E_N_G_L_I_S_H-S_P_E_A_K_I_N_G Thursday, 2017-11-23, 1:20 AM
Welcome Guest | RSS
[ New messages · Members · Forum rules · Search · RSS ]
Page 1 of 512345»
Forum moderator: Defender, Debugger 
Forum » Main section » CHATTERBOX » Love, Love, all kinds of Love.
Love, Love, all kinds of Love.
LALADate: Friday, 2009-01-09, 1:35 PM | Message # 1
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 194
Reputation: 5
Status: Offline
I called this thread "Love" and I wanna talk here about it smile You can post anything, which has any connection with it. smile
 
LALADate: Friday, 2009-01-09, 2:52 PM | Message # 2
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 194
Reputation: 5
Status: Offline
Love is an emotion that nearly everyone has experienced at some time in their life. It is the most extreme expression of positive emotion. More often than any other emotion, love is the subject of songs, literature, and art. Every person searches for love, each in his own special way.

In my opinion Love is in everything and everywhere. Whatever you do, if you do it without love, it will become unbearable. At first you should hand it, then to get. More people you love, you become much better, becasue your heart fills with love and there is left less space for bad things. It's such feeling which flies you up in the sky in a second, you are like a bird in the sky... you are happiest in whole world, life seems light and beautiful. Love is huge happiness, let's love each other , be happy and share this feeling to the ones we love.

 
LALADate: Friday, 2009-01-09, 3:33 PM | Message # 3
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 194
Reputation: 5
Status: Offline
Philosophy of Love





Introduction


The philosophical treatment of love transcends a variety of sub-disciplines including epistemology, metaphysics, religion, human nature, politics and ethics. Often statements or arguments concerning love, its nature and role in human life for example, connect to one or all the central theories of philosophy, and is often compared with, or examined in the context of, the philosophies of sex and gender. The task of a philosophy of love is to present the appropriate issues in a cogent manner, drawing on relevant theories of human nature, desire, ethics, and so on. This brief introduction examines the nature of love and some of the ethical and political ramifications.



The Nature of Love: Eros, Philia, and Agape

The philosophical discussion regarding love logically begins with questions concerning its nature. This implies that love has a 'nature', a proposition that some may oppose arguing that love is conceptually irrational, in the sense that it cannot be described in rational or meaningful propositions. For such critics, who are presenting a metaphysical and epistemological argument, love may be an ejection of emotions that defy rational examination; on the other hand, some languages, such as Papuan do not even admit the concept, which negates the possibility of a philosophical examination. In English, the word 'love', which is derived from Germanic forms of the Sanskrit lubh (desire), is broadly defined and hence imprecise, which generates first order problems of definition and meaning, which are resolved to some extent by the reference to the Greek terms, eros, philia, and agape.


a. Eros

The term eros (Greek erasthai) is used to refer to that part of love constituting a passionate, intense desire for something, it is often referred to as a sexual desire, hence the modern notion of 'erotic' (Greek erotikos). In Plato's writings however, eros is held to be a common desire that seeks transcendental beauty-the particular beauty of an individual reminds us of true beauty that exists in the world of Forms or Ideas (Phaedrus 249E: "he who loves the beautiful is called a lover because he partakes of it." Trans. Jowett). The Platonic-Socratic position maintains that the love we generate for beauty on this earth can never be truly satisfied until we die; but in the meantime we should aspire beyond the particular stimulating image in front of us to the contemplation of beauty in itself.

The implication of the Platonic theory of eros is that ideal beauty, which is reflected in the particular images of beauty we find, becomes interchangeable across people and things, ideas, and art: to love is to love the Platonic form of beauty-not a particular individual, but the element they posses of true (Ideal) beauty. Reciprocity is not necessary to Plato's view of love, for the desire is for the object (of Beauty), than for, say, the company of another and shared values and pursuits.


