DominantJenny
Posts: 645
Joined: 4/6/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: softness philia - the loyal love of a friend, a love of brotherhood or sisterhood. eros - passionate erotic love .. irrational agape - divine, unconditional, self-sacrificing, active, volitional, and thoughtful love now in the 1970's John Lee defined 7 "colours" of love Eros — a passionate physical and emotional love based on aesthetic enjoyment; stereotype of romantic love Ludus — a love that is played as a game or sport; conquest Storge — an affectionate love that slowly develops from friendship, based on similarity Pragma — love that is driven by the head, not the heart; undemonstrative Mania — highly volatile love; obsession; fueled by low self-esteem Agape — selfless altruistic love; spiritual; motherly love so ... oh wonderous peoples of CM ... Is there a highest form of love? ... is there such a thing as True Love? What love do you feel for your partner? Lee put forward the theory that each of us have a default setting for the love we engage in with our partners .. do you agree? Or is it context/individual driven? Which form(s) of love fit best with your dynamic? .. Do you think there is a colour of love which fits best with your role? I was familiar with the Greek, but had never heard of Lee. I like the Greek divisions, although, as Lee pointed out, there is still more complexity that falls under the heading than three categories can fully cover. I don't know that I agree with the ones Lee came up with, though. I shall refrain from the paragraphs it would probably take me to define my own, though. This time. *grin* Highest form of love gets into the whole "better" thing that is generally best left alone; what is best for one person in ANYTHING may not be best for another, in the end. I am passionately (eros) in love with my partner. It amuses me that, actually, we had from the start the kind of chemistry that actually usually bodes ill for a relationship. But we had the good sense to know it for what it was, and I think that made all the difference. We didn't rely on it or even let it be a key component of the relationship we built. In the end, though, I do think having a physical attraction/connection that is unusually intense has helped a time or two. Beyond that, though, we have the usual romantic love. Over time, what was probably closer to philia has become agape. We are necessary to each other. We shape our lives so that we are continually drawn towards each other, and we both thrive on our relationship. Neither one of us can imagine life without the other. That sort of thing. I don't know that we have a default setting. I think many people have a standard way of approaching relationships, which is sort of the same thing but not quite. For example, some people approach relationships with their primary focus being a stereotypical eros type thing...they want romance and emotion and logic and reason bedamned, others approach with a more "philia" style...the connection must be made as friends, and the love grows from there...the eros stuff is nice, but only if there are philia reasons to be together as well (this would be my approach), still others want a sort of perfect union similar to agape...which it rarely if ever just stepped into, ime (I think agape is something that comes in time), and so those people often are "eternally looking", yet others approach mating from a purely practical/pragmatic does-this-person-combine-with-me-to-make-up-a-successful-pairing point of view, where logic and reason are the be-all, end-all. There are more, but those are all fairly common. In my case, as I said, I look for a strong basis of friendship and personal connection...I find that physical attraction generally comes along is the mental/emotional one is strong enough, so essentially philia with eros growing from that. I don't think any role (if you mean, for example, dominant/submissive) has an inherent style of love...everyone is different after all. As a dominant, my agape and eros aspects seem well suited, but that's just me.
|