexual.
It is a clear fact? You keep saying that ... and yet how do you substantiate it? By the structure and volume of article content itself?! How is that not Original Research? How is that not circular reasoning? In any event, WP articles are not citable authority according to policy.
  • 3 - Strawman. "Tender attraction" refers only to the default definition, not to every definition. This sentence explicitly states that it is dealing with the "romantic" conception of love.
Respectfully disagree, not only is this not a "strawman" it is one of the core deficiencies of the addition, specifically the fact that the subject matter of the article is primarily associated with this "romantic" aspect, which is implied as the foundational "default" definition, and yet the article contradicts itself by alluding to the vast and varying range of meanings, while including the linguistic "versatility" that it seems to ignore in the very first sentence of the lead section!
  • 4 - Strawman. "Sexual desire" refers only to the default definition, not to every definition. This sentence explicitly states that it is dealing with the "romantic" conception of love.
See previously.
  • 5 - Because all or most definitions of love do describe or directly relate to feelings. We should not sacrifice informational value for political correctness, when the accuracy difference is so trivial.
More POV terms "political correctness" "trivial accuracy differences" "all or most" whose definitions are you employing here? Is there some falsifiable standard of "trivial" that you are invoking that editors can use to test whether their contributions will meet your standards should you decide to "revamp" content? Is there *any* way to define this that does not rely on consulting you for your personal opinion?
  • 6 - Because the word love refers primarily to romantic love (and similar conceptions of love, like erotic love and spousal love), and secondarily to other types of love. To not note this in the lead section is to mislead and deceive our readers, making this a vastly less useful and informative article.
Primarily? According to whom? This seems like a *major* claim, one that would require substantial justification from many disparate sources in order to be proven. Moreover, by relegating some content to a lower standard of "prevalence" than other content, without a *single* falsifiable standard or test seems to relegate this "article" to the status of "personal essay."
  • 7 - Where does the lead section state that such feelings are mutually exclusive? Answer: It does not. It states that there are different definitions and coneptions of love; it does not state that if you have one, you canont also have another one. Nor does it state that there is no overlap.
The term "different contexts" could be another "minor wording" issue that can be addressed. dr.ef.tymac 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "and yet promotes one context as more prevalent than the others, without substantiation," - Essentially every single reference used in this article substantiates the view that love is most often used to refer to interpersonal, and especially romantic, love. Wikipedia's own usage of the word love conforms exactly to this usage. For example, our article on Love (scientific views) deals solely with scientific views of interpersonal, and particularly romantic, love. We are simply reflecting the way the word is used; we should not fight common usage, even if we disagree with it. That is not Wikipedia's task.
Nor is it WP's task (as you have stated exhaustively) to promote a POV. Why would anyone expect to see an article on "scientific views of spiritual love" for example? The very *existence* of such a thing is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry! It is not *relevant* to science, nor should it be. Why should the most generalized form of the word be used to talk about merely one aspect of that word, *especially* when that aspect already has its own article?
  • "it seems to promote a specific POV (eros-centric), thus reducing neutrality of the intro and article." - Eros-centricity is inherent in the English word itself. It is not a POV to accuratelly state the meaning of a word; if the word itself is POVed, then it is our job to faithfully reflect and explain that POV, not to try to rewrite the English language according to our own, specific POVs about what is or isn't NPOV. The fact that love has multiple meanings does not imply that all meanings are equally common. Any speaker of the English language who is asked to respond to what the word "love" means will respond by thinking of interpersonal love along the lines of "I love my girlfriend", not the kind of love described in terms of "I love cabbage" or even "I love my friends". Those definitions exist, but they are secondary and will generally only be inferred if context demands it, whereas love outside of any context is almost always considered romantic, or at least to have a strong romantic element.
1) ... inherent in the English word itself. [citation needed] Any speaker who is asked to respond [citation needed]; secondary definition [citation needed] ... all of this seems amazingly POV toward something that is already provided for in a *separate article* ... if this definition is so "primary" then why are you revamping the article instead of putting a merge reco on this article with "romantic love" ? dr.ef.tymac 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "the removed content progressed from the most general aspect, (the most general elements as the foundation) and refined toward more specific elements, in parallell, no element given more "weight" than the others" - Which was itself inaccurate, POVed, misleading, and a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. Although it may be counter-intuitive, reflecting at all on the actual usage of the word love makes it clear that it is inaccurate to presume that all definitions of love are equally common, mainstream, or predominant. This in no way implies that the one definition is more true or correct or meaningful than the others; it is simply a straightforward and