Added (2009-01-09, 3:27 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
b. Philia

In contrast to the desiring and passionate yearning of eros, philia entails a fondness and appreciation of the other. For the Greeks, the term philia incorporated not just friendship, but also loyalties to family and polis-one's political community, job, or discipline. Philia for another may be motivated, as Aristotle explains in the Nicomachean Ethics, Book VIII, for the agent's sake or for the other's own sake. The motivational distinctions are derived from love for another because the friendship is wholly useful as in the case of business contacts, or because their character and values are pleasing (with the implication that if those attractive habits change, so too does the friendship), or for the other in who they are in themselves, regardless of one's interests in the matter. The English concept of friendship roughly captures Aristotle's notion of philia, as he writes: "things that cause friendship are: doing kindnesses; doing them unasked; and not proclaiming the fact when they are doneÖ" (Rhetoric, II. 4, trans. Rhys Roberts).

Aristotle elaborates on the kinds of things we seek in proper friendship, suggesting that the proper basis for philia is objective: those who share our dispositions, who bear no grudges, who seek what we do, who are temperate, and just, who admire us appropriately as we admire them, and so on. Philia could not emanate from those who are quarrelsome, gossips, aggressive in manner and personality, who are unjust, and so on. The best characters, it follows, may produce the best kind of friendship and hence love: indeed, how to be a good character worthy of philia is the theme of the Nicomachaen Ethics. The most rational man is he who would be the happiest, and he, therefore, who is capable of the best form of friendship, which between two "who are good, and alike in virtue" is rare (NE, VIII.4 trans. Ross). We can surmise that love between such equals-Aristotle's rational and happy men-would be perfect, with circles of diminishing quality for those who are morally removed from the best. He characterizes such love as "a sort of excess of feeling". (NE, VIII.6)

Friendships of a lesser quality may also be based on the pleasure or utility that is derived from another's company. A business friendship is based on utility--on mutual reciprocity of similar business interests; once the business is at an end, then the friendship dissolves. Similarly with those friendships based on the pleasure that is derived from the other's company, which is not a pleasure enjoyed for who the other person is in himself, but in the flow of pleasure from his actions or humour.

The first condition for the highest form Aristotelian love is that a man loves himself. Without an egoistic basis, he cannot extend sympathy and affection to others (NE, IX.8). Such self-love is not hedonistic, or glorified, depending on the pursuit of immediate pleasures or the adulation of the crowd, it is instead a reflection of his pursuit of the noble and virtuous, which culminate in the pursuit of the reflective life. Friendship with others is required "since his purpose is to contemplate worthy actionsÖto live pleasantlyÖsharing in discussion and thought" as is appropriate for the virtuous man and his friend (NE, IX.9). The morally virtuous man deserves in turn the love of those below him; he is not obliged to give an equal love in return, which implies that the Aristotelian concept of love is elitist or perfectionist: "In all friendships implying inequality the love also should be proportional, i.e. the better should be more loved than he loves." (NE, VIII, 7,). Reciprocity, although not necessarily equal, is a condition of Aristotelian love and friendship, although parental love can involve a one-sided fondness.

Added (2009-01-09, 3:27 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
c. Agape

Agape refers to the paternal love of God for man and for man for God but is extended to include a brotherly love for all humanity. (The Hebrew ahev has a slightly wider semantic range than agape). Agape arguably draws on elements from both eros and philia in that it seeks a perfect kind of love that is at once a fondness, a transcending of the particular, and a passion without the necessity of reciprocity. The concept is expanded on in the Judaic-Christian tradition of loving God: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might" (Deuteronomy 6:5) and loving "thy neighbour as thyself" (Leviticus 19:18). The love of God requires absolute devotion that is reminiscent of Plato's love of Beauty (and Christian translators of Plato such as St Augustine employed the connections), which involves an erotic passion, awe, and desire that transcends earthly cares and obstacles. Aquinas, on the other hand, picked up on the Aristotelian theories of friendship and love to proclaim God as the most rational being and hence the most deserving of one's love, respect, and considerations.

