This is a news item reported in the press from Kochi 2 weeks ago. A boy and a girl who were in love got their marriage registered and proceeded to a jeweller to buy ornaments. They quarrelled over the request made by the girl to the salesperson (to give a good purse as compliment). The groom hit the bride on the cheek in public. She ran out lamenting "if you dare to beat me on the day of registration, you may kill me on the day of marriage". (The families had planned a wedding function after a month). The boy was furious and threw the bag containing jewels and cash to the nearby sewage canal. Later some of this were recovered with the help of police.
Many who read this might have wondered 'Were they truly in love?'. I think love is very much misunderstood in our society. Several sex scandals in Kerala started with a boy (who acts as an agent of a sex racket) abducts a girl in the name of love.
I think it is worthwhile to explore the psychological aspects of love. Earlier I had written about love. This time I shall attempt to go a bit deeper. What I write is based on the work of a psychologist called Robert Sternberg. He has divided companionate love into 2 - intimacy and commitment. So we get three dimensions including 'passionate love'(which was discussed in the earlier post).
Sternberg speaks of nine types of love based on the permutations and combinations of these three dimensions.
If passion (erotic or sexual attraction) alone is present it is only infatuation.
If intimacy (warmth, closeness and sharing in a relationship) alone is present it is just called liking.
If both passion and intimacy are present it can be called Romantic love.
Combination of passion and commitment is called fatuous love.
Combination of intimacy and commitment is called companionate love.
If only commitment (intention to maintain a relationship in spite of difficulties and costs that may arise) is there it may be called empty love, devoid of any intimacy and passion.
True or consummate love only occurs if all the three ingredients - passion, intimacy and commitment - are present.
In the early phase of any relationship, it is passion or erotic attraction that dominates. Later on feelings of intimacy and need to be together arises. But it is only after some time the third factor emerges. This is very important for long term stability of the relationship. Of course some level of maturity and interpersonal familiarity is needed to take a decision to stay together forever.
If people who fall in love are willing to take some time to understand these underlying dimensions that can influence their behaviors, many later disappointments can be avoided. Frequently young people equate erotic attraction with consummate love and commit themselves. This can lead to disappointment later. Before proceeding with any relationship some degree of intimacy is needed. This can later pave the way to development of commitment to maintain the relationship. True, satisfying relationships that last can only be built on such firm foundations.
ഇന്ത്യ
2 weeks ago
18 comments:
Should we allow prostitution?
There is difference between men and women on the reason for having sex. Many men said they had sex just out of lust in contraast to women who said it was out of love,according to a study . So I guess 'anonymous' is a male.
There is no love in sex with a prostitute. I do not have first hand experience, but I think it may be like a business transaction. If there is a group of people with this need, prostitution will be always there, even if you or I or the governemt does not allow it. Thank you.
An interesting question from an anonymous person. They should start using some pseudo names for convenience.
Prostitutes do cause a serious threat to health as they carry sexually transmitted diseases and some of them are fatal. But there are some important things we like to forget or afraid to discuss. They are always harassed by police and people. Nobody dares to save them. They have no advocate. No political parties to recommend. I think most of the prostitutes are borne out of poverty. Majority of them are abused or exploited in teenage by those who are supposed to save them! They are forced to become a prostitute by the society.
Did any rehabilitation programmes work in India? And why?
The people who make bombs, missiles or wars are considered great or not as bad as a prostitute.
What is morality?
People enjoy boxing, bull fight, violence or brutal killings. The movies that portray violence has attracted more people.
Thank you.
hi.... Thank you for providing a topic with some comic relief ! It is possible that 'anonymous' could be Vijayan who has kept the post short so that we don't analyse his writing manner and arriue at a deduction using our forensic abilities ! Since we are not living in a totalitarian state like China or Myanmar, revealing the name will not attract any penal action, i would like to remind our 'anonymous' !
Regarding the topic on hand, I don't have much to say because the original post by Harish has already described what we may consider as true love, on a person-to-person basis. True love is a definition of a particular state of mind, existing at a particular time. It can vary, diminish or disappear, or grow stronger, depending on so many variables that it would weary one to discuss them all. Morality is also much the same thing. A person feels most happiness when he feels needed, since the object of love is ultimately the feeling we call happiness, both feelings achieve the same end.tha's why Gandhi can be considered a good lover, or martin luther king, same as majnu or heer !tha need can be by a person, society, the country or the world. We call it universal love when one feels needed by the whole universe. That feeling may be considered as a mental disorder, under certain criteria, so if one feels universal love, it is better to keep the matter a secret !......thank you
Hi friends,
After 3 or 4 years of married life, sex life of couples end up as a ritual. It doesn’t even hold the thrill of an encounter with a street prostitute. Sex in married life is a sleeping aid for men and an exposure and response prevention therapy for women, later exist as sexual repression. This is obvious for anyone and those people who have any doubt may ask a sexologist or a counselor.
