Why it is awkward to say "I love you"

[sschaula]

Brilliant post, Shardrol.

[Jason]

Anyone remember the guy from from Wayne's World who had an unusual habit? Or this classic deathbed response to "I love you" from another film.

[Katy]

I define love as my life is better because you are/were in it, and I hope the same is true of you

I would prefer to associate a perspective like that with "value" but I can relate to your view.

I'm afraid I don't really understand how that's different. "life is better" seems to be an inherent statement of value since everyone will define "better" in a different way depending on what they value.

It's a lie because you use a different definition than he does?

No, it is a lie because he thinks I mean something different than I do.

To me, seratonin, heroin and endorphins are forms of love. I don't know the full mechanism behind love but I can guess that, say, to make a sweet gesture towards someone that lets that person know that another person values him/her in some way causes a transfer/stimulation of energy that plain feels good.

Well, if that's what's going on, I guess I'm missing it, too. I wind up feeling uncomfortable, and embarassed by the entire thing. My guess would be a build up of nervous energy followed by relief when the gesture is accepted.

I'm pretty much flat out asexual.

You don't find pleasure in the experience or you simply prefer other pleasures?

I find no pleasure in the act, nor in the emotions.

[Dan Rowden]

Anyone remember [........]this classic deathbed response to "I love you" from another film.

Hmm, I thought Chewbacca's declaration sounded more sincere :)

[Dan Rowden]

Can you define love for me, Dan? Or infatuation? Is there a difference between your responses to parent questions vs romantic or peer responses? What?

I think the main difference between love and infatuation is that the latter tends to happen at a distance, as I said before. That is, it can happen with no real contact with the object of the passion. It is quintessentially ideational (e.g. being infatuated with Jodie Foster). Love, on the other hand, whilst not being all that different in most psychological ways, nevertheless generally involves some form of actual relationship with a person or thing and can therefore withstand some injection of the nitty gritty of reality.

As for defining love, well, that's actually not an easy thing to do succinctly without being glib or engaging in satire or parody of some kind. Love covers a fair bit of territory, really. What I will say for now is that love is basically a form of happiness, a category of happiness, a sublimation of a particular set of egotistical needs and desires. That set can vary depending on the object of the love - family, friends, nation or - what's that weird term? - oh yeah, "significant other". So, basically I'd define love as the feeling of the sublimation of a certain set of ego needs. This could be a variation of acceptance, security, mirroring of ourselves (i.e. validation), the nominal physical manifestation and actualisation of a held ideal (Woman). Insert your own option here: _____________

This all includes, of course, the accompanying belief that these effects will continue so long as the relationship does. I know that's all somewhat nebulous, but as I say I don't think one can be truly succinct when it comes to defining love - unless you want to limit the definition to one very specific form of it. Then it's glib-orama baby!.....

For a man the commitment can also mean a major change of lifestyle that he doesn't necessary want.

Both partners are expected to change their lifestyles in ways that they do not want. This is not a gender thing.

I disagree (in general) in the sense that love and relationship are a woman's domain, her world, her evolutionary inheritance. It is a more natural transition from single life to partner life for a woman than it is for a man. There are exceptions, but that's why it's a generalisation.

I'm sorta threatened by the words themselves. I mean, my roommates (are both straight girls and both have boyfriends) always say they love eachother. It's probably closer to what I mean by love, but it makes me uncomfortable to hear repeatedly anyway. I think maybe love is one of those feelings that should not be public. It should just be obvious.

Well, women like to make a show of their emotions at the best of times and what more womanly emotion/feeling is there - and one so intimately connected to who and what she is, than love? So, parading it around in public is no stranger for a woman than showing off her cleavage.

--------------

"For a man, love is never having to say you're sorry, because you are, by default".

[Dan Rowden]

Some people, almost always males, intuitively know that love is irrational

I have found a lot of satisfaction in rationalising love. It seems to be as amenable to rationalisation as any other aspect of reality.

Anything can be rationalised, but that doesn't make it rational. If you have to rationalise something it is by definition not rational.

Love expressed is also, as Laird noted, an appeal rather than a demonstration (though I may be using "appeal" differently to how he intended).

I think that we are pointing to the same thing: that there are good and better ways of accomplishing a purpose and that merely stating an intention is far from the realisation of the goal.

Well, yes, but that isn't necessarily the case with love. You see, love is a tricky thing when it comes to "realising" and demonstrating it. The simple declaration of the feeling may well be 100% true and valid, but when it comes to showing it you have to take into account the differences in perspective between men and women on that score (or even just between different individuals). Not everyone has the same criteria for what constitutes a demonstration of love. Most married people learn this the hard way. Many people refuse to accept the other's criteria and then what happens is that the person does all they can to try and demonstrate their love - within the parameters of their criteria (because that's what accurately reflects their feelings) - but the other person rejects it all because they will only operate on their own criteria and expect the other person to defer to it. This is part of the egotistical madness that constitutes most relationships.

