FabSwingers.com > Forums > Swingers Chat > Conditional Love
Conditional Love
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Pure Love is unconditional. Do monogamous relationships contradict the meaning of Love? Is swinging a step in the right direction in understanding love and acceptance? Is all love is equal? What are your views?" I think that there is no right or wrong and different things work for different people. The issues arise when two people in a relationship want different things or change. The only wrong thing in a relationships is lies ..... cheating being the major ‘wrong’ thing about most monotonous relationships. Ps I know there is a typo but I liked it so left it haha | |||
"Pure Love is unconditional. Do monogamous relationships contradict the meaning of Love? Is swinging a step in the right direction in understanding love and acceptance? Is all love is equal? What are your views?" Those are a Sunday morning list of questions. I have put down my copy of the Sunday Sport to try and answer them! Is all love equal? I rather doubt it. If your love is spurned by another there is an obvious inequality? Parental love is, I would suggest, the nearest love to equal but I dare say that love can be given in unequal portions. I would say monogamous relationships could be the cornerstone of love as both participants are happy and secure in their love. The second poster makes the point that open sexual relationships can be true love as all is based on openness trust and honesty. Some say that love is the King of emotion, king of emotion walk with me? Where did I put the Sunday Sport? | |||
| |||
| |||
"Pure Love is unconditional. Do monogamous relationships contradict the meaning of Love? Is swinging a step in the right direction in understanding love and acceptance? Is all love is equal? What are your views?" Ps no all love is not equal I would kill, maim and or die for my children - never a man. | |||
"Pure Love is unconditional. Do monogamous relationships contradict the meaning of Love? Is swinging a step in the right direction in understanding love and acceptance? Is all love is equal? What are your views? Ps no all love is not equal I would kill, maim and or die for my children - never a man. " T not even me? | |||
"Pure Love is unconditional. Do monogamous relationships contradict the meaning of Love? Is swinging a step in the right direction in understanding love and acceptance? Is all love is equal? What are your views?" No monogamous relationships don't contradict the meaning of love. Swinging might be a step in the right direction for some people but not everyone. Love is not something that can be quantified or measured against another love. Love means different things to different people but mostly everyone thinks it's not worth much unless it's returned. I think a lot of people mistake ownership or sex for love. Those are my views. | |||
 | |||
 | |||
"It is not in our nature to be monogamous. It is in our nature to love. Over many many years societal conditioning has, for some reason, linked the two so that love equals monogamy. I think our most natural state of being is to have a partner we truly love, yet both and still be able to enjoy the feelings end experiences that lustful encounters bring. At least that's my hot take, anyway. "It is not in *some* people's nature to be monigomous, maybe the majority but there are still a lot of people who are naturally monogomous and happily so. | |||
"It is not in our nature to be monogamous. It is in our nature to love. Over many many years societal conditioning has, for some reason, linked the two so that love equals monogamy. I think our most natural state of being is to have a partner we truly love, yet both and still be able to enjoy the feelings end experiences that lustful encounters bring. At least that's my hot take, anyway.
It is not in *some* people's nature to be monigomous, maybe the majority but there are still a lot of people who are naturally monogomous and happily so. "I respectfully disagree. I think monogamy is a learned concept not an instinctual behaviour. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It is not in our nature to be monogamous. It is in our nature to love. Over many many years societal conditioning has, for some reason, linked the two so that love equals monogamy. I think our most natural state of being is to have a partner we truly love, yet both and still be able to enjoy the feelings end experiences that lustful encounters bring. At least that's my hot take, anyway.
It is not in *some* people's nature to be monigomous, maybe the majority but there are still a lot of people who are naturally monogomous and happily so.