Human beings involve in sex for pleasure rather than for reproduction. People derive pleasure from massaging, hunting harmless animals, fighting with bulls (or other human beings in case of Americans) or watching violent destructive behavior on movie screens. Sexual intercourse is a purely harmless activity if done with proper precautions. Some studies even state that it is good for health. I am not advocating free sex or an organized form of selling flesh. But the current attitude toward prostitution should be discarded and a new humane view should be built from the scratch.
Universal love and altruistic behavior have biological basis. It did not arise from religion or socialism.
Thank you.
Well said, Ajeesh. MAKE LOVE, NOT WAR. Man is the only creature engaging in sex in face to face position. This kind of intimacy foster bonding that can last beyond the sexual pleasure. May be this, and the issue of property paved way for the present monogamous marriages. But in history, in most cultures vrious forms of polyandy and polygyny had existed. I think somebody with anthropological background can add more details. Any takers!
Dear HArish,
Ethics in love
It involves the moral appropriateness of loving, and the forms it should or should not take!.
Wish to raise some questions as:
it seems ethically wrong not to restrict one's love to a single person in his/her whole life !! Is it natutural?
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.
Inviting comments
Hi friends,
Psychology* is meaningful and enjoyable as poetry or as abstract art. It is full of untestable hypothesis and bizarre explanations. The usefulness of psychology as a scientific device to explain or modify individual human behavior is not convincing to me. Sternberg’s theory looks like a failed attempt to explain love, passion or sexual relationships. It is not better than Freud’s Interpretation of dreams.
Marx’s view of religion is good, and my view of Marxism as a religion is also good. Marxism showed almost all religious behavior patterns where ever it ruled. Anyway it is a superior religion and we must appreciate their sincere efforts to transform the world for better.
Love is a very abstract concept and it largely varies from person to person. A single theory may be insufficient to analyse it. But it may be possible to explain and analyse specific relationships.
I have difficulty analyzing it with terms like ‘dominance’ or ‘as a product of patriarchy.’
The questions raised by Vijayan are sound and it shows the difficulty of explanations.
Thank you.
* You may exclude biological psychology or clinical psychology.
In earleir societies, there were no exclusive mongamous relationships. This shows that man is capable of loving many women. I think females would be able to love more thsn one male at the same time. Love and intimacy are more important to women than men. I cannot say whether it is due to social conditioning or is it biologically wired into their brains.
I think there is a bit of selfishness or possessiveness in love.This is why adultery is unacceptable to many. Same is the case with children. Why we cannot realise that all children are equal? I used to think of making all parents who come to with child related problems to read the Poem by Khalil Gibran
It says 'your children are not your own children, they are the common legacy of all men (not exact words). It is similar to the concept of selfish gene.
I shall explore another angle. Ok I can love many people, but can I continue to love all of them? I dont think so. Surely some of the love will die out and some will flourish. I think we should start with a huge list of persons, and then eliminate some and finally short list a few. We can continue to love the last one or two with whom we are able to maintain true love. I know none this is possible at present. But may be, social evolution will take this path, or follow another. I am sure the end result will be an improvement on the present system.
Same sex couples: I think this an anomaly. It need not be perpetuated in the name of political correctness. Today I read in the news that 3 states of the USA have voted against allowing same sex marriages. I think the pendulam is swinging to a balanced point after swinging between the extremes. Therer are people who are biologically predisposed to homsexuality. There a few who become so as a result of experience. It is better to help the ego dystonic ones. Let the egosyntonic ones live in peace. They should not be discriminated against or ridiculed. let them live together. Why shoulod it be called a 'marriage'? Any way no procreation is possible.
I wish to draw a parallel to literary criticism. Writers wirte what they feel. Critics analyze, categorize or name them. Similarly we can classify, analyze or descirbe the theory, but people will continue to fall in love and out of love. This amy not be in line with any theory or previos instances. New permutations and combination are possible. Already there are signs of change in the sexual attitudes of even the conservative malayalis.
