Found this and thought it interesting:

http://www.peele.net/lib/love.html

Hi JR,

I skimmed over the article and while it had some interesting points,like many other articles like this, the basic point that I see missing is the fact that the true definition of love is overlooked and the psycological definitions are created and exploited along with way. By the end of the scenario the audience is not helped to see what real love is but are shown a warped sense of what is called love when in essence it is just a selfish act of sorts (intentional or not).

re: Love looks out for the interests of others. It is kind and not jealous, does not get puffed up with pride. Love is long-suffering, love is gentle. It believes all things, hopes all things, love never fails.

The above words are not my thoughts. They come from a much higher source (I didn't put it in the exact order since I was recalling it from memory), whose definition I have found to be the best. This type of love has no end. It is healthy for our soul and helps us stay balanced and give a good purpose in life to all we come in contact with.

L.

I understand what you're saying Orchid...but I think it's also true that many of us aren't shown that kind of love growing up, and certainly not taught it. Many wouldn't know how to recieve love like that, let alone give it.

Have any of you ever read the little story of the warm fuzzies?

My main interest in this is in how "affair love" seems to resemble the toxic kind of love described here.

Certainly agape love is something that is very different - and it's pretty obvious that it's absent in the stories provided.

I think it shows that even people outside of an A can endure toxic "addiction-based" relationships, and that A's are not exclusive territory for this.

But it brings up an intereting question... is it even POSSIBLE to cultivate true, agape love within an A relationship? Or is the environment simply slanted so heavily that in even the A's that "work", there's always a taint that prevents the same kind of connection and intimacy that's possible from a "fresh" R, built from the ground-up? I would find this very ironic, given that most afairees have convinced themselves that they've found the ultimate in intimacy and connection, yet by the nature of the R, have prevented it - either in the short or long-term.

Originally posted by J.R.:
<strong>......
But it brings up an intereting question... is it even POSSIBLE to cultivate true, agape love within an A relationship?</strong>

No since agape love reflects the pure love that comes from God. Recall one of the definitions: ....it is not selfish. The A is a very selfish act. No way would God's manifestation of love allow himself to be connected to what he condems.

<strong> Or is the environment simply slanted so heavily that in even the A's that "work", there's always a taint that prevents the same kind of connection and intimacy that's possible from a "fresh" R, built from the ground-up?</strong>

Well a fresh picked apple from a tree is fresh but is it always edible? Not if it has been infected by worms, is rotten or disease stricken..... even if the outside looks good.

So just because some say they are not having an A (denial) doesn't mean they are not. God knows for sure but leaves the admission up to each of us. Let the WS and OP deny all they want, reality speaks for itself.

<strong> I would find this very ironic, given that most afairees have convinced themselves that they've found the ultimate in intimacy and connection, yet by the nature of the R, have prevented it - either in the short or long-term.</strong>

The key word in your quote is 'convinced', they have to convince themselves. Why? Because it does not make sense nor is it moral. Right glove, wrong foot syndrome. But the Ws/OP still try very hard to be put the left glove on the right foot.

JMHO,
L.

<small>[ August 23, 2002, 01:13 AM: Message edited by: Orchid ]</small>

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by hope4future:
<strong>I understand what you're saying Orchid...but I think it's also true that many of us aren't shown that kind of love growing up, and certainly not taught it. Many wouldn't know how to recieve love like that, let alone give it.

Have any of you ever read the little story of the warm fuzzies?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Hi H4F,

My statement was in regards to the correct usage of the word love vs the lose term often used.

My H's family is what you described each child reacted differently to the parents lack of training. One SIL is very loving to our son but not as much to her own children and it irks her but she just has a hard time. Another SIL uses her children when it is to her benefit and often pits the grandparents and aunts against each other and tends to hold her children as bait or a threat to her sisters who practically raised the oldest.

Does that mean that they can't learn? No just means that the training starts later and there are new challenges.

I sure would like to hear the story of the warm fuzzies. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" />

Thanks,
L.