I respectfully disagree. I think monogamy is a learned concept not an instinctual behaviour."What makes you think there is a difference between instinctual behaviour (nature) and learned behaviour (nurture) in this respect? Societies have undergone social evolution symbiotically with biological evolution - monogamy has benefitted society and survival in a way that is propogated and survived as the dominant narrative. | |||
"It is not in our nature to be monogamous. It is in our nature to love. Over many many years societal conditioning has, for some reason, linked the two so that love equals monogamy. I think our most natural state of being is to have a partner we truly love, yet both and still be able to enjoy the feelings end experiences that lustful encounters bring. At least that's my hot take, anyway.
It is not in *some* people's nature to be monigomous, maybe the majority but there are still a lot of people who are naturally monogomous and happily so.
I respectfully disagree. I think monogamy is a learned concept not an instinctual behaviour.
What makes you think there is a difference between instinctual behaviour (nature) and learned behaviour (nurture) in this respect? Societies have undergone social evolution symbiotically with biological evolution - monogamy has benefitted society and survival in a way that is propogated and survived as the dominant narrative."You have hit the nail on the head and it opens up the nature Vs nurture debate. Boserup and Goody have done some good research, amongst others. Like I said in my posts - and you was very careful to do so - I said "I think" which means, based on my own research, learnings, understandings and believes, that what I said is my opinion. | |||
"It is not in our nature to be monogamous. It is in our nature to love. Over many many years societal conditioning has, for some reason, linked the two so that love equals monogamy. I think our most natural state of being is to have a partner we truly love, yet both and still be able to enjoy the feelings end experiences that lustful encounters bring. At least that's my hot take, anyway.
It is not in *some* people's nature to be monigomous, maybe the majority but there are still a lot of people who are naturally monogomous and happily so.
I respectfully disagree. I think monogamy is a learned concept not an instinctual behaviour." I like respectful disagreement it's good to be challenged.
I agree that monogamy was probably seen as the ideal for issues of parentage etc but I think its a natural state for some people. I'm careful to emphasise the word *some* because humans are varied and one type of relationship won't suit everyone. I'd like to live in a society where there were no expectations placed on people and how they choose to conduct their relationships. I'd make one stipulation, if you want to have children conduct your relationship in a way that's best for them.
| |||
"Love isnt unconditional. " If you have kids ....its unconditional | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional " Yes. I think that's true. There are one or two things I'd be unable to forgive but I doubt I'd ever not love our children. | |||
"It is not in our nature to be monogamous. It is in our nature to love. Over many many years societal conditioning has, for some reason, linked the two so that love equals monogamy. I think our most natural state of being is to have a partner we truly love, yet both and still be able to enjoy the feelings end experiences that lustful encounters bring. At least that's my hot take, anyway.
It is not in *some* people's nature to be monigomous, maybe the majority but there are still a lot of people who are naturally monogomous and happily so.
I respectfully disagree. I think monogamy is a learned concept not an instinctual behaviour.
I like respectful disagreement it's good to be challenged.
I agree that monogamy was probably seen as the ideal for issues of parentage etc but I think its a natural state for some people. I'm careful to emphasise the word *some* because humans are varied and one type of relationship won't suit everyone. I'd like to live in a society where there were no expectations placed on people and how they choose to conduct their relationships. I'd make one stipulation, if you want to have children conduct your relationship in a way that's best for them.