The universalist command to "love thy neighbor as thyself" refers the subject to those surrounding him, whom he should love unilaterally if necessary. The command employs the logic of mutual reciprocity, and hints at an Aristotelian basis that the subject should love himself in some appropriate manner: for awkward results would ensue if he loved himself in a particularly inappropriate, perverted manner! (Philosophers can debate the nature of 'self-love' implied in this-from the Aristotelian notion that self-love is necessary for any kind of inter-personal love, to the condemnation of egoism and the impoverished examples that pride and self-glorification from which to base one's love of another. St Augustine relinquishes the debate--he claims that no command is needed for a man to love himself (De bono viduitatis, xxi.) Analogous to the logic of "it is better to give than to receive", the universalism of agape requires an initial invocation from someone: in a reversal of the Aristotelian position, the onus for the Christian is on the morally superior to extend love to others. Nonetheless, the command also entails an egalitarian love-hence the Christian code to "love thy enemies" (Matthew 5:44-45). Such love transcends any perfectionist or aristocratic notions that some are (or should be) more loveable than others. Agape finds echoes in the ethics of Kant and Kierkegaard, who assert the moral importance of giving impartial respect or love to another person qua human being in the abstract.

However, loving one's neighbor impartially (James 2:9) invokes serious ethical concerns, especially if the neighbor ostensibly does not warrant love. Debate thus begins on what elements of a neighbor's conduct should be included in agape, and which should be excluded. Early Christians asked whether the principle applied only to disciples of Christ or to all. The impartialists won the debate asserting that the neighbor's humanity provides the primary condition of being loved; nonetheless his actions may require a second order of criticisms, for the logic of brotherly love implies that it is a moral improvement on brotherly hate. For metaphysical dualists, loving the soul rather than the neighbor's body or deeds provides a useful escape clause-or in turn the justification for penalizing the other's body for sin and moral transgressions, while releasing the proper object of love-the soul-from its secular torments. For Christian pacifists, "turning the other cheek" to aggression and violence implies a hope that the aggressor will eventually learn to comprehend the higher values of peace, forgiveness, and a love for humanity.


Added (2009-01-09, 3:31 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
The Nature of Love: further conceptual considerations

Presuming love has a nature, it should be, to some extent at least, describable within the concepts of language. But what is meant by an appropriate language of description may be as philosophically beguiling as love itself. Such considerations invoke the philosophy of language, of the relevance and appropriateness of meanings, but they also provide the analysis of 'love' with its first principles. Does it exist and if so, is it knowable, comprehensible, and describable? Love may be knowable and comprehensible to others, as understood in the phrases, "I am in love", "I love you", but what 'love' means in these sentences may not be analyzed further: that is, the concept 'love' is irreducible-an axiomatic, or self-evident, state of affairs that warrants no further intellectual intrusion, an apodictic category perhaps, that a Kantian may recognize.

The epistemology of love asks how we may know love, how we may understand it, whether it is possible or plausible to make statements about others or ourselves being in love (which touches on the philosophical issue of private knowledge versus public behavior). Again, the epistemology of love is intimately connected to the philosophy of language and theories of the emotions. If love is purely an emotional condition, it is plausible to argue that it remains a private phenomenon incapable of being accessed by others, except through an expression of language, and language may be a poor indicator of an emotional state both for the listener and the subject. Emotivists would hold that a statement such as "I am in love" is irreducible to other statements because it is a nonpropositional utterance, hence its veracity is beyond examination. Phenomenologists may similarly present love as a non-cognitive phenomenon. Scheler, for example, toys with Plato's Ideal love, which is cognitive, claiming: "love itselfÖbringing about the continuous emergence of ever-higher value in the object--just as if it were streaming out from the object of its own accord, without any exertion (even of wishing) on the part of the lover. (The Nature of Sympathy, trans. Heath). The lover is passive before the beloved.

The claim that 'love' cannot be examined is different from that claiming 'love' should not be subject to examination-that it should be put or left beyond the mind's reach, out of a dutiful respect for its mysteriousness, its awesome, divine, or romantic nature. But if it is agreed that there is such a thing as 'love' conceptually speaking, when people present statements concerning love, or admonitions such as "she should show more love", then a philosophical examination seems appropriate: is it synonymous with certain patterns of behavior, of inflections in the voice or manner, or by the apparent pursuit and protection of a particular value ("Look at how he dotes upon his flowers-he must love them")?