Saying "I love you" to someone also inherently grants potential power to the other by dint of the fact that it acknowledges the power that has already been wielded over us

What if you viewed your honest assertion of love (when justified) as self-empowering rather than disempowering in that it is a rare expressive trait and that rarity is precious?

Well, there's nothing rare about that level of egotism, and nothing precious about it either, but I did say that love also empowers. Unfortunately, it empowers egotistically and this I am against as my philosophy is anti-ego.

For the intelligent and the sensitive it can also be a very uncomfortable realisation that other people can in point of fact actually have such impact and influence on us.

I relate this to what I mentioned earlier about trust. You can take an optimistic view of life and believe that other people want to help you as much as you want to help them. Then the only doubt is in ability, however you can draw comfort that two are greater than one.

It's not a trust issue; it's not about fear of the potential power the other might wield over you in some gratuitous fashion (though this is a reasonable fear and trust is a naive belief in the virtue of others). It's an issue of one's lack of stability, concretion, completion and maturity as an individual. Love isn't just impressing someone - it's ok to be really impressed by somemone - it's an altering of their very sense of self. This is no small thing and is way beyond mere trust issues...

It is an acknowledgement of a need for another to fulfill us in some way.

I prefer to view it as acknowledgement of a desire to fulfill another in some way.

That doesn't make it any better or virtuous. It just means you're facilitating that kind of egotism in another person.

Fear of the commitment implicit in the statement.

It can be instantaneous - why not view the statement as equivalent to "I love you in the present moment"?

Actions divorced from awareness of consequence is my idea of idiocy.

Men also have a more powerful natural inclination to independence and individuality ... so ... men say such things sparingly

Men in my opinion say such things sparingly because they are concerned with being justified in the assertion.

Sure, I agree. That's part of the story.

One feels pressure to reciprocate, to protect the speaker's feelings

You've in my opinion identified a tricky one here, Dan. It's a balance between self-integrity and other-love. In my opinion the wise yet compassionate person would balance the insight that silence might bring against the pain that unresponsiveness might cause in coming to a determination for action.

The wise and compassionate person wouldn't even dream of saying "I love you" to someone. He would know people don't deserve that kind of treatment!

[David Quinn]

Shardrol wrote:

Wow, it's odd to find myself on the sunny side of a discussion where cynicism runs rampant. I agree with y'all that many & possibly most declarations of love between people are some sort of attempt at manipulation; either to embarrass the person into reciprocating, feeling grateful, thinking more positively of the speaker, setting the stage for further intimacies or whatever.

However. I think real love is appreciation - just that. 'I appreciate your being'. Not wanting something back for it, not using it as a power play, just communicating this sense of appreciation, usually spontaneously - not unlike the way someone might be moved to say, "Your reasoning in that post was utterly flawless!"

I don't say "I love you" much myself because I think the words are hackneyed & cliche'd, but I might express the same enthusiastic appreciation with some other words. I think the "I love you [pause expectantly for reply]" technique is widespread, but that's not the whole picture. If you aren't asking for something back, if you have no thought of imposing some kind of obligation or hierarchy, it can just be a spontaneous expression of enthusiasm.

I don't believe this does anybody any harm. If someone hears it as attempted manipulation, currying favor, dragging one down into an emotional abyss - that's their interpretation & may have nothing to do with what's in the mind of the speaker. It's not the words, it's the intent.

As Dan mentions, even if an expression of love is uttered in a pure manner, it can still have detrimental effects on the person who is the object of that love. For example, it can easily stimulate his ego and cause him to become more infatuated with himself, thereby corrupting him. You could be turning something beautiful into something ugly.

To be sure, the person involved could be beyond the possibility of being corrupted in this way. But if that was the case, then expressions of love will be meaningless to him and it would become redundant on your part to shower them upon him.

On the other hand, a concrete expression of your "appreciation" could help crystalize the feelings that you have for him and help bring them more out into the open where you can deal with them more effectively. So that, at least, would be a good thing. It could act as a catharsis.

As to the original question of why people find it awkward to say 'I love you', I think a lot of that has to do with it being such a cultural big deal. For people in romantic relationships it's a kind of milestone or achievement.

I think you mean millstone, don't you? Yes, such an expression usually serves as the consummation of the bonding process. One is now bound to that person, for better or for worse.

-

[Shardrol]

David

Okay, yes it's possible that a spontaneous exclamation of enthusiastic appreciation such as "I love you" could have the effect of stimulating the ego of the recipient & causing him to become more infatuated with himself, etc. However the same could be said about a spontaneous exclamation of enthusiastic appreciation such as "Your wisdom is an inspiration to me every day of my life!" If a person is vulnerable to having his ego inflated, it hardly matters what you say to him; he's likely to inflate regardless.