"It most certainly is and I love a polite debate. It certainly was an ideal for parentage and definitely there are strong links to property rights and suchlike. You are of course very right everyone has a different way of living, and monog works very well for some. My belief though, is that works for said folks due to the generations of societal conditioning that has led to monog and love as "one" being the norm. The great sexual philosophical debate can deconstruct the threads of human evolution until the cows come home. Everyone lives different lives as you say. | |||
"I'd make one stipulation, if you want to have children conduct your relationship in a way that's best for them. " Fully agree. Any good parent should be doing that. The parent is the template to the child. | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional " My love for my kids is unconditional but there are clearly parents out there who do not love their children. So being a parent on it's own does not mean you love unconditionally. | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional My love for my kids is unconditional but there are clearly parents out there who do not love their children. So being a parent on it's own does not mean you love unconditionally." This is also sadly true. I know firsthand a person who had children for the wrong reasons. She does not care at all about them after they stop being infants. They are lucky that family members are around to support them. It's quite heartbreaking. | |||
 | |||
"So many angles so little time. Little evidence that monogamy is instinctual (if we mean genetic) huge amounts that suggest once we commit to a path we continue to follow it - much of which is social conditioning that exploits the basic learning mechanisms that *possibly* are instinct. How long does conditioning take to change the genetic structure of a herd? Different loves, pure love, lust, passion. YMMV on basis of scope of experience - do you have a pet? a partner? parents? children? All offer different returns and commitment yet called love. Agree that monogamy and love have become conflated, most likely in context of money and continuation of power. eg Only issuance of formal parnerships would inherit. Those same partnerships would rely on support of other power entities to enforce transition. If I am shagging outside it risks splintering the lineage and raising challengers. Monogamy is safer and infidelity is actively dangerous (Love does not feature) Swinging challenges the norms above. To place sex at a more transactional level (meet fuck bye) and can remove the fear of infidelity, moving relationship into more the "family" category, which most of us know lasts a lot longer and endures. It doesn't give answers, it only really comes as a result of communication and a willingness to be open (or exposed if you will). Swinging allows you to prove a relationship based on love 'aint just about the sex or the money. "How beautifully and succinctly put.  you both have a friend for life here. | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional " Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken. | |||
"Sounds a bit like the existentialist swinging thread last week lol. Where do people get all this “true love is unconditional” cod psychology mumbo jumbo from?" | |||
| |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken." If that happened, I'd reassess I'm sure, but at the moment, my love for my kids appears to be unconditional, it hasn't wavered when they've been rude or done something really stupid. If they did something horrific, I may well have my feelings altered for me. Same as how you can love a romantic partner but fall out of love with them. Unconditional love means love whereby the person being loved doesn't have to fulfill any conditions, doesn't have to jump through any hoops. When my kids were born, my love for them came without me doing anything. They didn't do anything either, apart from turn up in the world. | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken." Just depends on what type of kids you have ..ours wouldnt ...yours may (if you have any ) | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken. Just depends on what type of kids you have ..ours wouldnt ...yours may (if you have any )" Nope - thats ducking the issue. "It wouldnt happen" isnt an option. Your love for your child is, like it or not, contingent on something. If your child didnas mentioned, would you still love them? If not, then you do not love that child unconditionally. | |||
