Unconditional love? I don't think so . . .

[Roxanne Appleby]

You love that which you value, not that which you do not value. The way you reward virtue is to give it praise, or even love. If you give the same to vice, what message does that send to virtue?

Our society is filled with confusion on this issue, the concept of "unconditional love" being the root of much of it. Now if we're talking about young children who have not learned the difference between good and bad, we'll cut them a lot of slack in terms of unconditional love. But if my son is a 12 year old who is a vandal and tortures small animals, I'm supposed to give the little shit unconditional love? I don't think so. (Realistically, odds are the parent of the little shit in question is a big shit, and a kid who tortures small animals is probably a deranged sociopath, but I pose an extreme example for illustration purposes.)

If my 12-year-old is a mixed bag (as are most), I love him more when he chooses to do good than when he chooses to do evil. If I have two twelve year olds and one chooses to do a good thing (study hard and pass a test), and the other something bad (shoplift instead of study), what message does it send the good if I love the bad equally, without condition? The very concept of "love" begins to lose all value and meaning in that instance, and turn into a corrupt, destructive force instead of a life force.

Sorry, kids - my love is conditional, once you are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and make choices based on it. You have free will, and I've given you the tools to know how to exercise it in the right direction. If you choose to do wrong, I will love you less for it, and at the extreme end love you not at all.

That's a pretty hard-line formulation, but it does demonstrate the viewpoint. I understand that humans can be weak, and my 12 year old may lack the strength/foresight to always study when he should, instead of watching TV. I'm not going to withhold my love in that instance, but do my best to "buck him up," and help him see that in the long run his life will be more satisfying if he makes the right choices. I won't cut him infinite slack, though: If he persists in evading reality, and pretends that he need never study and can always watch TV, my love starts to diminish, and he better not plan on mooching off me once he turns 18 . . .

Here's an Ayn Rand quote that explains this in a slightly different way: "Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer."

In other words, emotions happen automatically, but they are based on decisions you have made, either consciously or unconsciously, about what you value. Here's a trivial example: I value the Liberal Party, so when I hear they won a seat I automatically feel a happy emotion. Here's a serious example: If I've become a murderous Nazi because I've unquestioningly gone along with all the murderous Nazis in my neighborhood, it makes me happy to hear that Jews have been killed. There are two parts to the process: First I "program" myself with values (consciously or unconsciously), then my emotions operate automatically off of those "programs."

The point is, we are not puppets dragged around the stage of life by emotions over which we have no control. That is the model supported by statements like, "My dad can be irrational at times, but isn't that why ya still love em'?" Nope. You love him less for irrationality. If his (occasional) irrationality is not balanced by some pretty strong postives, you don't love him at all, and get the hell out of Dodge.


Addendum. A wise woman I knew had a saying, "Everyone has holes in their head, but they're in different places." I may choose to accept a person's shortcomings because on balance these are strongly outweighed by their merits. But I don't love the person because of their shortcomings, and if the particular shortcomings are really serious character flaws, I don't love them at all.

 

[3113]

I think you're mistaking the idea of "unconditional love" or at least the definition. Or to put it another way, your argument is an example of "Defining yourself to victory."

You decide on how you want to define "unconditional love" so that you win the argument. Hey, I can do that, too.

That is the problem--NOT "unconditional love" but how people define it. Some people, believe it or not, define it as "I love you and therefore I will do what is right and best for you, including letting you go to jail for your crimes..." Others define it as "my child right or wrong." And I hate to tell you this, but this is NOT a symptom of modern society. That kind of chauvanistic loyality to kin has been around since the stone age and can be attributed to every strata of society--from the rich republican fathers who buy off the police who would arrest their sons for raping a girl, to the communal hippy moms who insist that the psycho kid only need a little love to be straightened out.

So let's avoid this "our society" condemnation. Or do you really think there's only one "society"? Or that it's homogenous? Oops, right, wait, "our society" is whatever amount of it, large or small, gets headline news or makes you mad, never mind how many others are doing the opposite and NOT making the news or making you mad.

Filled with confusion over the issue? Welcome to the human race. What else is new? When have we NOT been confused over Love, how much to give to ANYBODY (abusive wives? drunk husbands? murderous boyfriends?).

And are we any less confused about "tough love" and what that mean? When to give it and how much to give?

The problem is, one size does not fit all. It never has and it never will. Some kids need more love to correct them. Some kids need tough love (or less unconditional love) to correct them. And some kids have been so screwed up by what their parents define as love ("Daddy loves you that's why he sleeps with you...") that they need anything but love to solve their problems.