factual representation of word usage. WP:NPOV demands that we not give undue weight to minority views, and that we treat the most mainstream and widely-accepted views as being more mainstream, rather than pretending that all opinions are equally mainstream or noteworthy on all matters. It is thus a violation of Wikipedia policy to pretend that love is not understand primarily as being interpersonal, romantic, emotional/sexual, etc. -Silence 04:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Minority views? Original research? POV? That's exactly what all the conclusory "English usage" assertions and arbitrary weights to any single definition seem to be, *especially* since you seem to be confusing the lead section of this article with the lead section for romantic love. dr.ef.tymac 05:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "Such as "I love how politicians are always lying."" - "I love how politicians are always lying." incorporates an element of emotion. It's just a sarcastic reference to that emotion; the fact that it is sarcastic does not make its original meaning void, it just makes its meaning non-literal. For example, if I sarcastically said "I sure do hate getting to leave work early.", that would not mean that the word "hate" does not have an emotional meaning, it would just mean that I am using that word sarcastically, and therefore its literal meaning is only indirectly relevant.
  • "Such as "tough love."" - "Tough love" is more of an idiomatic expression than a common, normal usage of the word love, but it, too, incorporates an element of emotion, in that the assumption is that one is expressing the emotion of love, but doing so through behavior that is "tough". The love itself is not "tough", but rather love, a tender emotion, is being expressed through harsh actions, for one reason or another. It is simplified to "tough love", rather than "tough expressions of love", for the sake of conciseness, as is often the case for idioms and turns of phrase.
  • "Such as Philia, Agape." - Philia and Agape are Greek words, not English ones, so I fail to see their relevance in defining the primary meaning (or lack thereof) for love. They are only relevant in discussing the concept(s) of love, not in ascertaining the primary definition of love in common usage.
  • "this "versatility" seems to be discarded when one focuses specifically exclusively on (romantic) "emotion" and "affection"" - The versatility is not "discarded" when one focuses more on the romantic meanings than on the others; rather, the versatility is put into its proper context, by making it clear to readers both that "love" is generally assumed to mean romantic love when the context doesn't specify otherwise, but by also making it clear that "love" can have a variety of different meanings. These two are clearly not mutually exclusive; most words in the English language have one primary meaning and several secondary ones, all of which are equally valid "meanings", but the primary one of which is the first one that should be discussed, because it is the one that people will first leap to when trying to figure out which definition you are using, unless context indicates otherwise. The fact that a word is versatile does not mean that it doesn't have a primary meaning.
  • "Indeed, it seems a bit POV to assume "love" is always butterflies and warm fuzzies, as opposed to one point on a wide continuum." - The lead section currently states neither that love is "always butterflies and warm fuzzies" nor that it is "one point on a wide continuum", because both are only POVs, and not mainstream (or referenced) enough ones to merit significant coverage in the lead section.
  • "Also, did you notice what you said "vague or spiritual"? How is that *not* POV?" - Nor does the lead section state the word "vague" or "spiritual" anywhere; accusing me of being POVed (which is true, because everyone is POVed) does not make the lead section POVed. That's an ad hominem fallacy.
Follow-up: Ok, after reviewing your remarks, support and responses I will add only a few clarifications, as I substantially agree with a lot of what you present here.
ad hominem, that can be summarily put to rest, as the POV remark was simply in reference to any decision to "rank" the relative importance of article content, it had *zero* to do with your personal attributes or motivation, as these are irrelevant to this discussion page, and I don't even know you. Indeed, everyone has POV, which is why bringing the concept up to begin with has very little dispositive value, which was my point to begin with. As I am sure you recognize, what an article *doesn't* say is as much a matter of POV as what it *does* say. As long as the content and editorial decisions are well-founded and consistent with WP policy, and reflect a high degree of professionalism, that's really all that matters. dr.ef.tymac 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "It is a clear fact? You keep saying that ... and yet how do you substantiate it?" - All of the references already substantiate it. All mainstream dictionaries use the affection and emotion and interpersonal relationship-related definitions of love as their primary definitions, the first ones they list. For example, the first definition provided by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary is "a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person". The first definition provided by the AHD is "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". The polling project we cite to see what the general public defines love as shows, again, that love is primarily defined as a strongly affectionate, caring, etc. interpersonal relationship. So does the Human encyclopedia, the Helen Fisher article, and, for that matter, dozens of Wikipedia articles—including this one (as has been the case since the very creation of this article). There are no references that contradict the idea that love is most often understood as applying to interpersonal, and specifically romantic, love; if you disagree with the usage established in all the references thus far (and in Wikipedia itself), then cite some reliable sources that dispute this being the primary (i.e., most common) definition in general English-language usage.