Ajeesh, psychology has history of moving from the fold of humanities to science. This happened recently only. In future it may become a science of testing various mental abilities and functions = like testing of IQ memory etc. Earleir it was mandatory in the USA to have an MD, to learn psychonalysis. It was so because Freud was a medical preson. Later psychology was taken over by people without scientific background leading to many confusions. The state of bneuroscience at thast time is also responsible. But I hope it will change in future and psychology will be more of a scientific discipline.
Thank you
Let me add another dimension. One reason for exclusive monogamy could be the uncertainty of confirming paternity. This is important for legal purposes like inheritance, provision for maintanace etc. Now we have got over with this rddle. Paternity can be confirmed using DNA tests. So in future it may be possible for any man and women to have relationship with maintaining exclusivity. If the women is pregnant and she delivers, the child's rights to inherit and get money for living shall be determined by paternity tests. Of course aborion may be done before delivery. Fantastic! But what to do if the women is not sure about whom to discuss about continuing the pregnancy? She will have to given the right to decide the future of the pregnancy. But then the male will be forced to accept responsibility for a decision in which he had no role> What to do ...?
Is it not? Will this arrangement help? Ha...ha...ha...ha
Will psychology emerge as a scientific discipline?
We will wait and see.
My guess is that both psychology and psychiatry is going to merge into Neurology, I think the trend is moving in that direction. I might be wrong, it is simply a guess work.
Are love and intimacy more important to women than men? Has it any scientific basis or evidence? However it doesn’t fit into my logic. It seems to me that it is a biased observation.
People are trying to achieve immortality through their children. But it is a foolish attempt because the genes will be scattered and dissolved into the pool after some generations. We are here only because genes or genetic code has this tendency. There is no surprise in people loving their own children more. People have usually more love toward their brothers/sisters than to friends or neighbors only because they share more of the same code.
Evolution is better understood if you see the genetic code as a basic unit for natural selection. The genetic code is similar to digital information, that it is either here or there and not some part here and some part there. The peculiarity of this genetic code is that it has an effect on its environment that helps in its own replication. This effect is called phenotypic effect and our body or our genetic make up is a phenotypic effect shared by a group genes. Genes itself are its environment also and they mutually exert phenotypic effects. The genes that have mutually beneficial phenotypic effects tend to group together and we get an organism. We are a packet of genes.
The concept of DNA as a blue print is outdated and it is better considered like a recipe.
I think this simple concept is enough to explain biological basis of social interactions or altruistic behavior.
And the most amazing thing is that it is beautifully revealed in one of Gibran’s poems.
Homosexuality may not be a sustainable system because the genes that make up a homosexual may not be passed into future generations.
Nothing social about monogamy in human beings. Women or Men look for a mate that can successfully rear up their own children. The chances for successful survival and further reproduction of my wife’s children are in trouble if I start to look for another mate and another line of generations. So it is simple that she is not going to allow me! It happens in both ways. Some animals also try to do this but they are not successful as human beings. No dumb psychological theories are needed to explain this.
Thank you.
ajeesh, you say sex becomes a ritual after some years of marriage. This may be true. But rituals and repetition need not diminish the pleasure. People can go to sabarimala every year. Thex can go to churches every week. They can go to mosques 5 times a day, and still not get bored. Although these have become ritualistic for them. It is the wrong attitude, the daily tensions that one carries to the bedroom that makes it a boring ritual. One doesn'T do that with prostitutes and so it feels more pleasurable sometimes. I don't agree with harish that men do it for lust and women for love. Women also do it for lust but are just more particular in choosing the male. There are tribes in polynesia who rear children communally even now. Paternity is an issue only when society declines to do those duties and puts the responsibility on the individual. I think the advent of organised religion must have something to do with it. I think animals do it for pleasure also. The only difference being the hormones are present for a shorter time than in humans. One can see it in the multiple partners they choose, the unrestricted frequency of those acts, the leaving off only when the female is tired. The extent they go to have sex. That it happens in a small window of hormonal activity does not make it less pleasurable for them. It is patronising of us to assume we are the only species that gets pleasure, or does it for pleastre. It is only that our physiology enables us to enjoy it for a longer period than in animals. Sexual position has nothing to do with it, prostitutes also have sex face to face, but it doesn't produce any bonding for them..thank you
Does any one get pleasure from rituals?
I do not get any pleasure from rituals, it’s a kind of boring to me.