It's nice to think that there is one problem confusing us ("unconditional love") and one solution ("Tough love") to fix those darn kids who don't respect their elders. But sorry. We're not cars with interchangable parts, or easily recognized and fixed problems. We're people. And things are a little more complex than that...especially with emotions, and most especially with anything so hard--and easy to define and re-define as "love."

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

You love that which you value, not that which you do not value. The way you reward virtue is to give it praise, or even love. If you give the same to vice, what message does that send to virtue?

Our society is filled with confusion on this issue, the concept of "unconditional love" being the root of much of it. Now if we're talking about young children who have not learned the difference between good and bad, we'll cut them a lot of slack in terms of unconditional love. But if my son is a 12 year old who is a vandal and tortures small animals, I'm supposed to give the little shit unconditional love? I don't think so. (Realistically, odds are the parent of the little shit in question is a big shit, and a kid who tortures small animals is probably a deranged sociopath, but I pose an extreme example for illustration purposes.)

If my 12-year-old is a mixed bag (as are most), I love him more when he chooses to do good than when he chooses to do evil. If I have two twelve year olds and one chooses to do a good thing (study hard and pass a test), and the other something bad (shoplift instead of study), what message does it send the good if I love the bad equally, without condition? The very concept of "love" begins to lose all value and meaning in that instance, and turn into a corrupt, destructive force instead of a life force.

Sorry, kids - my love is conditional, once you are old enough to understand the difference between right and wrong and make choices based on it. You have free will, and I've given you the tools to know how to exercise it in the right direction. If you choose to do wrong, I will love you less for it, and at the extreme end love you not at all.

That's a pretty hard-line formulation, but it does demonstrate the viewpoint. I understand that humans can be weak, and my 12 year old may lack the strength/foresight to always study when he should, instead of watching TV. I'm not going to withhold my love in that instance, but do my best to "buck him up," and help him see that in the long run his life will be more satisfying if he makes the right choices. I won't cut him infinite slack, though: If he persists in evading reality, and pretends that he need never study and can always watch TV, my love starts to diminish, and he better not plan on mooching off me once he turns 18 . . .

Here's an Ayn Rand quote that explains this in a slightly different way: "Man has no choice about his capacity to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. If he chooses irrational values, he switches his emotional mechanism from the role of his guardian to the role of his destroyer."

In other words, emotions happen automatically, but they are based on decisions you have made, either consciously or unconsciously, about what you value. Here's a trivial example: I value the Liberal Party, so when I hear they won a seat I automatically feel a happy emotion. Here's a serious example: If I've become a murderous Nazi because I've unquestioningly gone along with all the murderous Nazis in my neighborhood, it makes me happy to hear that Jews have been killed. There are two parts to the process: First I "program" myself with values (consciously or unconsciously), then my emotions operate automatically off of those "programs."

The point is, we are not puppets dragged around the stage of life by emotions over which we have no control. That is the model supported by statements like, "My dad can be irrational at times, but isn't that why ya still love em'?" Nope. You love him less for irrationality. If his (occasional) irrationality is not balanced by some pretty strong postives, you don't love him at all, and get the hell out of Dodge.


Addendum. A wise woman I knew had a saying, "Everyone has holes in their head, but they're in different places." I may choose to accept a person's shortcomings because on balance these are strongly outweighed by their merits. But I don't love the person because of their shortcomings, and if the particular shortcomings are really serious character flaws, I don't love them at all.

I don't let flaws get in the way of loving someone, if they also have something great about them. But I get where you're going with this. To me, emotions are involuntary responses to stimuli. Something HAS to prompt them. Ergo, they logically can't be unconditional

And I think that you'll be surprised at how much you can love your kids, even when you don't like them very much. That's a different kind of love. What the Greeks called storge. It's not unconditional. It's love because of they are a part of you. Because they come from you.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I don't let flaws get in the way of loving someone, if they also have something great about them. But I get where you're going with this. To me, emotions are involuntary responses to stimuli. Something HAS to prompt them. Ergo, they logically can't be unconditional

And I think that you'll be surprised at how much you can love your kids, even when you don't like them very much. That's a different kind of love. What the Greeks called storge. It's not unconditional. It's love because of they are a part of you. Because they come from you.

If it is the case that we mean "conditional" as in "a restricting or modifying factor", then emotions are all conditional.