If love does possesses 'a nature' which is identifiable by some means-a personal expression, a discernible pattern of behavior, or other activity, it can still be asked whether that nature can be properly understood by humanity. Love may have a nature, yet we may not possess the proper intellectual capacity to understand it-accordingly, we may gain glimpses perhaps of its essence-as Socrates argues in The Symposium, but its true nature being forever beyond humanity's intellectual grasp. Accordingly, love may be partially described, or hinted at, in a dialectic or analytical exposition of the concept but never understood in itself. Love may therefore become an epiphenomenal entity, generated by human action in loving, but never grasped by the mind or language. Love may be so described as a Platonic Form, belonging to the higher realm of transcendental concepts that mortals can barely conceive of in their purity, catching only glimpses of the Forms' conceptual shadows that logic and reason unveil or disclose.

Added (2009-01-09, 3:32 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
The Nature of Love: Physical, emotional, spiritual

Some may hold that love is physical, i.e., that love is nothing but a physical response to another whom the agent feels physically attracted to. Accordingly, the action of loving encompasses a broad range of behaviour including caring, listening, attending to, preferring to others, and so on. (This would be proposed by behaviourists). Others (physicalists, geneticists) reduce all examinations of love to the physical motivation of the sexual impulse-the simple sexual instinct that is shared with all complex living entities, which may, in humans, be directed consciously, sub-consciously or pre-rationally toward a potential mate or object of sexual gratification.

Physical determinists, those who believe the world to entirely physical and that every event has a prior (physical cause), consider love to be an extension of the chemical-biological constituents of the human creature and be explicable according to such processes. In this vein, geneticists may invoke the theory that the genes (an individual's DNA) form the determining criteria in any sexual or putative romantic choice, especially in choosing a mate. However, a problem for those who claim that love is reducible to the physical attractiveness of a potential mate, or to the blood ties of family and kin which forge bonds of filial love, is that it does not capture the affections between those who cannot or wish not to reproduce-that is, physicalism or determinism ignores the possibility of romantic, ideational love-it may explain eros, but not philia or agape.

Behaviourism, which stems from the theory of the mind and asserts a rejection of Cartesian dualism between mind and body, entails that love is a series of actions and preferences which is thereby observable to oneself and others. The behaviourist theory that love is observable (according to the recognisable behavioural constraints corresponding to acts of love) suggests also that it is theoretically quantifiable: that A acts in a certain way (actions X,Y,Z) around B, more so than he does around C, suggests that he 'loves' B more than C. The problem with the behaviourist vision of love is that it is susceptible to the poignant criticism that a person's actions need not express their inner state or emotions-A may be a very good actor. Radical behaviourists, such as B F Skinner, claim that observable and unobservable behaviour such as mental states can be examined from the behaviourist framework, in terms of the laws of conditioning. On this view, that one falls in love may go unrecognised by the casual observer, but the act of being in love can be examined by what events or conditions led to the agent's believing she was in love: this may include the theory that being in love is an overtly strong reaction to a set of highly positive conditions in the behaviour or presence of another.

Expressionist love is similar to behaviourism in that love is considered an expression of a state of affairs towards a beloved, which may be communicated through language (words, poetry, music) or behaviour (bringing flowers, giving up a kidney, diving into the proverbial burning building), but which is a reflection of an internal, emotional state, rather than an exhibition of physical responses to stimuli. Others in this vein may claim love to be a spiritual response, the recognition of a soul that completes one's own soul, or complements or augments it. The spiritualist vision of love incorporates mystical as well as traditional romantic notions of love, but rejects the behaviorist or physicalist explanations.

Those who consider love to be an aesthetic response would hold that love is knowable through the emotional and conscious feeling it provokes yet which cannot perhaps be captured in rational or descriptive language: it is instead to be captured, as far as that is possible, by metaphor or by music.