If he is beyond the possibility of being corrupted he may still be able to understand & accept expressions of love from people who may see something noble in him & admire it yet not have the sophistication to describe their feelings more specifically. Even though he doesn't need this love for his own egotistical gratification he might accept it because he recognizes it as an idealistic aspiration that the speaker finds inspirational. You act as if there is some kind of magic in the words "I love you" that has the power to corrupt & degrade anyone who hears them. I think if they are that easily corrupted & degraded it was, as they say, a short drive.

'Millstone' was funny though.
.

[Laird]

Some people, almost always males, intuitively know that love is irrational

I have found a lot of satisfaction in rationalising love. It seems to be as amenable to rationalisation as any other aspect of reality.

Anything can be rationalised, but that doesn't make it rational. If you have to rationalise something it is by definition not rational.

Why believe something? Because it is useful. What is useful? Lovingness.

The only question there need be is: what is the most loving response?

Where is the need to be right? Express love.

The best way to love yourself is to help another person.

I am trying to show you love. Showing is an act of realisation.

Arrogance is believing that there is nothing more to learn.

From whence springs wisdom? It is God.

Seeking to lead, I experience a shrinking. We lead each other.

[edited to insert an aphorism and again to clarify another]

You see, love is a tricky thing when it comes to "realising" and demonstrating it.

Yes, life is an endless process of learning how to love better. Is the pose of a sage more loving than uncertain honesty? Perhaps I am an uncertain sage.

Unfortunately, it [love] empowers egotistically and this I am against as my philosophy is anti-ego.

Love and the ego are not distinct.

Love isn't just impressing someone - it's ok to be really impressed by somemone - it's an altering of their very sense of self. This is no small thing and is way beyond mere trust issues...

It seems to me that you might not trust in your power to impress.

Dan: It is an acknowledgement of a need for another to fulfill us in some way.

Laird: I prefer to view it as acknowledgement of a desire to fulfill another in some way.

Dan: That doesn't make it any better or virtuous. It just means you're facilitating that kind of egotism in another person.

What is virtuous? A loving ego.

Dan: Fear of the commitment implicit in the statement.

Laird: It can be instantaneous - why not view the statement as equivalent to "I love you in the present moment"?

Dan: Actions divorced from awareness of consequence is my idea of idiocy.

In the moment there is no consequence.

The wise and compassionate person wouldn't even dream of saying "I love you" to someone. He would know people don't deserve that kind of treatment!

Love is contextual. People deserve to have their context recognised. Recognition is love.

At this point in the dialogue I would like to express my gratitude for the openings that you have all afforded me.

[Laird]

I reckon the male drunken cry of “I love you mate” isn’t a soppy emotional outpouring - instead it’s a bloody-minded challenge. He expects the other bloke to return his ‘love call’, for if that call isn’t returned in a positive way the caller feels offended and then wants revenge. A few punches are thrown, and the two men are separated and then dragged away by their mates.

Thank you, that was an insightful perspective.

In [the home] environment, men are aliens who are expected to interact emotionally on the wife and kid’s level.

Expectation fathers responsibility and it is responsibility that alienates me.

It all comes down to the fact that men’s emotions run deep; not wide and shallow like women’s.

It is shallow to love a child?

Your suicide data troubles me and I haven't found an interpretation that I like yet.

[Laird]

Wow, it's odd to find myself on the sunny side of a discussion where cynicism runs rampant. I agree with y'all that many & possibly most declarations of love between people are some sort of attempt at manipulation; either to embarrass the person into reciprocating, feeling grateful, thinking more positively of the speaker, setting the stage for further intimacies or whatever.

Reading that is joy (perhaps I want you to think more positively of me).

However. I think real love is appreciation - just that. 'I appreciate your being'. Not wanting something back for it, not using it as a power play, just communicating this sense of appreciation, usually spontaneously - not unlike the way someone might be moved to say, "Your reasoning in that post was utterly flawless!"

As it is!

I don't say "I love you" much myself because I think the words are hackneyed & cliche'd, but I might express the same enthusiastic appreciation with some other words. I think the "I love you [pause expectantly for reply]" technique is widespread, but that's not the whole picture. If you aren't asking for something back, if you have no thought of imposing some kind of obligation or hierarchy, it can just be a spontaneous expression of enthusiasm.

I am enthusiastic about your expression of wisdom, it is golden.

I don't believe this does anybody any harm. If someone hears it as attempted manipulation, currying favor, dragging one down into an emotional abyss - that's their interpretation & may have nothing to do with what's in the mind of the speaker. It's not the words, it's the intent.

It seems that you can speak no wrong. That comment applies to the rest of your post too.

[Laird]

Katy: I define love as my life is better because you are/were in it, and I hope the same is true of you

Laird: I would prefer to associate a perspective like that with "value" but I can relate to your view.

Katy: I'm afraid I don't really understand how that's different.

It's not different, it's just how I prefer to express myself.

Laird: It's a lie because you use a different definition than he does?

Katy: No, it is a lie because he thinks I mean something different than I do.

Love is explanation? Does that help?

Laird: To me, seratonin, heroin and endorphins are forms of love. I don't know the full mechanism behind love but I can guess that, say, to make a sweet gesture towards someone that lets that person know that another person values him/her in some way causes a transfer/stimulation of energy that plain feels good.