If, rather, it is the case that we mean "conditional" as in "a premise upon which the fullfilllment of an agreement depends", then love can easily be understood in some cases to be "without condition"... having no part of the need for premise to take part in being.

Logically speaking, that is.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

If it is the case that we mean "conditional" as in "a restricting or modifying factor", then emotions are all conditional.

If, rather, it is the case that we mean "conditional" as in "a premise upon which the fullfilllment of an agreement depends", then love can easily be understood in some cases to be "without condition"... having no part of the need for premise to take part in being.

Logically speaking, that is.

I don't believe in unconditional emotions. Period.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

. . . love can easily be understood in some cases to be "without condition"... having no part of the need for premise to take part in being.

Logically speaking, that is.

Absolutely - the only condition required to love a baby or young child is that it be what it is.

After individuals attain the age of reason and make decisions based on knowledge of good and bad, conditions attach.

 

[CharleyH]

Sorry, kids - my love is conditional,

Then sorry, you are terribly toubled. Love is only and absolutely ... pure .

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby
Sorry, kids - my love is conditional . . .

Then sorry, you are terribly toubled. Love is only and absolutely ... pure .

What the heck does that mean, that Eva Braun should love Adolf even if he does have that little genocide thing? I'm sorry to sound contentious, but I honestly think that is a meaningless statement.

I will say this: My viewpoint does not preclude having good will for all humans. Oh, I'd still want to shoot Hitler, but aside from extreme examples, rewarding virtue with love, and giving evil its due by withholding love does not mean I don't wish well for all men and women. Meaning I'm happy for them when they live virtuous and satisfying lives, and sad for them when they don't. I admire the good Samaritan who helps the injured man in the ditch, and don't require that he first quiz the guy on whether he's been a straigt-shooter himself.

 

[CharleyH]

What the heck does that mean, that Eva Braun should love Adolf even if he does have that little genocide thing? I'm sorry to sound contentious, but I honestly think that is a meaningless statement.

It is apparently nothing you understand and because apparently she did and your statement is certainly much more meaningless than mine.

 

[LadyJeanne]

What the heck does that mean, that Eva Braun should love Adolf even if he does have that little genocide thing? I'm sorry to sound contentious, but I honestly think that is a meaningless statement.

I will say this: My viewpoint does not preclude having good will for all humans. Oh, I'd still want to shoot Hitler, but aside from extreme examples, rewarding virtue with love, and giving evil its due by withholding love does not mean I don't wish well for all men and women. Meaning I'm happy for them when they live virtuous and satisfying lives, and sad for them when they don't. I admire the good Samaritan who helps the injured man in the ditch, and don't require that he first quiz the guy on whether he's been a straigt-shooter himself.

Withholding love is what creates psychopaths and the neurotics who have trouble with relationships as adults. Love can include discipline and teaching; it can include disappointment and punishment. But withholding love from kids when they've done something 'wrong'...that messes kids up inside, and stays with them throughout adulthood.

 

[minsue]

Wow. All I can say, Roxanne, is that this thread makes me very sad for you and for any children you may have now or in the future.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Absolutely - the only condition required to love a baby or young child is that it be what it is.

After individuals attain the age of reason and make decisions based on knowledge of good and bad, conditions attach.

I sincerely hope you don't have or plan to have children. Just because you love the person unconditionally does not mean that you must approve of thier actions. Recidiva has two children, I love them as if they were my own, and nothing they could do would change that. THAT is unconditional love. If one turned out to be a mass murderer I would disapprove, but would still love them.

 

[Recidiva]

Separating loving a person from loving the actions they take is what I do.

It's the difference between teaching a child they're a "bad child" or they undertake "bad actions" sometimes.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Then sorry, you are terribly toubled. Love is only and absolutely ... pure .

I think I'm in love.

 

[gauchecritic]

So how do you withhold love?

Don't give the object of your love affectionate kisses on the head. Don't say "I love you". Don't smile and speak softly. Those are withholding the trappings or outward appearances of love, not the love itself.

You can't apply logic to love in very much the same way as you can never prove that anyone or anything actually exists except yourself.

I'm with Charley. Love just is.

 

[Sex and Death]

The concepts of conditional and unconditional are qualifiers of human thought.

Human thought has nothing to do with Love.

Love is a force of nature, of creation, and may even be God (no, not that god) itself.

We can't talk about Love with words without limiting it (nor God).

What isn't Love? (What isn't God?)

