Re: Different types of love

[Guest guest]

Tom,

An interesting post. That there are so many different kinds of love really isn't a surprise. The ancient Greeks and Romans had many different words for "love" each basically describing the variety mentioned in that list. That's kind of a failing in our language since we only have one word for all of there. Sure there are modifiers, but the one powerful word is still there and can cause confusion.

For the rest I will just focus one human relationships. I think the biggest problem we have today is the idea that everyone must be in a relationship to be of value as a person. It doesn't matter if it is really a good relationship or a terrible one, just so long as you are in one and it looks nice to everyone else. This a condition that has been spread from the romantic fairy tales, plays up to the present (Romeo and t is a prime example), movies and the other media, not to mention the modern day women's and girl's magazines. Men's magazines have some on this, but they tend to be more unashamedly about hook-ups and one night stands, though it seems many women's magazines focus along the same lines.

This is all ruthlessly enforced in the teen years. The popular people ALWAYS are in relationships. The average people usually are, and those that aren't are cast to the bottom of the heap. Since no NT teen wants to be at the bottom, they will try to keep some kind of relationship going, even if it is a bad one. When I was in my mid 20's I chatted online with this girl was 15 years old. I had no intention of taking that anywhere, mind you, but we would talk online. What amazed me about her was one day she was talking about how she wanted a boyfriend, or man as she called it, but wasn't finding anyone. Well, she tells me one day she has met this great guy: he was 6'10", built and noone messed with him. Of course, it didn't sink in to her that he had just gotten out of prison for putting his previous girlfriend in the hospital. So it was no surprise when several times she told me that he had hit her or whatever, but she would never leave him. He even used her to hook up his over 18 friends with her underage friends. It was a bad scene and I eventually blocked her since I got itred of it.

I have also known guys in bad relationships. Several guys I have knows stayed with manipulative women or gold diggers that spent them into the ground. I don't know why they never left these people, but they didn't. Of course, I have also seen guys who thought everything was going along just fine, only to come home and find the wife and kids gone and divorce papers on the table. At least one guy I know the reason was some banal as that his wife was not satisfied sexually with him (he was mild she wanted wild).

On the other hand, there are a lot of people sitting on the fence waiting for the right one to come along. This again goes back to the media thing. Women in particular are told to wait for their Prince Charming sugar daddy to come along who will pamper them and give them endless money to spend. I could go into anatomical details that I have seen mentioned in some women's magazines too, but I think you can get where I am going (I think it might have been Cosmo a month or so ago that had a cover article about handling surprises in you date's pants [notice the tacit endorsement of promiscuity?]) This is one reason Japan's birthrate is so low. Most girls continue to live at home off of their parents while they spend thier personal money on junk while waiting for Mr. Perfect to come along. Their mister perfect is pretty much a sugar daddy, and most Japanese men, like elsewhere, really don't fit that profile. The result? Many men have given up even looking for women since they know they will turned down for lack of income. So both sides just party it up, or stay at home with all their toys and gadgets.

In the US and Europe it is not quite as bad. In the US it is more about height and percieved physical prowess as much as income. I have seen surveys and studies that show short men, like myself, are pretty much ruled out from the get go. No need trying to tell me it isn't so as I see it every time I go out. Sure I get some social smiles from the smiley types, but that's it. I have been out with taller and single friends and seen the women staring at them and ignoring me, that or making snide comments and laughing. The emphasis on pure appearance, both physical and presentation of wealth, is amazing.

Then amongst the lower classes, fighting ability is prized. A friend of mine, lower class but rising (he is smart and put himself through college) told me that many girls of his class would tell him to fight if anyone so much as looked at her wrong and would try to get him in fights. Personally, I find that the mark of people who need to be sterilized as they are throwbacks to the last stage of human evolution. Once I even had one try to get a guy to fight me. Apparantly she was attracted to me but wanted to see me fight first before she would make a move. Not knowing this I was kind of surprised when this guy came up all hostile like. Now, I didn't fight the guy for a couple of reasons (I will tell the story if anyone asks). Anyway, after that I noticed the girl hanging around with the other guys and obviously bad mouthing me.

I really think that the relationship thing is totally messed up. People look for things they won't find, or are looking for the wrong things to begin with. Either way, if they end up with someone, they will most likely find reality isn't like the Hollywood, fairy tale and magazine world they believed in. Some will tough it out, but many don't.