| |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken. Just depends on what type of kids you have ..ours wouldnt ...yours may (if you have any ) Nope - thats ducking the issue. "It wouldnt happen" isnt an option. Your love for your child is, like it or not, contingent on something. If your child didnas mentioned, would you still love them? If not, then you do not love that child unconditionally. " Unlike some we have no "issues" dont duck either ...argue with somebody else ifs buts and maybes dont count for Jack..please dont tell me if i love my kids ... | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Love is abundant. The more you give the more there is to give. Needs are real too. Expecting one person to meet all your needs is like expecting a mother to raise her child alone- it is better done as a village. Working in any partnership you are in to ensure that each other’s needs are met is crucial. If as a team you realise you cannot or do not want to help your mate get her/his needs met or her/his needs met or hers simply exceed his, then opening up the relationship in a truthful honest way is the greatest sign of loving and wanting the best for the other in my books xx " I read a comment in the recent SPH forum post by a member who's husband could no longer perform due to ill health. But they had just changed things up and made cuckolding part of their sex life. It was such a heart warming post as they're was clearly such a deep love and desire to to fulfill each others needs they had found a way. I don't think Love has to be unconditionally, and that poly or open relationships or swinging will be right for some,+ but pure monogamy will be right for others. But I think what Odyssey says about needs being met is totally right, emotionally and sexually. Either the couple needs to call it a day or find a way to fulfil them, and that may involves others. | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken. Just depends on what type of kids you have ..ours wouldnt ...yours may (if you have any ) Nope - thats ducking the issue. "It wouldnt happen" isnt an option. Your love for your child is, like it or not, contingent on something. If your child didnas mentioned, would you still love them? If not, then you do not love that child unconditionally. Unlike some we have no "issues" dont duck either ...argue with somebody else ifs buts and maybes dont count for Jack..please dont tell me if i love my kids ..." You are wilfully missing the point. | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken. Just depends on what type of kids you have ..ours wouldnt ...yours may (if you have any ) Nope - thats ducking the issue. "It wouldnt happen" isnt an option. Your love for your child is, like it or not, contingent on something. If your child didnas mentioned, would you still love them? If not, then you do not love that child unconditionally. Unlike some we have no "issues" dont duck either ...argue with somebody else ifs buts and maybes dont count for Jack..please dont tell me if i love my kids ... You are wilfully missing the point." ...Which is perhaps fortunate for you and your position. Following your unecessarily grim scenario, you actually prove the opposite point to your intention. Consider:- If someone OTHER than your child had done those things, for most people the initial reaction would be to seek punishment, to make them feel your pain, to obliterate the person and remove them from history. Instead, as it is your own child those 'normal' reactions are replaced, (in your own words), by heartbreak - monumental sadness, at your loss, at the failure to help them and even at their loss. A set of reactions so opposed to the other that I wonder what you suggest it could possibly be that drives it. There are numerous documented examples of parents still loving their children who have committed crimes. They are unable to explain or comprehend their childs actions and will even be ashamed of admitting it, for fear of condemnation, but will still say they love their child. A child is born, and without doing anything other than living becomes intrinsically entwined with it's parents, to the extent they will sacrifice extraordinary amounts to ensure it's survival. Burning buildings, overturned cars, you name it people have risked all to save their kids. Unconditionally. Of course not all will do it, that is the nature of humanity. Its easier to see the unconditional nature when you consider away from the dramatic. Do you have to like the people you love? No. Do you have to approve of every decision they make? No. And were they to be transitory people in your life then they may well just move on and you would forget them. However most parents who lose touch do not forget. They often simply define their relationship by the absence of the child. Their love continues without contact, sometimes long after the child has tragically gone. No reward or pleasure for the parent, just a 'need' to consider them alive and happy somewhere. If that is not unconditional I am not sure what is. | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken. Just depends on what type of kids you have ..ours wouldnt ...yours may (if you have any ) Nope - thats ducking the issue. "It wouldnt happen" isnt an option. Your love for your child is, like it or not, contingent on something. If your child didnas mentioned, would you still love them? If not, then you do not love that child unconditionally. Unlike some we have no "issues" dont duck either ...argue with somebody else ifs buts and maybes dont count for Jack..please dont tell me if i love my kids ... You are wilfully missing the point. ...Which is perhaps fortunate for you and your position. Following your unecessarily grim scenario, you actually