We all limit and withhold Love. Love isn't soemthing we give or receive. Love is what we are. We can either open to it or deny it.

Love rarely looks like what we want it to or think it should. It is usually in our hands and we deny it.

S&D

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

The concepts of conditional and unconditional are qualifiers of human thought.

Human thought has nothing to do with Love.

Love is a force of nature, of creation, and may even be God (no, not that god) itself.

We can't talk about Love with words without limiting it (nor God).

What isn't Love? (What isn't God?)

We all limit and withhold Love. Love isn't soemthing we give or receive. Love is what we are. We can either open to it or deny it.

Love rarely looks like what we want it to or think it should. It is usually in our hands and we deny it.

S&D

Kinda... cheesy, no?

 

[matriarch]

Been reading this with interest.

Love is unconditional.

I love my sons unconditionally, no matter what they do with their lives. As others have said, I may not approve of what they do with their lives, to themselves or to others, but I could no more stop loving them, than I could stop breathing.

This last week, we watched on TV a dramatisation of the Myra Hyndley/Ian Brady Moors Murders. When Myra's mother discovered what they had been doing, specifically her daughter, people expected her to disown her daughter, distance herself from the horrors of her actions. Her reply? 'She's my daughter. I love her.'

We do not choose who we love, we simply love.

 

[amicus]

Roxanne began this thread with the following:

Unconditional love? I don't think so . . .
________________________________________
"...You love that which you value, not that which you do not value. The way you reward virtue is to give it praise, or even love. If you give the same to vice, what message does that send to virtue?

