A poster in an existing thread posed the question of whether "perhaps we could debate if all those so called warm, fuzzy feelings called "love” are actually based on self interest!"

I myself have often wondered if there are not many people who go throughout their entire lives thinking they know what love is, but mistaking it for possessiveness, or fascination, or even darker feelings.

I am almost certain that many people who say they are looking for love are instead looking for something completely different - they want instead to feel needed. They want someone to depend upon them; they want to be the most important being in someone else’s universe; they want to feel as if they have a purpose. All of which, of course, is quite definitely based on self interest. It fulfills a need within themselves.

And is love a warm fuzzy anyway? Doesn't the very nature of love mean it is actually quite a painful emotion: if you truly wish for the best for someone this often means encouraging them NOT to depend upon you; or setting them free; or acknowledging that someone else is better fitted to give them happiness.

Is love possible without self-interest? Is it merely a quid pro quo? Is it selfish to want love? And what is its nature? A chemical or biological reaction? That which makes the world go round. Moonlight and roses?

Whaddya reckon, gang?

One of the craziest things about 'love' is its many and varied guises.

I have repeatedly mistaken lust for love - too much into the visual I guess. I'm in much better control these days.

But true love?

Last year my Aunt died, I am grateful her passing was painless and that her family were by her side, loving her and holding her to the very end. For love is all that is left at the end of life.

I faced the above scenario when my mother met with the Reaper and incredibly turned it away. The past two years have meant that we (all my family) have been telling each other how much love each other, because any of us could just disappear suddenly and all too easily.

A good long term relationship with one's partner/spouse requires the deep seated feelings of the above mixed in with genuine attraction for each other. Lust fades as quickly as a cheap red dress.

Love survives anger, disagreement, illness and many hardships. It does not survive disrespect, manipulation, lack of empathy or abuse. People who remain in those relationships are seeking something other than love, even though they may not be aware of it.

I enjoy my independence and do not feel lonely, because I know there are people who really love me. I have only discovered this relatively recently and I am so grateful.

Dear Romany,

There are many kinds of love - the love you have
for your parents or your pet, differs from the
'romantic love,' that our culture encourages us to
look for - to find the 'one and only.'

Many of us look for the 'noble ideal' of romantic
love that involves - physical symptoms, such as
pounding of the heart, sexual desire, and finding each
other personally and physically attractive. Some of us
look for the "ideal" partner to share our lives,
have children with,
and "live happily ever after."

This kind of love - is portrayed and endorsed throughout
our popular culture, by books, magazines, comics, c/d's
popular songs, movies and television.

Romantic love - is however a cultural product -
and in different societies - you may never fall in love,
nor would you expect to.

The heady joys of romantic love are usually short-lived,
and the excitement of the earlier relationship is often lost
in the daily routines of work, housework, mortgages,
and bills. It doesn't mean that the partners no longer
love one another, only that their love becomes different.
It can mature, and become deeply fulfilling, or not.
Some people may lose faith in their marriages and may start
looking for romance elsewhere - especially if they married
very young, or after only a short acquaintance, or if their
family and friends disapproved of the marriage.

So I suppose - to each his own. What is this crazy thing called
love? It depends on what you're looking for in a
relationship - and what your expectations are. And also
most importantly - how much you're willing to contribute
to making the relationship work. Being pro-active will get
better results long term, (then only caring about your own
self-interest).

Well yeah, I would guess that most of us on this forum are old enough to know that the ideal of romantic love is mainly a construct. The sweaty palms etc. are usually a physical manifestation of lust - a chemical and biological process designed to ensure the continuation of the species.

But if love has many aspects then what are they? Take away the lust and how does the love of our spouse, children and fellow human differ?

I once disagreed with BD about the translation of the bible which had changed the original word "charity" to "love" i.e. "The greatest of all these is Charity" etc. etc., saying that the two words greatly differ in meaning. He, as was his wont, did not respond.

To have charity - which has nothing to do with Vinnies or giving to the poor - towards my fellow humans I can understand. But to "love" them?

As to the self-interest aspect. If people really love their children why do they claim to want 'someone to carry on My name/family"? That reeks of self-interest surely? And why steer them away from being, for example, a rock-star towards being a lawyer? Isn't that rather what WE want?

Sure love needs respect, and encompasses admiration, care for well-being, ...one can have all of those feelings for, e.g. a boss. But one doesn't love him/her.

And what, exactly, defines the different "kinds" of love? Surely love, like lust - or flatulance - can be deconstructed and identified?

Be very careful, Romany.

You could find yourself treading on a lot of people's cherished sensibilities by pursuing this topic.

The problem is that you are completely and absolutely right.

This is how you can tell. If you examine what you mean when you use the word love, and then ask what the person next to you in the bus queue what they mean, the responses will be as different as what you and they had for breakfast.

Love resists definition, being purely an emotion. And because it cannot be defined using commonly recognized words or symbols, nor can it be measured, compared, contrasted or dissected.

Most mature adults recognize that love - that is, one's own, personal and deadly secret version - is actually as essential to a happy and fulfilled life as parmesan is to gnocchi. You can actually survive without it, but life is a richer and more enjoyable place when it's around.

It's my guess that even in the longest-lasting and most "loving" relationship - or even the he short, sharp, the-whole-world's-on-fire version - each partner's requirements will differ. But in order to benefit from that delicious cheesy topping, we all subscribe to a rose-tinted abstract view that contains a sufficiently tolerable baseline. A pinch of romance, a dusting of starry-eyes, and a double-helping of unselfishness and trust.

Using that merely as a common language allows us to ignore the deep reality and seriousness of your question, whose illumination of love's purely selfish roots is, for many people, an uncomfortable concept to face.

Dear Pericles,

Beautifully expressed!

Dear Romany,

I did a quick scrawl on the web and most of the sites
seem to agree that "love takes many forms."
The description that I liked best was the one that
described love as a, "sliding scale with infinite levels."

The emotion varies with each of us and our capacity to give
and receive it. And, whether its on a deeper level (between
two lovers), between a parent and child, or between friends,
our lives would be poorer without it.