It is extremely difficult for me to believe that ‘healthy people’ derive pleasure from going to mosques 5 times a day, daily early morning visits to temples or Sunday visitations in the church. There are many reasons for that – in my opinion. Here are some:
1. They are forced by organized form of religion.
2. They blindly believe that they will get some benefit from this. I know many who believe in heaven or getting punished from god for not doing religious rituals.
3. They are afraid to act against common religious practices.
4. They are conditioned from the very young.
Hindu women get up very early in the morning, say at 3 AM or 4 AM, shower in the cold water in November or December and walk down great distances to visit a temple. Is it pleasure or superstition behind this? Marx view of religion as an opiate is correct. Heroine addicts go to such extreme difficulties to get it.
Rituals or routine tasks are most of the time boring. Orgasm may be an exception, but the thrill lessens with immediately repeated orgasms in Men.
Sashi talks of daily tensions as the reason of boring married sex life. Will you enjoy sex with same woman if we put you in a remote paradise island with all luxury and no stress for 10 years? You will run like hell even if we give you a Miss world.
I think experts agree that animals do sexual intercourse only for reproductive purposes. They have no way to control pregnancy and they will end up with a lot of offspring if they start to do it for pleasure. The definition of pleasure is a difficult one and Sashi’s hypothesis untestable.
Thank you.
Dear friends,
Practical Love.
daily we see lot of our own people get involved in one or other "immoral activities" related to 'love' and being harassed/punished by the public/moral police.!
So friends,
please come forward with the definition of immorality in love ...............,
or
request the public,media,police,judiciary to restrain, till somebody logicaly defines things before punishing the uninformed..!
Friends,
What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like and immorality is what they dislike. - Alfred North Whitehead
I think there is no universal definition for morality or immorality in love. These kinds of things are always defined by majorities or powerful groups of men. It may not depend on logic or reason. See this:
The Immorality Act (1950-1985) was one of the first Apartheid laws in South Africa. It attempted to forbid all sexual relations between whites and non-whites. In 1949, interracial marriages had been banned by the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act.
On the grounds of the Immorality Act, the police tracked down racially mixed couples suspected of being in relationships. Homes were invaded, and mixed couples caught in bed were arrested. Underwear was used as forensic evidence in court.
Most couples found guilty were sent to jail. Blacks were often given harsher sentences than whites.
One of the first people convicted of the immorality act was a Cape Dutch Reformed minister, who was caught having sex with a domestic worker in his garage. He was given a suspended sentence, and the parishioners bulldozed the garage to the ground.
A bachelor making love with a longing housewife of an NRI is immoral. In war, soldiers raping school children is not immoral, it is conquering.
Two unmarried persons making in love in cheap lodges are doing immoral activities, so we raid them. But in resorts and five star hotels people are believed to engage in spiritual reunion of souls.
Dr.Vijayan, people will let you know what immoral love is though we may disagree.
And I think
The only immorality is not to do what one has to do when one has to do it. - Jean Anouilh
Morality amd immorality are only conventions, they cannot be discussed like scientific facts. A few decades ago, it was perfectly moral for a lower caste woman (including Nair women) to walk on the road, showing her naked breasts. Nobody thought it immoral. It was moral for a Nair lady to have sex with all the Namboothiris who desired her. But can we think of this now? We pretend we are uncomfortable to see a breast half covered on the screen!
I think it is better to leave out consenting sex between leaglly major adults out of the purview of law and morality.
India is still a feudal country. We should not forget this. Though land reforms have been passed in some states, we are deeply feudal when it come to attitudes.
I think rituals can give pleasure and even peace of mind. Blind belief is the most enviable state of mind. Those of us who are skeptics cannot experience this, so we blame others who can do this. Ajeesh, if a person can condition himself to derive sexual pleasure by anothe person beating him, or even spitting on him, then there is no limit to the ways mind can derive pleasure from. Rituals are innocuous activities. The Buddhist monks who claim to have reached the highest level of enlightenment, spend their days in a tightly ritualised schedule.