Our society is filled with confusion on this issue, the concept of "unconditional love" being the root of much of it..."

~~~~~~~
I have discovered that people everywhere, not just on this forum, run screaming away as if they had seen a ghost whenever reason and logic are applied to emotions.

They also strike back viciously and in a hurtful manner, as excerpted below; I think because they fear to examine their own lives in the light of logic and reason and value selection, as Roxanne points out.

What a mean spirited thing to say, hoping that someone never has children to love with a value based emotional system.

Perhaps Roxanne can remind me, but I recall a scene from The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand, wherein a female character named, 'Cheryl' I think, tries to understand the morality of a main character, 'Peter Keating'.

It is a very sad scene as this young woman, seeking to comprehend the incomprehensibility of situational ethics, destroys herself when she finally understands the evil by which some people live their lives.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Wordsworth
". . . love can easily be understood in some cases to be "without condition"... having no part of the need for premise to take part in being.

Logically speaking, that is..."

(Roxanne answers…)

"...Absolutely - the only condition required to love a baby or young child is that it be what it is.

After individuals attain the age of reason and make decisions based on knowledge of good and bad, conditions attach..."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby
"...Sorry, kids - my love is conditional,..."


(CharleyH replies

"...Then sorry, you are terribly toubled. Love is only and absolutely ... pure . ..."

(LadyJeanne says

"...Withholding love is what creates psychopaths and the neurotics who have trouble with relationships as adults. Love can include discipline and teaching; it can include disappointment and punishment. But withholding love from kids when they've done something 'wrong'...that messes kids up inside, and stays with them throughout adulthood...."

(Minsue decides to be hurtful and crass…)

"...Wow. All I can say, Roxanne, is that this thread makes me very sad for you and for any children you may have now or in the future. ..."

(Ulaven Demorte compounds the impolite personal assault…)

"...I sincerely hope you don't have or plan to have children. Just because you love the person unconditionally does not mean that you must approve of thier actions. Recidiva has two children, I love them as if they were my own, and nothing they could do would change that. THAT is unconditional love. If one turned out to be a mass murderer I would disapprove, but would still love them...."


(GaucheCritic chimes in…)

[B]"...You can't apply logic to love in [/B] very much the same way as you can never prove that anyone or anything actually exists except yourself.

I'm with Charley. Love just is...."

(Sex & Death as well…)

"...The concepts of conditional and unconditional are qualifiers of human thought.

Human thought has nothing to do with Love.

Love is a force of nature, of creation, and may even be God (no, not that god) itself.

We can't talk about Love with words without limiting it (nor God).

What isn't Love? (What isn't God?)

We all limit and withhold Love. Love isn't soemthing we give or receive. Love is what we are. We can either open to it or deny it.

Love rarely looks like what we want it to or think it should. It is usually in our hands and we deny it.

S&D..."

(And matriarch…)

"...Been reading this with interest.

Love is unconditional.

…We do not choose who we love, we simply love…."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not that Roxanne Appleby needs my appreciation, but those who are without values in their emotional actions demonstrate by their ugliness, the failure of such a system, need to have that called out.

Especially on a writer's forum, wherein we strive to create characters who do live and love and experience emotions. Without a value system carefully examined for logic, reason and continuity, I wonder that anyone can create a viable story whose characters are human and real.

So, yes, Roxanne my friend, the world is in a moral crisis, an ambiguity unable to determine right from wrong, good from bad, love from hate.

As with another thread that died, about Hatred and Jealousy, unwanted emotions I think the thread starter asserted, all human emotions are functional and based on previously made value judgments that guide all our lives.

To deny that, is to deny the mind and the human ability to overcome and survive in times of stress and trial. Further, a lack of a rational based emotional hierarchy of values, automatically sentences one to a life time of uncertainty and unhappiness.

Those secular humanists go from partner to partner, experience to experience and where happiness and joy should be the goal, they find sadness and failure and moan and complain about the nature of the world.

Very sad...


amicus...(still no computer...stealing time while baby boy watches heavy equipment move earth across the street)

 

[angelicminx]

Okay, I'm going to get in on this, because I need something at the moment to steer away the anger generated by another thread.

When I choose to love, I give that love with no conditions. Unconditional love. It does exist.

I have explained to my daughter, on numerous occasions, that while I don't always LIKE her or her actions, I always LOVE her. I don't love her because she does something for me or for someone else, or because she refrains from being hateful to another person, or she follows the rules, or... well, you get the idea. I love her because she IS. I don't always agree with her choices and I offer her guidance but I never take away my love for her.

My love for my family and my friends is constant, even when I am angry with them. It's what allows me to be angry with them. They know, no matter what, that I will always love them. I may choose not to be around them for a while, but it doesn't change how I feel about them and I won't allow someone else to harm them.

In simple terms, for me to love you does not require action on your part, nor does it require your love in return. If I choose to love you, it's because I choose to love you with no strings, no conditions, attached.

ETA: After reading the rest of the thread, I felt I needed to clarify. I do choose who I love, in a sense, because I choose who NOT to love. I've become adept at blocking my heart from those I feel would hurt me or mine.

 

[Kev H]

IMO, Roxanne made only 2 mistakes in this post: trying to tackle an impossibly complex concept with the single-mindedness of "aha! I have it all figured out," and expecting AHers to not attack her personally.

Love, the emotional concept, is rarely influenced by outside sources or opinions such as this one (mine, which happens to coincide very closely to Roxanne's)...at least as an adult. It is, however, molded by our individual makeup of emotional adaptations to our existence (and I include the logical processes in here, for if they did not "feel right" on some level, we would not use them).

Some may think she deserves the "you must be a bad mother" innuendos for the little shit comments, but what I see is someone who is bashed for her ideas (or even discussion opener?) rather than approached with a more constructive attitude. Why not compare philosophies without making judgments on her capacity as a mother? (Though, S&D, don't try so hard...or lay off the dope when posting. )

