Models of love?
3 posters
Page 1 of 1
Models of love?
On the topic of love and attachment, what do you think of different models of love? Two that I'm the most familiar with are Sternberg's Triangular theory of love and Lee's Love Styles model.
Sternberg's model categorizes love among 3 different axes: intimacy (emotional closeness), passion (sexual desire and/or limerence), and commitment. Under this model, a relationship or type of love could have all 3 axes, 2 of them, or 1.
However, it raises the question of whether "love" that only has one of those axes counts as love. Emotional closeness is friendship, passion on its own is lust or limerence, and commitment on its own is "empty love".
The Love Styles are: Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, and Agape.
Mania is limerence under another name. Eros along with Mania is one of the most glamorized types, but it is one of the least stable since sexual desire won't last in a relationship, though the wiki article mentions it is akin to limerence. Ludus also isn't stable, and doesn't allow for secure attachment since people with that love style often aren't honest with their partners.
I think the storge style is one of the most logical. It just makes sense for a committed relationship to start off as a friendship. The idea that two people can just jump into a relationship with each other while barely knowing each other doesn't make much sense to me.
Pragma is one of the most stable, but doesn't the love go away if the relationship becomes too much of a business arrangement or transaction?
Agape sounds good in theory, but someone practicing this style could get taken advantage of, and where is the line drawn between Agape style love, and relationship martyrdom?
Sternberg's model categorizes love among 3 different axes: intimacy (emotional closeness), passion (sexual desire and/or limerence), and commitment. Under this model, a relationship or type of love could have all 3 axes, 2 of them, or 1.
However, it raises the question of whether "love" that only has one of those axes counts as love. Emotional closeness is friendship, passion on its own is lust or limerence, and commitment on its own is "empty love".
The Love Styles are: Eros, Ludus, Storge, Pragma, Mania, and Agape.
Mania is limerence under another name. Eros along with Mania is one of the most glamorized types, but it is one of the least stable since sexual desire won't last in a relationship, though the wiki article mentions it is akin to limerence. Ludus also isn't stable, and doesn't allow for secure attachment since people with that love style often aren't honest with their partners.
I think the storge style is one of the most logical. It just makes sense for a committed relationship to start off as a friendship. The idea that two people can just jump into a relationship with each other while barely knowing each other doesn't make much sense to me.
Pragma is one of the most stable, but doesn't the love go away if the relationship becomes too much of a business arrangement or transaction?
Agape sounds good in theory, but someone practicing this style could get taken advantage of, and where is the line drawn between Agape style love, and relationship martyrdom?
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07
Re: Models of love?
"The idea that two people can just jump into a relationship with each other while barely knowing each other doesn't make much sense to me."
I don't get that either even though it's a popular theme in books, movies, and television shows. One look at someone deemed attractive, and that person is crazy over them. Seems silly and superficial to me.
"Pragma is one of the most stable, but doesn't the love go away if the relationship becomes too much of a business arrangement or transaction?"
I'm not bothered by this because not all relationships have to be based on love. For example, it'll be inappropriate for there to be love in an employer/employee relationship, but mutual respect should still exist between those parties.
I don't get that either even though it's a popular theme in books, movies, and television shows. One look at someone deemed attractive, and that person is crazy over them. Seems silly and superficial to me.
"Pragma is one of the most stable, but doesn't the love go away if the relationship becomes too much of a business arrangement or transaction?"
I'm not bothered by this because not all relationships have to be based on love. For example, it'll be inappropriate for there to be love in an employer/employee relationship, but mutual respect should still exist between those parties.
SCH0206- Posts : 527
Join date : 2015-04-30
Re: Models of love?
I'm not a fan of these because they want to include all sorts of feelings that are clearly not 'love' (whatever that is), but just because people experience them.
The Sternberg model should not include passion, for one (limerence is practically a disease, and sexual desire is obviously not love). I'm also not sold on the commitment part just because you don't have to feel responsible towards someone to care about or love them. Intimacy gets closer to it than anything, it's still lacking a bit. But it points (to me) to the platonic kind of love that I think is 'pure'. I think friendship can count as love. Not always, but it can.
For the love styles, eros and mania are out of the picture automatically. Pragma isn't so bad, and I can see the 'love' going away if the relationship is too much of a transaction but I can also see the love growing depending on the situation. Agape is dangerous and sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity and/or little self awareness, no one should be that selfless. Ludus is very childish and shallow. Storge, like pragma, isn't bad either but I would remove "entitlement" and "duty" from it. I consider a combination of storge and pragma to be the best form of love, when it's not stained with sexual desire, it's not overbearing or suffocating, and there's an overall feeling of comfort, or at least you can pretty much be yourself around the person (or people).
The Sternberg model should not include passion, for one (limerence is practically a disease, and sexual desire is obviously not love). I'm also not sold on the commitment part just because you don't have to feel responsible towards someone to care about or love them. Intimacy gets closer to it than anything, it's still lacking a bit. But it points (to me) to the platonic kind of love that I think is 'pure'. I think friendship can count as love. Not always, but it can.
For the love styles, eros and mania are out of the picture automatically. Pragma isn't so bad, and I can see the 'love' going away if the relationship is too much of a transaction but I can also see the love growing depending on the situation. Agape is dangerous and sounds like it comes from a place of insecurity and/or little self awareness, no one should be that selfless. Ludus is very childish and shallow. Storge, like pragma, isn't bad either but I would remove "entitlement" and "duty" from it. I consider a combination of storge and pragma to be the best form of love, when it's not stained with sexual desire, it's not overbearing or suffocating, and there's an overall feeling of comfort, or at least you can pretty much be yourself around the person (or people).
error- Posts : 36
Join date : 2015-10-06
Re: Models of love?
I find it useful to distinguish between different types of "love", to get an idea of what others mean by it in the relationships they have. I like the Sternberg model for the most part, but it does bother me that sexual desire is listed as a type of love even on its own; that's not love.
It's also debatable whether a relationship marked purely by commitment would count as "love" or not; on Sternberg's model, it's known as "empty love".
I'm also concerned with Agape love that there's a fine line between it and relationship martyrdom, but selflessness in a relationship shouldn't mean someone sacrificing all of their wants, needs and boundaries. Storge seemed like the most ideal to me, with a sense of emotional closeness and mutual respect, but not being suffocating. Some people's ideas of what "love", and what committed relationships should be, sound suffocating.
It's also debatable whether a relationship marked purely by commitment would count as "love" or not; on Sternberg's model, it's known as "empty love".
I'm also concerned with Agape love that there's a fine line between it and relationship martyrdom, but selflessness in a relationship shouldn't mean someone sacrificing all of their wants, needs and boundaries. Storge seemed like the most ideal to me, with a sense of emotional closeness and mutual respect, but not being suffocating. Some people's ideas of what "love", and what committed relationships should be, sound suffocating.
Admin- Admin
- Posts : 746
Join date : 2015-04-07
Similar topics
» Romantic love affecting cognition?
» My ture love.
» Love cynicism
» Falling in love vs. loving someone
» Reasons why I love Being Antisexual
» My ture love.
» Love cynicism
» Falling in love vs. loving someone
» Reasons why I love Being Antisexual
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
|
|