Katy: Well, if that's what's going on, I guess I'm missing it, too. I wind up feeling uncomfortable, and embarassed by the entire thing. My guess would be a build up of nervous energy followed by relief when the gesture is accepted.

I get that too but as I wrote to Elizabeth, I'm working on an attitude of removal of expectation; I think that Shardrol put it well when she expressed that love is about appreciation. If you appreciate someone inherently, then what need is there for that person to respond positively to your love? It's not going to change your appreciation.

Katy: I'm pretty much flat out asexual.

Laird: You don't find pleasure in the experience or you simply prefer other pleasures?

Katy: I find no pleasure in the act, nor in the emotions.

I don't know whether that's sad or liberating.

[Katy]

Katy: No, it is a lie because he thinks I mean something different than I do.

Love is explanation? Does that help?

No, we can play word games but that's exactly what they are. My definition doesn't match the rest of the world's definition and while I can say it and mean it by my definition, we're not understanding one another. Changing the definition of a word once again in a way that it still doesn't mean what someone else thinks I mean doesn't help our communication in any way. We either understand eachother or we don't... and the majority of the world will never understand love as I do.

Katy: I find no pleasure in the act, nor in the emotions.

Laird: I don't know whether that's sad or liberating.

Neither. It just is what it is. Not sad because I don't care, not liberating because I live in a world that will never understand that I don't care.

[Laird]

My definition doesn't match the rest of the world's definition and while I can say it and mean it by my definition, we're not understanding one another. [...] the world will never understand love as I do. [...] Not sad because I don't care, not liberating because I live in a world that will never understand that I don't care.

Thank you for sharing your perspective. I think that I understand your position a little more clearly now.

[Dan Rowden]

Laird,

Why believe something? Because it is useful. What is useful? Lovingness.

Utility does not validate. Believing Jews are evil was useful to the Nazis; believing blacks are biologically inferior is/was useful to the KKK; believing that your husband is an arsehole is useful to a wife who wants the house. "Lovingness" is useful to people who believe they inherently exist; it is redundant to those who know better.

The only question there need be is: what is the most loving response?

All responses are governed by our goals and desires. The real question is whether such things are undepinned by wisdom or delusion.

Where is the need to be right? Express love.

Being right is the greatest love. Anything less than that is arrogance and egotism. People who don't care about being right are evil (where being right is actually possible).

The best way to love yourself is to help another person.

I have zero need of loving myself. You need to think about why it is that people have such a need.

I am trying to show you love.

What does love mean in this context?

Showing is an act of realisation.

You are typing words at me. That's all that I realise. I cannot know your mind - and frankly I'm not sure I want to :)

Arrogance is believing that there is nothing more to learn.

Stupidity is thinking there is more to learn when there isn't.

From whence springs wisdom? It is God.

If by God you mean Nature then sure, but that's pretty obvious since all things spring from there...

Seeking to lead, I experience a shrinking. We lead each other.

Seriously, are you getting this stuff from a New Age quote book?

Yes, life is an endless process of learning how to love better.

I think you need to decide what you specifically mean by the term "love".

Is the pose of a sage more loving than uncertain honesty? Perhaps I am an uncertain sage.

You're tossing "loving" round like confetti but it doesn't seem to actually mean anything.

Unfortunately, it [love] empowers egotistically and this I am against as my philosophy is anti-ego.

Love and the ego are not distinct.

Yes, I know, that's the whole problem.

Love isn't just impressing someone - it's ok to be really impressed by somemone - it's an altering of their very sense of self. This is no small thing and is way beyond mere trust issues...

It seems to me that you might not trust in your power to impress.

I have no need to impress. My power to do so is something I never think about. Impressed?

Dan: It is an acknowledgement of a need for another to fulfill us in some way.

Laird: I prefer to view it as acknowledgement of a desire to fulfill another in some way.

Dan: That doesn't make it any better or virtuous. It just means you're facilitating that kind of egotism in another person.

What is virtuous? A loving ego.

What possible virtue can there be in delusion? What do you value?

Dan: Fear of the commitment implicit in the statement.

Laird: It can be instantaneous - why not view the statement as equivalent to "I love you in the present moment"?

Dan: Actions divorced from awareness of consequence is my idea of idiocy.

In the moment there is no consequence.

Look up "trite" in the dictionary. This is the sort of nonsensical point a really feminine woman would make. There is always another moment; if there wasn't the world would end.

The wise and compassionate person wouldn't even dream of saying "I love you" to someone. He would know people don't deserve that kind of treatment!

Love is contextual. People deserve to have their context recognised. Recognition is love.

Love is a awful lot of things for you, it seems.

At this point in the dialogue I would like to express my gratitudes for the openings that you have all afforded me.

I bet you say that to all the girls ;)

[Tomas]

.