Here we may have just been talking past one another, since conversational English usage is definitely reflected in the resources you identified, but *fundamental attributes* are not (necessarily). If you are saying that "conversational English must be the sole or primary basis for compiling the content of this article for the sake of expediency" then that sounds like a pragmatic approach. Such an approach may lack a certain degree of refinement, but clearly this article needs practical guidelines in order to progress. dr.ef.tymac 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "By the structure and volume of article content itself?! How is that not Original Research?" - It is never Original Research to appeal to the current status of Wikipedia in order to clarify what is needed for Wikipedia to be consistent. I am not, for the most part, pointing out the way the word is used on Wikipedia to definitively prove the usage, but rather to give an obvious example of it, and to highlight the level of rewriting of Wikipedia articles you'd have to undergo in order to dispute this universally-accepted aspect of the word's usage. For example, you'd have to change Love (scientific views) to Romantic love (scientific views), or at least Interpersonal love (scientific views); if it isn't assumed that love applies specifically to those things when context doesn't imply otherwise, then the titles of all these articles are unacceptably ambiguous. It's because the word does have a certain primary meaning that is assumed by the average person in generic contexts that such titles avoid undue ambiguity. If you disagree, you will need to change not only the lead section, but also the entirety of the rest of this article, and dozens of other Wikipedia articles, in order to conform to your POV. Otherwise, Wikipedia will not only be inaccurate, but inconsistent as well.
Here is one crux of the "talking past one another" phenomenon. Using terms like "universally-accepted aspect" seems to employ a bit of hyperbole, especially if one is simply making an appeal to "conversational English" as the most statistically relevant basis for definitions and assumptions about article content. Such assumptions are definitely pragmatic, but to call it "universally-accepted" seems to oversimplify matters considerably. Not saying that is a bad thing, just saying it should be recognized and acknowledged if that is where this article is intended to go.
  • "specifically the fact that the subject matter of the article is primarily associated with this "romantic" aspect," - This was already addressed in criticism #2. It is misleading to fabricate criticisms #3 and #4 when they are only valid if #2 is valid (i.e., they are topic-dependent upon #2, and provide no useful information for the purposes of the NPOV discussion than what #2 already establishes), and when you deliberately misrepresent their clear meaning in the context of the article lead section, as opposed to the context that the lead section would have if you altered #2 without fixing #3 and #4.
Fabricate, misrepresent ... hmm ... loaded language there, hope this is not an assumption of bad faith, or worse yet, a *yikes* ad hominem :)
  • "specifically the fact that the subject matter of the article is primarily associated with this "romantic" aspect," - It was already primarily associated with the romantic aspect. I simply made the lead section consistent with the article contents. You seem surprised by this obvious fact; when's the last time you read the body of the article? 5-6 of the 7 sections focus specifically on romantic love, and none of them bother to specify that fact in their titles. The reason no one's noticed or complained about that fact is because people are so used to assuming that the word love applies to romantic relationships when it is not specified otherwise, that they don't even think about it but just auto-interpret love as such in normal written prose.
I'm assuming your remark about what people are used to is another deferral to "conversational English" ... no problem with that, also no problem with emphasis of romantic aspect, which is obviously an element of the subject matter. The only question really was what was the basis for the distinction, so that other editors could know objectively.
  • "and yet the article contradicts itself by alluding to the vast and varying range of meanings," - This is not a contradiction. Many words have a primary meaning while also having a vast and varying range of meanings. Look at the word go, for example. It has the primary meaning of "to move or proceed, esp. to or from something"; if the context does not specify otherwise, this (or something very close to this) is the meaning most English-speakers will derive from the word. Yet according to the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, the word go has no less than 98 distinct meanings! How is this possible? It's simple: the number of meanings a word has says nothing about the relative commonality of various specific meanings. To assume that all the meanings of a word are equally mainstream, common, or regular is to make a profound semantic error. There is thus nothing contradictory or inconsistent about love having a widely-recognized (albeit often implicitly so) primary meaning referring to romantic interpersonal relationships, while also having numerous other definitions expressing a variety of (largely related) meanings.
And to proceed with definitions of "mainstream" and "universally accepted" without clarifying the basis for those definitions is to make a profoundly bold assumption about what others can discern about what you actually mean.
  • "Primarily? According to whom?" - Speakers of the English language, and authorities on how those speakers use words (i.e., dictionaries).