It sounds like some people are implying that love is not worth trying to define or rationally discuss (though I have no idea why they feel like posting to a discussion then...are you trying to get someone who does not feel the same way as you to throw up their hands and say "though I don't understand your gibberish, you must be right, I will stop thinking about it and just be?)

IMO, the more we understand about complex concepts like love the more we understand about ourselves, so meditating on it/discussing it is worth the effort. I agree with the ancient thinkers who defined different "kinds" of love, though I tend to think they are more complex and subtle than that...it is undeniable though that one's love for their child is far different than the love for their significant other (most of the taboo of incest is the blurring of those lines we tend to set, IMO). A significant other is significant as long as they are not more trouble than they are worth, that is the bottom line with me (and a person who talks of "unconditional" love as it applies to a SO is a victim waiting to happen). Love, very much like respect, must be earned and maintained. Personally, I do it, so why shouldn't others, right? (You are supposed to chuckle here; jesus, take it easy.)

Love for your child is based on far different criteria in most cases. Mostly, IMHO, because you self-sacrifice so much; along with the complexity of pouring your hopes and dreams into them...I believe one of the most precious qualities of a child is their potential (the potential to achieve happiness/greatness/fulfillment, however you define it). You cannot justly compare those root emotions against a more superficial form of love. It is from these immense efforts that we get the terms like "unconditional" and "blind love," though I think those terms are not well thought out or are entirely misguided. (Just an opinion from someone who does not/will not have a child, so you can rest easy, all you self-appointed Guardians of Our Children.)

Roxanne, are you seriously attempting to blur the lines between the love you would give your progeny and the love you would give a SO? (Read nothing but curiosity into that question; I'd like to know how you specifically differentiate them in your mind.) If you want to carry on an honest discussion out of the view of some of our more...excitable companions, PM me.

 

[gauchecritic]

Not that Roxanne Appleby needs my appreciation, but those who are without values in their emotional actions demonstrate by their ugliness, the failure of such a system, need to have that called out.

It would be nice if you could single out any one poster that actually said as much. It seems to me the concensus was that love has no modifiers but that actions by a loved one can be condemned or condoned.

Especially on a writer's forum, wherein we strive to create characters who do live and love and experience emotions. Without a value system carefully examined for logic, reason and continuity, I wonder that anyone can create a viable story whose characters are human and real.

And thereby create characters devoid of irrational fear, anger or any other behaviour rooted not in cold calculated value systems but in their very circumstance of being human.

So, yes, Roxanne my friend, the world is in a moral crisis, an ambiguity unable to determine right from wrong, good from bad, love from hate.

You say that like it's a new thing.

As with another thread that died, about Hatred and Jealousy, unwanted emotions I think the thread starter asserted, all human emotions are functional and based on previously made value judgments that guide all our lives.

This is interesting. Your reasoning (and Ayne's I assume) stops at value judgements previously made and seems, in effect, to deny any other form of 'imposed' value from siblings to confreres, from geographic birth to oxygen starvation.

To deny that, is to deny the mind and the human ability to overcome and survive in times of stress and trial. Further, a lack of a rational based emotional hierarchy of values, automatically sentences one to a life time of uncertainty and unhappiness.

Uncertainty I might gainsay is the one thing worth living for. How dull and unquisitive must your life be when you are certain of everything.

Those secular humanists go from partner to partner, experience to experience and where happiness and joy should be the goal, they find sadness and failure and moan and complain about the nature of the world.

Very sad...


amicus...(still no computer...stealing time while baby boy watches heavy equipment move earth across the street)

Do you have any figures for this? Secular humanists as a group are by definition it seems, miserable at all times. Questing and uncertain possibly, but miserable? All the time?

Whitewash, where is thy sting?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

It sounds like some people are implying that love is not worth trying to define or rationally discuss (though I have no idea why they feel like posting to a discussion then...are you trying to get someone who does not feel the same way as you to throw up their hands and say "though I don't understand your gibberish, you must be right, I will stop thinking about it and just <b>be</b>?)

uh huh... I'd love to see less thinking in Roxanne, and more emotion... I wanna take her out Thelma and Louise with me... top down, skirts up, 90 miles an hour around the curves... the way she fits herself (and everyone else) in a box makes me crazy with wanting to break out of it...

and Kev... <b> <---that's for stories. You use brackets on boards. <--like these...

 

[lucky-E-leven]

I believe unconditional love exists, if only for your children. I am often disappointed in my children. Ordinarily the reason is because they have shown poor judgment and acted outside the realm of that which I deem decent and good. Do I believe this makes them indecent or bad? Not at all. Do I mourn for them when they make mistakes that harm themselves and others? Absolutely. If one of my children went on a killing spree and systematically abused everything I hold sacred and dear, would I stop loving them? I don't think that's something that is easily answered. I do, however, know that I would mourn their demise and likely not trust them as far as I could see them. All that said, I know I would feel a great void within for never being able to express the love for them that forever lives inside of me. I believe the love remains but the justification for expressing it or even acknowledging it is swallowed by the black hole of their wrongs.

I wonder if anyone is close to a set of parents that have had the misfortune of claiming a child that went awry. I have. It's one of the most dreadful things you can imagine and while they do not speak of their son or mention his misdeeds their love remains; often at the expense of their own sense of self-worth and emotional well-being. They've practically dug their own graves with the remorse and pain of still loving the young man that effectively ruined their lives, no matter how indirectly.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

OK, clearly people have a hard time discussing this in terms of their own children, for good and obvious reasons, some raised here. I accept that, and no hard feelings.

Let's try it a different way. Imagine you are an adult who has toxic, manipulative parents - not an uncommon thing. They are a dis-value to you, not a value. Do you love them? If you say yes, then explain how you have not grossly devalued the meaning of the word love.



Selena - Let's do it, you and me babe, any time, right over the edge of the cliff, we're gonna live forever . . .