It is sometimes awkward to say "I love you",


-tomas-
I love you, Laird :-)

There, now that the hot and heavy is out of the way...sure, it IS sometimes awkward...but your picture is sooo cute :-)



-laird-
because it is an appeal rather than a demonstration.


-tomas-
Pace yourself!



-laird-
It is base.



-tomas-
Been on the island of Tasmania a bit long now, huh?

Notice the "mania" in Tasmania.



-laird-
It is the reference to the elephant in the room whose existence we are supposed to find more creative ways of expressing than proclamation and direct pointing (and here am I, pointing at elephants).



-tomas-
An elephant in heat is one to avoid.



-laird-
Our evolution is in our ability to love one another: comfort, knowledge, entertainment, taste.



-tomas-
How quaint.



-laird-
How crass then to merely say that one is doing what one could actually be doing more purposefully.



-tomas-
Yawn.



-laird-
On the other hand, there is value in simplicity.



-tomas-
More feeble...the better.




-laird-
If one is acting lovingly then there is no shame in affirming that this is one's intention, even if it is tautological.




-tomas-
May I braid your hair?



-laird-
Balanced consideration in all things.



-tomas-
May I trim your moustache?



-laird-
Anything can be proved to one who is willing to believe.

-tomas-
And...you are the reason why!


Tomas (the tank)
VietNam veteran - 1971

ps- off the moon

.

[sue hindmarsh]

Laird asked:

It is shallow to love a child?

Yes, it is shallow minded for a man, or a woman to love a child.

Loving a child as a parent does, or as paedophile does, or even just loving children in the same way as people ‘love’ animals - are all acts of violence done to children. These expressions of love, these “appreciations” as Shardrol would say (though not to describe the paedophile’s idea of love), are really just acts of plain old-fashioned selfishness. Not that many adults can see it as such as they have no understanding of their own minds, and therefore have no knowledge of why they do the things they do. For example, they don’t know that the main reason they are attracted to, and form attachments to children is because children are useful amusing distractions. They don’t recognize that kiddies are, at base, just another one of their big-people’s toys – used to try and plug the gapping emotional black-hole that constitutes much of their life.

Children have been successful gap-fillers for generation upon generation. These days, many adults consider bonding to children as pleasurable as snorting cocaine, watching TV, having a successful career, or traveling on overseas holidays; but for others, children will never surpass the pleasure of shopping, chatting on the mobile phone, playing computer games, decorating their home, or seeing their favourite sports team take home the winner’s trophy. Some adults, such as mothers and paedophiles, find children are their greatest source of pleasure and become completely obsessed by them. These lovers of loving children basically rip the living spirit out from their beloved little ones, and only leave go of them when their childhood is spent. (Well, paedophile's do; mothers will often keep on squeezing life from their children until death intervenes.)

But even more horrifying is that the violence doesn’t end when the children are children no longer. No. The violence endures and emanates now out from those who were a short time ago the 'tortured ones'. They, having been dragged down into the emotional abyss by their loving adults, now emerge fully grown with gapping emotional black-holes of their own that need to be fed. And using the lessons well learnt from their parents and other ‘loving’ adults, they set about using the next generation of little ones in the same horrific manner that they’d been used.

--

[Faust]

Any show of vulnerability or weakness, especially to another men, can be seen as a potential threat to the masculine self-image and social-image, and also potentially threatens the current position within the masculine hierarchy.

Continuing on....

The principle of transfer of power in "I love you", as it relates to the masculine image, can lead to more extreme forms of emotional inauthenticity and suppression. At the upper end, some men find it difficult to give any compliment to another man, because of the transfer of power it represents.

Sometimes, in an attempt to disguise the transfer of power, there is a contradictory partial negation of overt compliments or statements of endearment: "How are you going you old bastard?", and the use of sarcasm "Can't you score some more goals mate!?" This allows some relief from the suppression of emotional authenticity by implying the truth, but still manages some covertness.

Suppression of emotional authenticity, which is often a lifelong activity, likely creates a near constant background of anxiety, which results from the necessity to stay on alert for threats to the masculine image, the need to constantly monitor the outwardly projected identity and guarantee that it always matches the desired masculine social image.

Alcohol can weaken this constant self monitoring, which may also partly explain why it is associated with relaxation. With the lessened inhibitions it then becomes possible for the "I love you mate" to be exchanged between those who may normally be incapable or unwilling to express anything beyong the "old bastard" exchange.

However, as with the sober covertly implied endearment or compliment, the drunken state can be largely dismissed, excused and subsequently repressed as a transitory and inauthentic state of being, which then in turn negates or lessens its impact on the masculine identity of the sober-version of that person. This may explain why "having a beer with the guys" is considered such a stereotypically and defining male activity.

Edit:
(The fact that beer naturally tastes horrible to most/many people upon first drink, could also set it up as a sort of initiation ritual, which allows the men to prove that they are strong and willing to endure pain in order to be considered part of the group. Note the fact that sweet relatively pleasant tasting alcoholic drinks are considered suitable only for women by some groups, and therefore seen as emasculating for men to drink.)