prove the opposite point to your intention. Consider:- If someone OTHER than your child had done those things, for most people the initial reaction would be to seek punishment, to make them feel your pain, to obliterate the person and remove them from history. Instead, as it is your own child those 'normal' reactions are replaced, (in your own words), by heartbreak - monumental sadness, at your loss, at the failure to help them and even at their loss. A set of reactions so opposed to the other that I wonder what you suggest it could possibly be that drives it. There are numerous documented examples of parents still loving their children who have committed crimes. They are unable to explain or comprehend their childs actions and will even be ashamed of admitting it, for fear of condemnation, but will still say they love their child. A child is born, and without doing anything other than living becomes intrinsically entwined with it's parents, to the extent they will sacrifice extraordinary amounts to ensure it's survival. Burning buildings, overturned cars, you name it people have risked all to save their kids. Unconditionally. Of course not all will do it, that is the nature of humanity. Its easier to see the unconditional nature when you consider away from the dramatic. Do you have to like the people you love? No. Do you have to approve of every decision they make? No. And were they to be transitory people in your life then they may well just move on and you would forget them. However most parents who lose touch do not forget. They often simply define their relationship by the absence of the child. Their love continues without contact, sometimes long after the child has tragically gone. No reward or pleasure for the parent, just a 'need' to consider them alive and happy somewhere. If that is not unconditional I am not sure what is. "Arguably the cognitive dissonance involved there is a result of loving an abstraction/memory - a parent who would maintain the same feelings in the extreme situation i describe is probably traumatised and actually has difficulty maintaining the love in the present and instead loves something that no longer exists. It is easy to romance the past and claim a love is unconditional when the truth is hard to take reconcile. | |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken. Just depends on what type of kids you have ..ours wouldnt ...yours may (if you have any ) Nope - thats ducking the issue. "It wouldnt happen" isnt an option. Your love for your child is, like it or not, contingent on something. If your child didnas mentioned, would you still love them? If not, then you do not love that child unconditionally. Unlike some we have no "issues" dont duck either ...argue with somebody else ifs buts and maybes dont count for Jack..please dont tell me if i love my kids ... You are wilfully missing the point. ...Which is perhaps fortunate for you and your position. Following your unecessarily grim scenario, you actually prove the opposite point to your intention. Consider:- If someone OTHER than your child had done those things, for most people the initial reaction would be to seek punishment, to make them feel your pain, to obliterate the person and remove them from history. Instead, as it is your own child those 'normal' reactions are replaced, (in your own words), by heartbreak - monumental sadness, at your loss, at the failure to help them and even at their loss. A set of reactions so opposed to the other that I wonder what you suggest it could possibly be that drives it. There are numerous documented examples of parents still loving their children who have committed crimes. They are unable to explain or comprehend their childs actions and will even be ashamed of admitting it, for fear of condemnation, but will still say they love their child. A child is born, and without doing anything other than living becomes intrinsically entwined with it's parents, to the extent they will sacrifice extraordinary amounts to ensure it's survival. Burning buildings, overturned cars, you name it people have risked all to save their kids. Unconditionally. Of course not all will do it, that is the nature of humanity. Its easier to see the unconditional nature when you consider away from the dramatic. Do you have to like the people you love? No. Do you have to approve of every decision they make? No. And were they to be transitory people in your life then they may well just move on and you would forget them. However most parents who lose touch do not forget. They often simply define their relationship by the absence of the child. Their love continues without contact, sometimes long after the child has tragically gone. No reward or pleasure for the parent, just a 'need' to consider them alive and happy somewhere. If that is not unconditional I am not sure what is.
Arguably the cognitive dissonance involved there is a result of loving an abstraction/memory - a parent who would maintain the same feelings in the extreme situation i describe is probably traumatised and actually has difficulty maintaining the love in the present and instead loves something that no longer exists.