One more question. Rearing a baby is a difficult task. It disturbs your sleep by crying at odd hours, you cannot leave it alone even for a while, the list of troubles is endless. But do not mothers and fathers derive pleasure from this? You may say it is all because of evloutuinary reasons. But then there are parents who kill their children? How do you explain that. People who pray, fast, climb hills etc for religious purposes, do this out of strong convition that this will benefit them or their loved ones, in this world or in life after death in heaven. Skeptics have their right to question this and believers have their right to practise this too. We should not become mechanical and start criticising and ridiculing everything that we don't believe in. Sacrificng one's time and effort for another is a higher social beahvior. Even if this is done for religious purposes or out of evolutionary pressure, the noble act has to be appreciated. Those of us, who do not have a calling for this, need not participate in this. But we should understand that without such sacrifices, world becomes a difficult place to live. We have to be more tolerant of others who differ from us. All conditioning need not be undesirable. Thank you
Dear friends,
It is not right to force our ideas on other people but we can have our opinion and accept that our difficulty in understanding some things. I find it extremely difficult to derive pleasure from someone spitting on my face or beating me. People with such capabilities exist and I have seen some of them in the porn movies. I am less capable of enjoying climbing a great hill or visiting the same buildings many times a day. I do not blame those blissful individuals and I do not appreciate too. There are some serious issues regarding this blind faith and pleasure that I will come to it later.
I am brought up in a strict hindu nair family with all conditioning to derive pleasure from visiting temples in early mornings, to be proud of the caste and not to question all these conditioning elements. I started to doubt all those things from my primary school standard levels but was afraid to question. But one day I understood that I can question and I can live with another person from a different caste. I am a person like all others, who once enjoyed the so called conditioning pleasures but not able to enjoy anymore. I have experienced both the pleasure of blind belief and rationality. I like to be a more rational being and do not have the mind to appreciate blind faith but of course, I will try to respect them.
People explain things in different ways according to their personalities. Religious people see things in a different way from materialists. They quote from bible, koran or gita while materialists quote from Darwin or Einstein. Do not ask a materialist to explain in a religious way. Parents rearing a baby suffering all difficulties are doing it because baby’s genes or its phenotypic effects are acting on parents. That’s a well know concept in modern Darwinism and I do not like to start a digression here. There are simple examples around us, you see bird hosts rearing up babies of parasitic species of other birds.
At the appropriate moment the hen Cuckoo flies down to the reed warblers' nest, pushes one Reed Warbler egg out of the nest, lays an egg and flies off. The whole process is achieved in only about 10 seconds. At 14 days old, the Cuckoo chicks are about 3 times the size of the adult Reed Warblers. The numerous and rapid hunger calls of the single cuckoo chick, and to a lesser extent its coloured gape, encourage the host parents to bring more food. Cuckoo chicks fledge after about 20 -21 days after hatching, which is about twice as long as for Reed Warblers. If the hen cuckoo is out-of-phase with a clutch of Reed Warbler eggs, she will eat them all so that the hosts are forced to start another brood.
Cuckoo chicks methodically evict all host progeny from host nests. It is a much larger bird than its hosts, and needs to monopolise the food supplied by the parents. The Cuckoo chick will roll the other eggs out of the nest by pushing them with its back over the edge. If the Reed Warbler's eggs hatch before the Cuckoo's egg, the Cuckoo chick will push the other chicks out of the nest in a similar way. Once the Reed Warbler chicks are out of the nest, the parents completely ignore them.
The combination of behaviour and anatomical adaptation of the common cuckoo was first described by Edward Jenner, who was elected as Fellow of the Royal Society in 1788 for this work. This was before he developed vaccination.
Cuckoo chicks are about 3 times the size of the adult Reed Warblers so it should be noticed that something is wrong but still the Warbler is so captivated to feed the Cuckoo chick! This is the power of phenotypic effects. Warbler suffers and uses its resources to feed another’s baby! I do not feel any wonder in parents rearing up their own species.
Prolicide also exist in many species. It is unusual in human beings. Those mutants are not going to be favored by natural selection for the simple reason that the responsible genes for the particular behavior can not passed on to next generations.
This is one way of explaining things. Destructive behavior of human beings can also explained by psychological or other socialist theories. No religious theories will not come anywhere near these theories in explaining human behavior in particular or general.
A materialist is mechanical only in a religious point of view. A materialist has the same opinion about religion too.
There are people who do anything out of blind faith and they derive pleasure from it. In my world view, the risks of blind faith always outweigh its potential benefits. It is evident from increasing religious terrorism, regional intolerance or totalitarian governments. The people of blind faiths always harassed or killed intellectuals through out the history of time. The list is long and my comment is again getting too long.
Thank you.
World History has discriptions of 'nonbelievers' everywhere!!.
All major religions were very harsh on nonbelievers and
some of them rewarded killing of nonbelievers and
regarded it as a noble act .!
It is very intereseting that with all these 'rewards' nonbelievers survived.....with no leaders/holybooks ,with no incentives..
what motivated them....?
Any history book on the full story of them?
Post a Comment