Jason you've nailed it on the wall alright, I couldn't even show this to most of my so called 'friends' without being ostracized.

[Faust]

Jason,

My interpretation of your point is that the nature of man is to desire to be the best, but that in his lovingness he recognises and affirms in his fellow men the possibility that any one of them could at any moment assume this responsibility.

Laird

what does it mean to be the best? This is 100% meaning to be the best female puppet in most new age men's circles Laird, and they aren't even aware of it.

[Faust]

Jason wrote:

Alcohol can weaken this constant self monitoring, which may also partly explain why it is associated with relaxation. With the lessened inhibitions it then becomes possible for the "I love you mate" to be exchanged between those who may normally be incapable or unwilling to express anything beyong the "old bastard" exchange.

I reckon the male drunken cry of “I love you mate” isn’t a soppy emotional outpouring - instead it’s a bloody-minded challenge. He expects the other bloke to return his ‘love call’, for if that call isn’t returned in a positive way the caller feels offended and then wants revenge. A few punches are thrown, and the two men are separated and then dragged away by their mates.

For men, challenging each other, and themselves, is a positive emotional experience. Because of this, "having a beer with the guys" is a far more natural state for men to be in than, for example, sitting at home surrounded by the wife and kids. In that environment, men are aliens who are expected to interact emotionally on the wife and kid’s level. This, in turn, explains why married men much prefer to ‘interact’ with the TV and their computers than with their own family.

It all comes down to the fact that men’s emotions run deep; not wide and shallow like women’s. Because of this, they take onto their shoulders the weight of their whole lives, and don’t share their troubles and concerns in the way women do. The downside of this is the extremely high number of male suicides, (out of the 2101 people who committed suicide in Australia in 2005, 80% of them were male), but the upside is man’s accomplishments in creating culture and civilization.

So, next time you see a bloke pissed out of his brain, or preparing to jump off of a very tall building, console yourself with the thought that within him lies the seed that built the pyramids, composed The Brandenburg Concerto, and wrote Fear and Trembling. Then order up another round, and make mine a Toohey’s.

-
Sue

All that suffering and turmoil is unnecessary in creating those things Sue. Only if suffering and toil arises from making of such things is contribution, any suffering caused by the hostility of PEOPLE is unnecessary, useless, and immoral. Those male suicides are not caused necessarily by one being challenged with one's work maybe sometime, but alot of it is caused by the emotions and hostility and psychological damage done by PEOPLE. Non living things and nature on its own do not cause as much psychological damage as PEOPLE do.

Second, you have to distinguish between the right kinds of "challenge" and the wrong ones that men do to oneanother. Outdoing men for the sole purpose of getting women is pretty pathetic, outdoing men in physical strength is pretty pathetic, and these two things are perhaps the only things that most anti-intellectual, dumbed down, modern men challenge themselves with. In terms of ambition, most people cannot stand the successes of others, as such they have failed their challenge due to their jealousy.

[Faust]

Wow, it's odd to find myself on the sunny side of a discussion where cynicism runs rampant. I agree with y'all that many & possibly most declarations of love between people are some sort of attempt at manipulation; either to embarrass the person into reciprocating, feeling grateful, thinking more positively of the speaker, setting the stage for further intimacies or whatever.

However. I think real love is appreciation - just that. 'I appreciate your being'. Not wanting something back for it, not using it as a power play, just communicating this sense of appreciation, usually spontaneously - not unlike the way someone might be moved to say, "Your reasoning in that post was utterly flawless!"

I don't say "I love you" much myself because I think the words are hackneyed & cliche'd, but I might express the same enthusiastic appreciation with some other words. I think the "I love you [pause expectantly for reply]" technique is widespread, but that's not the whole picture. If you aren't asking for something back, if you have no thought of imposing some kind of obligation or hierarchy, it can just be a spontaneous expression of enthusiasm.

I don't believe this does anybody any harm. If someone hears it as attempted manipulation, currying favor, dragging one down into an emotional abyss - that's their interpretation & may have nothing to do with what's in the mind of the speaker. It's not the words, it's the intent.

As to the original question of why people find it awkward to say 'I love you', I think a lot of that has to do with it being such a cultural big deal. For people in romantic relationships it's a kind of milestone or achievement. For parents it's evidence that things are as they should be: the baby on whom they expended so much effort is paying off in appreciation (feigned, pro forma or otherwise). People - even children - sense this in some inchoate way & feel subconsciously coerced so the declaration loses its quality as a spontaneous expression of something real & becomes just another requirement of duty. The healthy human being resists this kind of coercion even if it doesn't reach the level of conscious understanding but is just experienced as awkwardness or disinclination.
.

Sorry, but there's no such thing as altruism. Everything we do has a motive, we do nothing for "the sake of it," for even pleasure and excitement is a motive, such as saying to someone "i love you." You get something out of it, you enjoy saying it, you are in some way, vicariously getting something from that person. Masochists can easily say "i love you" and get something from it!