And just to reiterate, when one defers to the 'dictionary' it is an excellent resource for discerning patterns based on ordinary English usage, but not so excellent if one wishes to consider the broadest connotations and differing definitions of "primary." (e.g., definitions occuring most commonly in speech may or may not be the most 'ontologically expansive'). dr.ef.tymac 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • "relegating some content to a lower standard of "prevalence" than other content, without a *single* falsifiable standard or test" - Nonsense. There are countless falsifiable standards and tests that could disprove this fact about the word love. For example, you could start a survey to see whether a random sampling of 250 English-speakers defines love primarily as an interpersonal, affectionate, often romantic relationship or not. Oh wait, we already did that (though admittedly that poll is non-ideal in a number of ways, as it had a relatively small and location-based sample). Notice how many of the definitions are specifically interpersonal, affection-related, romantic, etc.? If you want a better test, however, go up to 250 people and ask them what symbol they most strongly associate with "love". I'd bet that over 90% of them would say that they associate the heart, the canonical symbol of romantic love, with "love". For that matter, Wikipedia itself provides one verification of this view—have you noticed that the symbol of romantic love is also, coincidentally, at the top of the "love" infobox featured prominently at the top of Love?
Again, deference to ordinary English usage. Fine if that is the clearly stated objective and foundation for this article, for the sake of expediency.
  • "Nor is it WP's task (as you have stated exhaustively) to promote a POV." - A definition is not a POV.
Sure it is, and as you correctly stated, everyone has POV, so recognizing it and agreeing to proceed with mutually acceptable assumptions (that can be applied to everyone uniformly) seem like a fair way to keep it in check.
  • "Why would anyone expect to see an article on "scientific views of spiritual love" for example?" - Because psychology of religion, sociology of religion, and neurothology are viable and significant fields of scientific research? The reason people don't expect a "scientific views of love" article to focus primarily on spiritual love is because romantic love is by far the most commonly used meaning of love in general contexts. Furthermore, spiritual love is not the only alternative to romantic love; there is also Platonic, familial, etc. love.
  • "The very *existence* of such a thing is beyond the scope of scientific inquiry!" - Spirituality is only outside the scope of scientific enquiry as a metaphysical reality, not as a psychological phenomenon.
Again, "only outside the scope of scientific enquiry as a metaphysical reality" ... *this* is POV. I'm not saying it's bad, not pointing any fingers, just saying that this represents a cognitive decision to favor one "worldview" over another. It's like saying "creationists don't disfavor evolution as a topic of discussion in schools, only as long as it is not used to seriously explain the origin of species."
  • "Why should the most generalized form of the word be used to talk about merely one aspect of that word, *especially* when that aspect already has its own article?" - Because that's how the word is used. I honestly don't like it either. But it's the way things are. It's not Wikipedia's job to redefine words.
I didn't say "I don't like it" (those are your words) I just asked for a supporting rationale. "Redefine" begs the question that there is "a" definition to begin with. You seem to be more confident in the 'fixity' of such a 'primary' definition than am I, but as long as there is a well-defined standard for improving this article, personal inclinations and preferences are really beside the point.
  • "if this definition is so "primary" then why are you revamping the article instead of putting a merge reco on this article with "romantic love" ?" - Because (1) romantic love is a broad, important, and detailed enough topic to merit a distinct article focusing on that topic more specifically and thoroughly on a daughter article; and (2) although the definition is primary, it isn't so overwhelmingly primary as to render the other definitions irrelevant. It renders them less important and central, not altogether unimportant or tangential. Hence they are discussed too, but the article begins by explaining the primary meaning (and linking to romantic love in the process, for the many people who will have come to this article looking for that topic). That is an appropriate compromise, and the most useful one for the sake of our readers.
  • Ask yourself: how many people, upon hearing the sentence "Fred loves Kathy", will assume a non-romantic interpretation for this phrase? How many will assume that the love is Platonic, or friendly, or familial, or spiritual, or even that it's just a stronger form of the generic sense of the word like (i.e., the one that can be applied to foods and activities)? All of those are possible meanings, yet probably over 98% of all English-speakers would favor the romantic interpretation. It's simply unavoidable that the word love is assumed by English-speakers to be romantic in ordinary usage, when context doesn't indicate otherwise; regardless of how we, the editors, feel about this fact, it is our job to neutrally report on it, for the sake of accurately informing our readers. In particular, Wikipedia has a large number of people who do not speak English as a first language, and may not understand this important aspect of the word love if we don't take the time to explicitly state it, but just implicitly assume it, as the vast majority of English-speakers do. -Silence 06:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The conversational English usage "foundation" for the article makes sense, at least for the sake of expediency, and more cites are coming into the article, which is definitely good. I still think it would be useful to add a little more support for statistically contingent claims, to the extent possible, so as to ensure that "obvious" and "universally accepted" assertions are put into some context. Thanks!dr.ef.tymac 09:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Love