Added (2009-01-09, 3:33 Pm)
---------------------------------------------
The Nature of Love: Romantic Love

Romantic love is deemed to be of a higher metaphysical and ethical status than sexual or physical attractiveness alone. The idea of romantic love initially stems from the Platonic tradition that love is a desire for beauty-a value that transcends the particularities of the physical body. For Plato, the love of beauty culminates in the love of philosophy, the subject that pursues the highest capacity of men's thinking. The romantic love of knights and damsels emerged in the early medieval ages (11th Century France, fine amour) a philosophical echo of both Platonic and Aristotelian love and literally a derivative of the Roman poet, Ovid and his Ars Amatoria. Romantic love theoretically was not to be consummated, for such love was transcendental motivated by a deep respect for the lady; however, it was to be actively pursued in chivalric deeds rather than contemplated-which is in contrast to Ovid's persistent sensual pursuit of conquests!

Modern romantic love returns to Aristotle's version of the special love two people find in each other's virtues-one soul and two bodies, as he poetically puts it. It is deemed to be of a higher status, ethically, aesthetically, and even metaphysically than the love that behaviourists or physicalists describe.

Love: Ethics and Politics

The ethical aspects in love involve the moral appropriateness of loving, and the forms it should or should not take. The subject area raises such questions as: is it ethically acceptable to love an object, or to love oneself? Is love to oneself or to another a duty? Should the ethically minded person aim to love all people equally? Is partial love morally acceptable or permissible (i.e., not right, but excusable)? Should love only involve those with whom the agent can have a meaningful relationship? Should love aim to transcend sexual desire or physical appearances? May notions of romantic, sexual love apply to same sex couples? Some of the subject area naturally spills into the ethics of sex, which deals with the appropriateness of sexual activity, reproduction, hetero and homosexual activity, and so on.

In the area of political philosophy, love can be studied from a variety of perspectives. For example, some may see love as an instantiation of social dominance by one group (males) over another (females), in which the socially constructed language and etiquette of love is designed to empower men and disempower women. On this theory, love is a product of patriarchy, and acts analogously to Marx's view of religion (the opiate of the people) that love is the opiate of women. The implication is that were they to shrug off the language and notions of 'love', 'being in love', 'loving someone', and so on, they would be empowered. The theory is often attractive to feminists and marxists, who view social relations (and the entire panoply of culture, language, politics, institutions) as reflecting deeper social structures that divide people into classes, sexes, and races.

This article has touched on some of the main elements of the philosophy of love. It reaches into many philosophical fields, notably theories of human nature, the self, and of the mind. The language of love, as it is found in other languages as well as in English, is similarly broad and deserves more attention.

 
MassagetDate: Saturday, 2009-01-10, 0:39 AM | Message # 4
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 157
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
what happened to u Lala? biggrin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g21y2y_5KoY&feature=related
 
LALADate: Saturday, 2009-01-10, 2:01 PM | Message # 5
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 194
Reputation: 5
Status: Offline


Message edited by LALA - Saturday, 2009-01-10, 2:24 PM
 
CHICANA_LUVDate: Saturday, 2009-01-10, 5:52 PM | Message # 6
Sergeant
Group: Users
Messages: 28
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
4 my dear friend LALAchka & all nice ppl. ))



~Only God can judge me~

Message edited by CHICANA_LUV - Saturday, 2009-01-10, 5:54 PM
 
ZARYADate: Saturday, 2009-01-10, 10:05 PM | Message # 7
Sergeant
Group: Checked
Messages: 25
Reputation: 1
Status: Offline
Ah, greetin' there! LALAchka this thread should involve many people here!
Im postin' the flow of my thoughts here:
Omnia vincit amo

..Люблю.?.. не знаю... может быть и нет...
..Любовь.. имеет множество примет...
..А я одно сказать тебе могу...
..Повсюду ты... во сне.. в огне... в снегу...
..В молчанье.. в шуме... в радости... в тоске....
..В любой надежде... в любой строке.. в любой звезде...
..Во всём.. Всегда... Везде....
..Ты памятью.. затвержен наизусть...
..И ничего нельзя забыть уже...
..Ты понимаешь.?... Я тебя боюсь...
..Напрасно я бежать... спастись хочу...
..Ведь ты же сон.. тепло... дыханье... свет...
..Хочу прижаться к твоему плечу....
..Люблю.?.... не знаю....... нет других примет.....