[keenobserver]

Only 2000 per year?
Last I heard we had 36000 checkout in the land of the free and home of the brave.
Can probably double or triple that number to account for non-showy types.
(correct me if i'm wrong)

[keenobserver]

USA Suicide Deaths 1979 to 1996

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This web page is in memory of the victims of suicide.
Introduction

U.S. Surgeon General Concerned About U.S. Suicides

Single Parent Homes and Suicide

Graphs

Introduction
In the interval from 1979 to 1996 there were a total of 535,890 deaths in the U.S.A. that were diagnosed and reported to have been suicides.

Of these suicide victims, 421,991 were boys and men, and 113,899 were girls and women.

There was not one single age group in any year in which boys or men committing suicide did not exceed by far the numbers of girls or women who killed themselves.

The number of male suicide victims rose in virtually every year during the eighteen-year 1979 - 1996 interval, whereas the number of female victims of suicide was generally on the decline in virtually every year.

The number of female suicide victims was considerably lower in 1996 than it was in 1979, in spite of a sizeable increase in the American population during that period. It declined from 6,950 to 5,905 annually. The number of the male suicide victims rose during the same period from 20,256 to 24,998 annually.
Extrapolating from those statistics to the early 1960s, when the impact of the new realities of no-fault divorce and the feminization of America became fully reflected in the escalating male suicide rates, and extrapolating to the year 2000, when its impact was still being felt to its full deadly extent, it can be estimated that a total of 800,000 American boys and men committed suicide in the 1962-2000 interval.

In other words, more American boys and men died during and on account of the War of the Sexes than died in all military conflicts in which the USA were involved during the 20th century. The number of American boys and men killed in military actions during the 20th century is 661,946 (excluding the 4,273 boys and men killed in military actions during the 1899-1902 Philippines War).

If we were to assume that a number of 6,000 male suicides are to be subtracted from the annual male suicide casualties - the equivalent of female suicides - to allow that only the remainder of the male suicides are attributable to the War of the Sexes, the male casualties in the war of the sexes during the 1962-2000 interval still amount to 565,047 war dead, almost as many as the 595,242 American military casualties that died in all of the 20th century wars up to and including the Korean War.

Where are the memorials for the war-dead of the War of the Sexes, the Rout of the American Males? A total of 800,000 boys and men gave their lives not in the service of their country but to cater to equal rights for women, and there's not a single memorial or cenotaph to mourn their passing.

However, the eight American women that were members of the American Armed Forces during the Vietnam War and died during their terms of service were given a memorial all of their own.

See also Glenn Sack's commentary: Distraught Father's Courthouse Suicide Highlights America's Male Suicide Epidemic (San Diego Union-Tribune, 2002 01 11)

There is something disagreeable about suicide. Of course, of the higher vertebrates, it is only humans who regularly, steadily and in considerable numbers deliberately kill themselves, not only each other but themselves by their own hands.
It is a terrible tragedy that with the age of enlightenment that ostensibly came about as a result of the new insights that growing liberalism bestowed upon us, suicides, which were a part of human life throughout history, have now grown to epidemic proportions, to the extent that in the USA and in other nations the number of suicide victims now annually exceeds the total of victims of violent deaths through murder.

Governments all over the world appear to be very reluctant to devote much effort to investigating the causes of suicide. Perhaps that is because it seems that one way to largely prevent suicides would be to have strong families that would provide strong support networks of relatives. That would be contrary to the governments' policies of pushing an agenda of negative population growth, and, to further that, the required destruction of our families.
To governments who actively pursue that agenda, rising suicide rates must seem like a blessing. How else can it be explained that not only do the causes of the suicide epidemic go uninvestigated, but that not even any efforts are made to determine why one sex is so much more prone than the other to commit suicide. Today, depending on age, men are on average up to more than eleven times as likely to commit suicide than women are. For almost one in every hundred men of age 85 or over, suicide seems to be the only avenue of escape from a life that seems no longer bearable. However that greatest tragic aspect of the high suicide rates is that the largest group of victims, by far, is comprised of teenaged boys and of young men. An enormous number of potentially creative and productive life-years are thus lost to society, far more than on account of most other causes of death.
The controlling factor in that is not biological but, rather, sociological. As the Canadian suicide rates for the depression show, men in just one small age group (60 and over) were the ones who caused the Canadian suicide rate to rise in 1930 to a never-before-seen high. Unfortunately, as of now it isn't possible to make a comparison to American suicide rates during the Great Depression, because comparable data for the USA appears to be impossible to find. However, there is a wealth of information relating to suicide rates during the seventies in many developed countries. All of them show that the beginning of the rapid increases in suicide rates coincided with the liberalization of divorce laws and, in general, with the rapid implementation of liberal policies.