Love is an emotion. Emotion theory can be based on subjects and relations. For more on this click on this image: Subjations With this theory one can understand love in reference to other emotions. In it, love is simply defined as excessive empathy. (Alternatively, hate is excessive antipathy.) Even though one can be empathetic to a subject doesn't necessarily mean they love that subject. To be excessively empathetic, with absoluteness, does mean they love that subject. JHuber 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Sri Bhagavan (founder of the Oneness University, www.onenessuniversity.org)
known worldover for the phenomenon of 'Deeksha' said when asked
"What exactly is love, Bhagavan? Is love also an emotion like anger, like jealousy or is it a
power that is hidden within man? Would love lead to suffering or to joy ?":
"The love that we are talking about is not an emotion, nor some power, as you say. It is none
of these things. This love cannot be spoken about. We can tell you what it is not. The love
of a parent for the child is not this love. The love between a man and a woman is not this
love.
Your love of your friend is not this love. It is not attachment, it is not possession, it is
not concern, it is not caring, it is none of these things. It is the stuff with which this
universe is created. It is the stuff of the universe. It is your true nature. It is that
which is there. If you go deeper and deeper into reality what there is, it is emptiness. It
is all emptiness.
That emptiness is love. That is the love we are talking about. It has to be experienced. At
the first level you have to become enlightened, at the second level a divine being must come
into you, only then you will know what it is. Otherwise it is beyond your grasp. We are not
condemning the love you are experiencing now. This kind of love is perfectly fine.
What we are telling is, 'that' love has no cause. If you see somebody, there will be 'that'
love. If you see an ant there will be 'that' love. There is no cause for 'that' love. For the
love that you know there must be a cause. It must be your child, wife, friend, then there is
love. On the other hand, when you experience causeless Love, you
are in Oneness. You are no more separate from the dog, the leper, the beggar, or the rich…
nobody is separate from you. There is complete Oneness. It is a love born of Oneness. So, It
has no cause." 76.212.5.166 07:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed.