Message edited by ZARYA - Saturday, 2009-01-10, 11:14 PM
 
LALADate: Sunday, 2009-01-11, 8:11 AM | Message # 8
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 194
Reputation: 5
Status: Offline
CHICANA_LUV
ZARYA my dears rolleyes flower kiss :kiss:


 
anomaliaDate: Sunday, 2009-01-11, 9:14 AM | Message # 9
Newcomer
Group: Users
Messages: 19
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
The Meaning

To love is to share life together
to build special plans just for two
to work side by side
and then smile with pride
as one by one, dreams all come true.

To love is to help and encourage
with smiles and sincere words of praise
to take time to share
to listen and care
in tender, affectionate ways.

To love is to have someone special
one who you can always depend
to be there through the years
sharing laughter and tears
as a partner, a lover, a friend.

To love is to make special memories
of moments you love to recall
of all the good things
that sharing life brings
love is the greatest of all.

I've learned the full meaning
of sharing and caring
and having my dreams all come true;
I've learned the full meaning
of being in love
by being and loving with you.



we2
 
LALADate: Sunday, 2009-01-11, 10:02 AM | Message # 10
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 194
Reputation: 5
Status: Offline
I thought love was just a mirage of the mind,
it's an illusion, it's fake, impossible to find.
But the day I met you, I began to see,
that love is real, and exists in me.






Love is ...


Love is the greatest feeling,
Love is like a play,
Love is what I feel for you,
Each and every day,
Love is like a smile,
Love is like a song,
Love is a great emotion,
That keeps us going strong,
I love you with my heart,
My body and my soul,
I love the way I keep loving,
Like a love I can't control,
So remember when your eyes meet mine,
I love you with all my heart,
And I have poured my entire soul into you,
Right from the very start.

 
MassagetDate: Sunday, 2009-01-11, 3:30 PM | Message # 11
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 157
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
Woman's love for kids.

Women are made for love. Love for the nature, art, and love for everything beautiful, including me conditionally. But the eternal love of women is for kids.
No, it's not about their own kids. There's nothing interesting about demonstrating their love to their own kids, moreover they have no time for it - they need to feed them, buy clothes for them, wash their clothes, clean their nose.... But, woman's love for other kids - oh, it's a different sweet song, which should have its listener, and of course that listener should be a man.
If it's a baby, then a woman, right from the doorstep, will go straight to baby's room, pulling a man behind. Breathing heavily to the bed, she will immediately start singing with the highest note:
- Oh my little baby, oh my cutie!
Stopping her song for an instant, she will involve the man-listener.
- Look! Isn't he cute?!
The man nods readily trying not to look at the sleeping annoyed face.
It definitely is not enough for the woman.
- Why are you standing like a statue? Say something!
Man says:
- Yes.
Woman explodes:
- You can not put two words together?! Greet the baby!
For the man, it's nonsense to greet! First of all, the baby is sleeping, and doesn't hear anyway! Secondly, the man is not sure that babies at this age can hear at all. But the woman is waiting, so the man will surrender:
- Hi .... baby.... .
Woman is not only not satisfied, but also does not understand:
- Who greets kids like that, you stupid? You should say "Hello my sweetie, hello, my cutie!".
Woman continues her song, shakes the bed and finally achieves what she wants - baby wakes up and screams. Woman is happy:
- Oh my poor little baby, they didn't give you to sleep sweetie!
Woman keeps singing, baby is still screaming and at this moment baby's mom interferes. She pulls the baby away from the guest and takes him to the other room. Satisfied woman sits to drink coffee.
When the kid is already passed breast-feeding period, the program of love for them gets wider.
Woman gives the kid "Snickers", as if she hands in the ticket to circus controller and gets the right to see the show. "Snickers" is accepted and the women gets to business. With the tone of animal trainer, even not supposing opposition, she orders:
- Well, my dear, show me what does the dog do?
The kid says:
- Woof.
- Woof-Woof! - woman corrects.
- Woof-Woof, - agrees the kid sadly.
Then mewing of cats and other animal expressions follow.
Making sure that the kid's voice is hoarse enough, woman shifts to pantomime. Under her laughs the kid tiredly jumps as a lamb, runs as a horse, slithers as a snake and offends his own human dignity with other different ways. Then the kid answers the questions of curious woman:
- Sweetie show me the table! Dear, show me the clock!
Woman shifts from her questions just to note to the man:
- You see, he is showing the light-bulb!
As if the man cannot show the bulb! Most of all, seeing woman's being proud of kid's abilities to show the table, chair and other things, man starts to feel like a genius for being able to count till 10 in his mind.
The peak of woman's love to kids is a very interesting game created during "Inquisition". She puts the kid on her laps and starts throwing him up saying "Let's go, let's go". The kid flies and falls to woman's laps with patience. Then she starts throwing him from one knee to another. At this stage his task is not to fall to the floor. Just very few of those who manages not to fall gets the happy opportunity to take part in the sweet final of the game. Woman will quickly open her legs while throwing the kid ... and of course she always tries to catch the kid close to the floor. Sometimes, she manages to do so.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g21y2y_5KoY&feature=related

