- 6 years ago
i found this link intresting. it talks about the different types of love between a man and a woman.. only eaqul love can be true love.. here is a section
1.2 THE PROTÉGÉ AND THE SEX PARTNER
If we are going to speak of love, we must begin at the beginning: that we live and find ourselves surrounded by life must be based on certain principles. Where there is life, in other words, on this or any other planet, there must be some process that tends to create life out of dead matter. Now if we mean, by life, the general principle of change — what Darwin calls variation and selection — then death, or destruction, must be part of the process, or else we would quickly run out of the stuff upon which change subsists. A living being must, accordingly, fulfill at least three ‘basic principles’ of life:
- sustain its own life (self-preservation)
- pass on its own life to another organism before death, so that life can go on (reproduction)
- preserve the life of its offspring until it becomes capable of taking care of itself (nurture of the young)
A human being’s life depends as much as any other upon these principles of self-preservation, reproduction, andnurture of its young. Without them it could not exist.
The instinct of self-preservation is asocial, in that it is concerned only with the self. Reproduction and nature, on the other hand, are social mechanisms. Reproduction — sweetened by the sex drive, perhaps because it is not a sufficiently powerful motive in its own right — cannot be accomplished without a partner. And the breeding or nurturing instinct is also directed outward, towards others.
Those others, whom we need to satisfy our social instincts, are — depending on which of these two drives they serve — our sex partners or our dependents, objects of our protection, protégés, wards, whichever.
Clearly these two social instincts are the biological basis of love, since their most intense and lasting manifestation — the attachment to a sex partner or to one’s own child — is love. To have a lover or a beloved is happiness. The lover seeks out the beloved for the satisfaction of his sexual needs as frequently as possible, and says, ‘I love you.’ When the relationship breaks up, he-she suffers pangs of ‘unrequited love.’ This condition lasts until a ‘new love object’ is found.
When the love object is one’s child, natural or adopted, one protects it. The protector will risk his life for his dependent, will want only the best for him-her, will assure him-her of his love. To lose the ‘child’ means great unhappiness. It means to have lost ‘the thing I loved most in all the world.’
No matter which we are referring to — dependent or sex partner — we use the same word for what we feel: love. And yet the same word designates two radically different kinds of bond. To arouse the protective instinct, the dependent must fulfill certain conditions greatly at variance with the conditions that make the sex partner attractive, and vice versa. The specific characteristics of the other person determine the nature of our biological response. Ultimately they determine the kind of love we shall feel for that person.
1.3 WHAT IS A PROTÉGÉ?
To arouse and attract the protective instinct, its object must fulfill three basic requirements. The protégé must be, compared with the protector
- physically weaker
- mentally weaker
- ‘a chip off the old block’ i.e. there must be enough of a likeness so that the protector can identify with the ward-to-be.
As regards the first two requirements, obviously there would be no sense at all in wanting to protect a physically or mentally superior being, or one’s equal. The so-called generation gap also provides the best illustration of the kind of natural difference between protector and protected: that of the protective mechanism most commonly seen in action between parent and child.
The third requirement, a resemblance to the protector, is equally a matter of course. Physical and mental inferiority alone, in nature, may arouse anything but protective feelings — it may bring out the predator in the stronger creature. It is only when the stronger creature is moved to identify with the weaker, to see something of him or herself to be saved and strengthened here, that the protective mechanism sets to work. ‘Group egotism’ may be nature’s simplest, most effective, and even ‘fairest’ way of distributing the available protection to those most entitled to it. Number One must come first when survival is at stake, without benefit of social legislation or ideologies.
The power of identification based on some kind of likeness has been observed in animals, in cases where the mother has rejected her newborn because it was ‘unlike’ her. The likeness need not be in looks. It can be something as peripheral — from the human standpoint — as smell. The resemblance can be only partial, but it is a matter of life and death that there be enough of it, where it counts. Every child knows that it must not put back a fledgling that has just fallen out of the nest with its own bare hands, for the strange human smell now present would cause the mother to push it out of the nest again at once. To get a foster mother for the orphaned young of any animal species, a kind of deception is necessary. She must be tricked, somehow, into recognizing herself in it. This alone will induce her to take care of the ‘cuckoo’s egg.’
Human beings also operate on this principle of similarity. Identification with her young is of course easiest for the mother: she has felt it inside her for months, she has known it come out of her own body, it is ‘flesh of her flesh’ i.e. herself. The father, by comparison, depends on hearsay; he is therefore likely to be rather indifferent at first. Despite the repeated assurances from everyone around him that the newborn is his ‘spitting image’ it is not easy for him to see this. It is only some time later that he begins to accept the resemblance and to love the child.
A woman’s predisposition to identify with the infant at once, to a degree impossible for the male, has won her the reputation of being the more selfless parent. Since she instantly accepts the newborn as her charge and actively devotes herself to its care and feeding, a mother’s love is held to be stronger than that of a father. Actually it is only a matter of time lapse between two equally powerful emotional attachments, based entirely upon biological causes.
That fathers are capable of loving their children just as much as mothers, and that the male nurturing instinct is in no way less developed than that of the female, is amply attested by the exchange of parental roles in various primitive cultures, as well as by the experimental knowledge of modern sociology.