Anti-love

[A Person]

What are things (emotions, situations, physical objects, etc...) that prevent a person from loving or being able to love? Why?

 

[Faye]

Shame. Narcissism.

 

[not sure]

Cruelty, selfishness, jealousy, and anger because they destroy trust. Also, deliberately maintaining emotional distance because you can't show love to people who don't allow you to get close.

 

[A Person]

Shame.

Could you give me an example of shame preventing love please.

 

[Peppermint]

SSRIs.

 

[A Person]

...Also, deliberately maintaining emotional distance because you can't show love to people who don't allow you to get close.

What would cause a person to behave this way? How does this prevent the person that is maintaining the distance from loving?

 

[A Person]

SSRIs.

What does this mean?

 

[Peppermint]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_basis_for_love#Serotonin

 

[Phoenix Down]

Dante had an answer for that.

Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride

 

[Questingpoet]

What are things (emotions, situations, physical objects, etc...) that prevent a person from loving or being able to love? Why?

One of the biggest roadblocks to loving another (that I see) is the inability to love yourself. What most people would define as a true love is baked heavily in selflessness. A caring for the other without priority to you and your needs. Of course this can go too far and there are those that take advantage of people who are in love and are able to give in this manner. But those that do not have a respect and love for themselves, will not be able to truely give unselfishly. They will always demand a price and will still never feel either their own, or their partners, full capacity to love. If you are dead inside you can't empathize and love. That's my take on it anyhow...

 

[not sure]

A person could be emotionally distant because of disappointing experiences (betrayal and abuse are examples) leading them to be cautious. The person could also be naturally cautious and slow to expose their vulnerabilities. In my opinion, it isn't really possible to love freely if one is not willing to risk being hurt.

How does this prevent the person maintaining the distance from loving?
It depends on the kind of love under consideration. However, if someone is maintaining emotional distance it can be assumed that they do not express their love freely, verbally, physically, emotionally or through other forms of action. It could be argued in some situations that the maintenance of emotional distance from one's loved one could also be an act of love. It really depends on the situation.

 

[jyrffw54]

Dante had an answer for that.

Lust
Gluttony
Greed
Sloth
Wrath
Envy
Pride

Lol, this sums it up nicely.

 

[A Person]

One of the biggest roadblocks to loving another (that I see) is the inability to love yourself. What most people would define as a true love is baked heavily in selflessness. A caring for the other without priority to you and your needs. Of course this can go too far and there are those that take advantage of people who are in love and are able to give in this manner. But those that do not have a respect and love for themselves, will not be able to truely give unselfishly. They will always demand a price and will still never feel either their own, or their partners full capacity to love. If you are dead inside you can't empathize and love. That's my take on it anyhow...

What would make a person unable to love himself?

 

[A Person]

...it isn't really possible to love freely if one is not willing to risk being hurt....

Why not?

 

[not sure]

Why not?

Once again, in my opinion, "To love" is to embrace someone as they are. If a person guards their self then, your love is limited to what they expose to you and if what they expose to you is a sham then your love (as genuine as it may feel to you) is also a sham. Therefore, if someone wishes to be loved genuinely (as they are) they will have to risk vulnerability and therefore hurt.

Out of curiosity, where are we going with this?

 

[the]

Basically the seven deadly sins

 

[A Person]

Once again, in my opinion, "To love" is to embrace someone as they are. If a person guards their self then, your love is limited to what they expose to you and if what they expose to you is a sham then your love (as genuine as it may feel to you) is also a sham. Therefore, if someone wishes to be loved genuinely (as they are) they will have to risk vulnerability and therefore hurt.

Out of curiosity, where are we going with this?

Where we're going with this is trying to find the solution to the worlds problems.

Your definition of love is very interesting. I'll have to think about it and ask more questions.

 

[Sloe Djinn]

Out of curiosity, where are we going with this?

@A Person You might want to provide some of your own views on the questions you're asking =) Just as a sign of good faith to the people who are contributing.

 

[A Person]

@A Person You might want to provide some of your own views on the questions you're asking =) Just as a sign of good faith to the people who are contributing.

Ok.

Please bare in mind that I still need to think this through a lot more. But I am greatly appreciative of any criticism of my views. I want everybody to challenge and ask questions, and If you disagree please tell me why.


[FONT=&quot]Love is a state of mind. When you are in this state of mind you want pleasure of any kind to come to a being. The act of loving is to avoid doing, with malice, or prevent something that you know will unnecessarily cause pain of any kind to a being out of love. Also the act of loving is doing something that you know is pleasing, either physically or emotionally, and will not cause pain of any kind, to any being out of love. When the majority of beings are loved and the majority of beings love, the world will be cured. In order for this to happen there must be little to nothing to prevent or manipulate a being from loving.

I need to figure out what would prevent or manipulate a being from loving so that I can figure out how to solve those problems.
[/FONT]

 

[not sure]

Also the act of loving is doing something that you know is pleasing, either physically or emotionally, and will not cause pain of any kind, to any being out of love.

Will not cause pain of any kind. Are you sure about this? Sometimes, pain is a side-effect of a loving action. A mother correcting a stubborn, wayward child for instance. The child could claim emotional pain because of embarrassment.

When the majority of beings are loved and the majority of beings love, the world will be cured.

Cured of what? How do you know that a majority is sufficient? Since people show love in different ways, how do you know their values will not conflict?