Message edited by Massaget - Sunday, 2009-01-11, 3:36 PM
 
LALADate: Sunday, 2009-01-11, 8:04 PM | Message # 12
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 194
Reputation: 5
Status: Offline
 
BooNDate: Monday, 2009-01-12, 2:11 AM | Message # 13
Newcomer
Group: Users
Messages: 4
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
The Chemistry of Love

There are a lot of chemicals racing around your brain and body when you're in love. Researchers are gradually learning more and more about the roles they play both when we are falling in love and when we're in long-term relationships. Of course, estrogen and testosterone play a role in the sex drive area. Without them, we might never venture into the "real love" arena.

That initial giddiness that comes when we're first falling in love includes a racing heart, flushed skin and sweaty palms. Researchers say this is due to the dopamine, norepinephrine and phenylethylamine we're releasing. Dopamine is thought to be the "pleasure chemical," producing a feeling of bliss. Norepinephrine is similar to adrenaline and produces the racing heart and excitement. According to Helen Fisher, anthropologist and well-known love researcher from Rutgers University, together these two chemicals produce elation, intense energy, sleeplessness, craving, loss of appetite and focused attention. She also says, "The human body releases the cocktail of love rapture only when certain conditions are met and ... men more readily produce it than women, because of their more visual nature."

Researchers are using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to watch people's brains when they look at a photograph of their object of affection. According to Helen Fisher, a well-known love researcher and an anthropologist at Rutgers University, what they see in those scans during that "crazed, can't-think-of-anything-but stage of romance" -- the attraction stage -- is the biological drive to focus on one person. The scans showed increased blood flow in areas of the brain with high concentrations of receptors for dopamine -- associated with states of euphoria, craving and addiction. High levels of dopamine are also associated with norepinephrine, which heightens attention, short-term memory, hyperactivity, sleeplessness and goal-oriented behavior. In other words, couples in this stage of love focus intently on the relationship and often on little else.

Another possible explanation for the intense focus and idealizing view that occurs in the attraction stage comes from researchers at University College London. They discovered that people in love have lower levels of serotonin and also that neural circuits associated with the way we assess others are suppressed. These lower serotonin levels are the same as those found in people with obsessive-compulsive disorders, possibly explaining why those in love "obsess" about their partner.

from HowStuffWorks

OOOh tht explains everythin!.. NOT wacko

Message edited by BooN - Monday, 2009-01-12, 2:13 AM
 
LALADate: Monday, 2009-01-12, 8:59 AM | Message # 14
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 194
Reputation: 5
Status: Offline
 
MassagetDate: Monday, 2009-01-12, 12:01 PM | Message # 15
Colonel
Group: Checked
Messages: 157
Reputation: 0
Status: Offline
LALA, so, who they are all for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g21y2y_5KoY&feature=related
 
Forum » Main section » CHATTERBOX » Love, Love, all kinds of Love.
Page 1 of 512345»
Search:

Copyright MyCorp © 2017