These circumstances of male suicides should provide a strong incentive to any government to track not just the means by which suicides are committed but, rather, to determine the motivation for suicides. Without knowing the latter, it is not in the least likely that any solutions to the problem will be found. It seems that the inroads made by man-hating feminists in all walks of governments and the bureaucracy is the driving force behind deliberate censorship and obfuscation of the facts.
It appears to be highly unlikely that there could be any other reason why women's suicides, about 20% of the overall total of suicide victims anywhere, receive an inordinate amount of attention that is applied to the creation of generous funding for women's issues. On the other hand, men's suicides, so far larger in number, appear to be totally insufficient in creating any concern at all. Certainly, there is not enough concern to devote any funding to support the study of men's issues. (See poster "Save the Males")
However, what is most offensive is that there is not only a lack of motivation in government offices to collect statistics pertaining to the causes of men's suicides, but that there is also evidence that sex-specific suicide data is deliberately obfuscated in ways that play down the gravity of a situation involving a pandemic of male suicides that since the early seventies exceeded the prior crisis situation reached in just one or two years of the Great Depression.

[Dan Rowden]

Only 2000 per year? Last I heard we had 36000 checkout in the land of the free and home of the brave.

The figure Sue quoted was for Australia. We have a population of 20 million. The U.S. has 300 million.

[Laird]

Dan,

I've not replied for a while because I lost track of this thread...

Laird: Why believe something? Because it is useful. What is useful? Lovingness.

Dan: Utility does not validate. Believing Jews are evil was useful to the Nazis; believing blacks are biologically inferior is/was useful to the KKK; believing that your husband is an arsehole is useful to a wife who wants the house. "Lovingness" is useful to people who believe they inherently exist; it is redundant to those who know better.

OK, reword that as "What is useful to me?" I believe that the basis of human interactions is an exchange of energy that the word "love" is appropriate for. Think of how you feel when someone tells you that your project is successfully taking off - you feel good, satisfied, right? That's what I see as an exchange (or creation) of love.

Laird: The only question there need be is: what is the most loving response?

Dan: All responses are governed by our goals and desires. The real question is whether such things are undepinned by wisdom or delusion.

My (current) wisdom is to frame the world in terms of love.

Laird: Where is the need to be right? Express love.

Dan: Being right is the greatest love. [...]

Also, striving to better oneself.

Laird: The best way to love yourself is to help another person.

Dan: I have zero need of loving myself. You need to think about why it is that people have such a need.

I'll do that.

Laird: I am trying to show you love.

Dan: What does love mean in this context?

The demonstration was unsuccessful...

Laird: Showing is an act of realisation.

Dan: You are typing words at me. That's all that I realise. I cannot know your mind - and frankly I'm not sure I want to :)

It's probably saner to know your own mind. :-)

Laird: Arrogance is believing that there is nothing more to learn.

Dan: Stupidity is thinking there is more to learn when there isn't.

I rest assured that there are no dense people.

Laird: Seeking to lead, I experience a shrinking. We lead each other.

Dan: Seriously, are you getting this stuff from a New Age quote book?

It's original. I guess you have to be in a certain frame of mind to get meaning from it.

Laird: Yes, life is an endless process of learning how to love better.

Dan: I think you need to decide what you specifically mean by the term "love".

It means different things in different contexts, although I am using it more widely than most other words that I use.

Laird: Is the pose of a sage more loving than uncertain honesty? Perhaps I am an uncertain sage.

Dan: You're tossing "loving" round like confetti but it doesn't seem to actually mean anything.

It's a way of viewing life.

Laird: Love and the ego are not distinct.

Dan: Yes, I know, that's the whole problem.

The concept of ego has a valid and useful meaning or the word would not exist.

Laird: It seems to me that you might not trust in your power to impress.

Dan: I have no need to impress. My power to do so is something I never think about. Impressed?

Cautious.

Dan: It is an acknowledgement of a need for another to fulfill us in some way.

Laird: I prefer to view it as acknowledgement of a desire to fulfill another in some way.

Dan: That doesn't make it any better or virtuous. It just means you're facilitating that kind of egotism in another person.

Laird: What is virtuous? A loving ego.

Dan: What possible virtue can there be in delusion? What do you value?

Honesty, intention, imagination, attention to detail, avoidance of harm.

Dan: Fear of the commitment implicit in the statement.

Laird: It can be instantaneous - why not view the statement as equivalent to "I love you in the present moment"?

Dan: Actions divorced from awareness of consequence is my idea of idiocy.

Laird: In the moment there is no consequence.

Dan: Look up "trite" in the dictionary. This is the sort of nonsensical point a really feminine woman would make. There is always another moment; if there wasn't the world would end.

Sure, but what are the consequences of something that is intended momentarily? Anyhow, I concede that your point is valid and I don't expect you to take on board my suggestion.

Dan: Love is a awful lot of things for you, it seems.

Have I been laying it on a little thick? ;-) I've been on a high; I'll tone it down a little.

Laird: At this point in the dialogue I would like to express my gratitudes for the openings that you have all afforded me.

Dan: I bet you say that to all the girls ;)

Well I don't say it to the boys, in case you were wondering.