It is easy to romance the past and claim a love is unconditional when the truth is hard to take reconcile."A fair interpretation, but really only conjecture on the nature of how love comes about and is maintained. You can say people only ever love the being in their mind, and that the memory may be flawed. That is the point. We are not perfect in any sense, and it is not a science with documented emotional law. As you have encountered in this thread, most parents consider the love for children unconditional, and fully recognise the distinction between relationships et al. It is not a debating point that it happens. It is possible that we are not granular enough to see the 'condition' that causes the behaviour - the love; or that it occurs way deeper in the mind. But then you are into the realms of applying the uncertainty principle to emotional states, where posing the question invokes a condition not there previously. That only shows that everyone has a breaking point where their core beliefs can be undermined. That does not make their beliefs untrue or their love conditional. | |||
| |||
"Pure Love is unconditional. Do monogamous relationships contradict the meaning of Love? Is swinging a step in the right direction in understanding love and acceptance? Is all love is equal? What are your views? Ps no all love is not equal I would kill, maim and or die for my children - never a man. " I agree in a way, no children, but love I had for my family , is much different to love in a relationship That's not conditional in my mind, ie if my partner ever really wronged me, I wouldn't hesitate to end the relationship. | |||
"Pure Love is unconditional. Do monogamous relationships contradict the meaning of Love? Is swinging a step in the right direction in understanding love and acceptance? Is all love is equal? What are your views?" Love and monogamous sex are two different things. We have been brought up to think that the two have to go together, but they don't have to. Many people here demonstrate that. The problem comes when one person wants it and his/her partner doesn't. | |||
| |||
"Love isnt unconditional. If you have kids ....its unconditional Your love for your kids isnt unconditional. If your kid stabbed you in the eyes and killed your other kids you wouldnt love them - youd be heartbroken. Just depends on what type of kids you have ..ours wouldnt ...yours may (if you have any ) Nope - thats ducking the issue. "It wouldnt happen" isnt an option. Your love for your child is, like it or not, contingent on something. If your child didnas mentioned, would you still love them? If not, then you do not love that child unconditionally. Unlike some we have no "issues" dont duck either ...argue with somebody else ifs buts and maybes dont count for Jack..please dont tell me if i love my kids ... You are wilfully missing the point. ...Which is perhaps fortunate for you and your position. Following your unecessarily grim scenario, you actually prove the opposite point to your intention. Consider:- If someone OTHER than your child had done those things, for most people the initial reaction would be to seek punishment, to make them feel your pain, to obliterate the person and remove them from history. Instead, as it is your own child those 'normal' reactions are replaced, (in your own words), by heartbreak - monumental sadness, at your loss, at the failure to help them and even at their loss. A set of reactions so opposed to the other that I wonder what you suggest it could possibly be that drives it. There are numerous documented examples of parents still loving their children who have committed crimes. They are unable to explain or comprehend their childs actions and will even be ashamed of admitting it, for fear of condemnation, but will still say they love their child. A child is born, and without doing anything other than living becomes intrinsically entwined with it's parents, to the extent they will sacrifice extraordinary amounts to ensure it's survival. Burning buildings, overturned cars, you name it people have risked all to save their kids. Unconditionally. Of course not all will do it, that is the nature of humanity. Its easier to see the unconditional nature when you consider away from the dramatic. Do you have to like the people you love? No. Do you have to approve of every decision they make? No. And were they to be transitory people in your life then they may well just move on and you would forget them. However most parents who lose touch do not forget. They often simply define their relationship by the absence of the child. Their love continues without contact, sometimes long after the child has tragically gone. No reward or pleasure for the parent, just a 'need' to consider them alive and happy somewhere. If that is not unconditional I am not sure what is.
Arguably the cognitive dissonance involved there is a result of loving an abstraction/memory - a parent who would maintain the same feelings in the extreme situation i describe is probably traumatised and actually has difficulty maintaining the love in the present and instead loves something that no longer exists.
It is easy to romance the past and claim a love is unconditional when the truth is hard to take reconcile.
A fair interpretation, but really only conjecture on the nature of how love comes about and is maintained. You can say people only ever love the being in their mind, and that the memory may be flawed. That is the point. We are not perfect in any sense, and it is not a science with documented emotional law. As you have encountered in this thread, most parents consider the love for children unconditional, and fully recognise the distinction between relationships et al. It is not a debating point that it happens.
It is possible that we are not granular enough to see the 'condition' that causes the behaviour - the love; or that it occurs way deeper in the mind. But then you are into the realms of applying the uncertainty principle to emotional states, where posing the question invokes a condition not there previously. That only shows that everyone has a breaking point where their core beliefs can be undermined. That does not make their beliefs untrue or their love conditional. "Good.comment | |||
"Stabbing people in the eye ..killing ...maybe you have been watching too many movies lol.....love is love ..as a parent you love your children ..simple ..people who dont shouldnt have them !!!" Im obv talking philosophically and on a different level here | |||