Can we get rid of all the "citation needed" next to comments that are stating the obvious? "whereas in Western culture, by comparison, love is seen as a necessary prerequisite to marriage" being an example. They make the article look very scrappy.If noone places any objections I'll do it tomorrow.Schnizzle 11:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The citations for Mary Baker Eddy are m-w.com and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. How do I add the citation? Simplywater 19:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

COme on guys there really is too much stuff in here with citation needed written next to it. There is no need for "Some categorically reject the notion as false or meaningless.[citation needed]" we know that some people reject it. Why the citation needed for something that is blindingly obvious. It makes the article difficult read and scruffy. 08:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you define "LOVE" and/or the amount of "LOVE" you have for someone.

Let's face it love comes in all forms. 

Ponder on this.....

Your feelings for your past relationship(you swear you were in LOVE).

Well.....You thought you were in love until the other person came and NOW you insist your LOVE because you never felt like this in the past relationship. But are you sure this time?

You ponder on where you were in your life then and now, and things are the same. You also even doubt the possibility of confusion. Though you concluded confusion was/is not weighing in as a factor.

Shoud'nt defining love be simple?

And how do we define a love we feel for someone, and still want them to interpret our version of love?

We want the other person to know EXACTLY how they are loved. So as a couple they clearly understand their love for eachother.

Well love may come in all forms; different definitions, and interpretations.

BUT.....How do we narrow it down!

How nice. --Kenneth M Burke 04:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

GA in zh.wikipedia

Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose that Love should be viewed as an active verb and not as a Passive emotion. I would propose that Love is in fact when one provides for needs and desires of another and is unrelated to the emotions or experience of the one. as in , Love should not be used for example in the phrase " I Love oranges" because I do not fulfil any need in the orange and I do not provide for any desire or requirement of the orange. The orange on the other hand loves me , because it provides sustenance and pleasure and satisfies needs or desires in me. The pleasure or satisfaction I feel at having my needs provided for should not be termed love. If this entire subject is viewed in the light of the recent theories within Genetics on selfish attributes and Altruistic attributes and their Dominance , it makes perfect sense to begin viewing love ( in all forms it may have , romantic, familial , patriotic, platonic) in these terms. Love is when you provide for another Love is when you give time to another Love is when you support another Love is when you put up with another If the other in turn loves you then it is a balanced and sucessful interpersonal relationship.

I believe I should retract this section on Love as an active verb, Due to the No original Research policy. That and the four beers I drank before writing it . Apologies Wallacebiy 22:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

10 Secrets of Love

What thhe hell is this section on about? It sounds like the stuff you get in those quack self-help manuals that sell for like $29.95 a month for a year. This is clearly not encyclopedic - it is nothing but POV (unless someone can cite a reliable reference stating categorically that there are 10 'secrets' to love and that these are they). Needs some serious improvement. (86.138.44.17 19:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC))

Removed: This section is subject to immediate removal. If someone wishes to re-instate the content, please forward the rationale here and be prepared with substantiation. Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 19:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Nice one. Sorry if I sounded a little pushy with that ^ comment, but I'm glad you did something about it. Thanks. (86.138.44.17 16:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC))

what about adding information from that page? its not refrenced but i think some information is worth mentioning in here

  • www.2knowmyself.com/relationship_breakups/body_language_love_signals love
It looks like an interesting website, but you pretty much captured the main problem with it: not referenced. As it stands, it would be a stretch to even link to it, let alone copy content from it into any Wikipedia article. dr.ef.tymac 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"fagtron"

I'm a wikipedia reader, but I haven't dabbled in editing at all. Could someone who has kindly remove the word "fagtron" from the "Biology of love" section? I'm reasonably certain it isn't supposed to be there.

Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.208.13.255 (talk) 06:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

"Heart" Image?!

Why there is a silly "heart"-shaped image on top? Let's stay to scholar sources and avoid pushing western propaganda.--BMF81 21:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would guess that it's because this is a western language wikipedia and scholarly sources state that the heart-shaped image is a well known western symbol for love. It would only be silly to use it in an eastern language wikipedia -- as silly as using an eastern symbol for love in a western language wikipedia no doubt. It might be propagandistic to use a western symbol in an eastern wikipedia or an eastern symbol in a western wikipedia but it can hardly be so when the appropriate symbol appears in either type of wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Defining love

How does one define love how do you know that you are in love if you have never felt it before? Bumblebee !!!

You read our article on Sternberg's Triangular theory of love, of course! That demonstrates that only people who have never had friends, never had a crush on someone, and who have always hated their family have never felt love before. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Love as a choice?

When operating under the belief that the definition of Love is "being in complete service of the growth of another person, while growing yourself", we can notice that sometimes we have a definite choice about loving another person and sometimes it seems we have no choice. It will be interesting to explore whether there is "conscious love" and "unconscious love", or whether love is in fact, at some level, always a choice we make. If love is a choice, can Love still be defined as an emotion, or something else? Phil D Coactivator 03:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Interracial love - anybody please help?

Hey, a thought has struck me - why hasn't this section have "interracial love" as a catagory, I nominate and strongly reccomend that someone create an article of a suitable callibre and list it a "Known Love" if you know what I mean: can you include variuos things such as the psychology of interracial love or probably the amative effects and drives of urges like these. What is it a fetish or just simple human love...? (the only thing that was remotely close to this suggestion was interracial pornography!) (I am LOTRrules sorry for not signing in earliar!)89.240.251.76 19:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Love/Archive_3&oldid=1136967907"