Sorry, kind of lost my train of thought and rambled there.

[Guest guest]

I find this topic absolutely facinating and could literally spend

YEARS discussing it.

There are as many ways to discuss love as there are ways to define it.

I can tell you that I used to and still do think about love in terms

of it's many grades and levels. For humans, it's a complex " thing "

and so it should be, given how complex humans are. But within the

past couple of years, I have been studing animals intensely, and have

also developed a somewhat simplistic point of view that can be

applied to humans to describe SOME of their behaviors regarding love.

Be warned, what follows is somewhat raunchy. Sensitive ears beware.

(And while I am at this point, let me say that when we talk about

sensitive issues like sex, drugs, whatever in this forum, we ought to

predicate these discussions with a warning as to the nature of the

content. And know that vulgarity will not be tolerated. Mature

discussion will be, but not obscenity. If you want to bring up a

sensitive topic and are unsure about whether or not or how to do so,

send me an e-mail and we can discuss whether or not it should be

discussed or how to discuss it.)

Anyway, to continue, I believe that even animals can love. Some

people may not recognize that because they do not understand animals.

In fact, I would wager that many people think animals ARE capable of

love, and that they have WITNESSED animals expressing love, when in

fact they have not witnessed it at all.

Lets talk about my favorite subject: Cats.

Cats have an interesting way of reaffirming clannish bonding and

attachment. When two lions, for example, rub their faces up against

each other, they are expressing affection. Cats have scent glands in

their faces, and when they rub up against each other like that, they

are marking each other as their territory, and also combining their

scents into one.

Thus if you see a lion rub its face against another and the other one

does NOT reciprocate, it is an indicator that the other one does NOT

have the same feeling of mutual bonding. It is simply allowing the

other to express affection or is allowing the other to mark it as its

territory. But if the second lion reciprocates, then the feeling is

mutual.

The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration, is that

the second most dangerous weapon a cat has are it's teeth and jaws

(claws being the first). A lion's jaws can crush a zebra's neck and

spine and kill it within minutes. (One swipe of a lion's paw, even

without the claws extended, incidentally, can break a smaller

animal's back.) And so when a lion allows another to approach it and

allows the second most leathal weapon a lion has to get in direct

contact with its body, it means that the one being touched feels it

can trust the other one.

And so when you are sitting in a chair and a cat comes up to you and

starts rubbing its face against yours, it is expressing affection for

you. the two of you are becoming one by combining facial scents.

On the other hand, when a cat is twirling around your legs and

rubbing it's face on your pants legs, all it's doing is marking you

as its territory. It is not combining scents, ergo, it's not

expressing love. It's just making you its property.

Now let's take a look at cat sex and how IT relates to cat love.

(Here is the sensitive part. Squeamish leave now!)

Cats do not just go at it. There is courtship involved first:

" When the male and and female cat locate each other, there is usually

a period of prolonged courtship. At first, the female resists the

male's advances, despite acting provocatively towards him.

(Leyhausen, 1979). There is a considerable amount of visual and vocal

communication, which is essential in reassuring these dangerous

carnivores that their intentions toward each other are mutual....The

male and female [cheetah] may spend several days together hunting

side by side " (pp. 181-182). The Natural History of the Wild Cats,

Kitchener, 1991, Comstock Publishing Associates, New York.

Other cats display similar behaviors.

" Although most carnivores are also probably induced ovulators, they

tend to have highly-developed penis bones or bacula for stimulating

the walls of the vagina and the cervix, which is necessary for

ovulation. Cats have poorly developed bacula..., but make up for this

by having a penis covered in keratinous spines " (p. 183).

The end result is that the female cries out during mating, possibly

because she is in pain from these spines piercing the inner walls of

her reproductive organs. She also swats at the male (who is pinning

her down at the neck with his teeth) afterwards.

And yet:

" Leyhausen found that in captivity a female would not scream out or

attack the male after mating if she knew him well " (p. 183).

Further, lions mate as many as 100 times a day over as many as 7

days. (A female has 6 to 7 days of estrus). (Kitchener, 186)

Now, one COULD call this mating period SOLELY a period of LUST,

rather than love. For that you have to think about cats mating this

way:

1) The male mounts the female.

2) The male's spines cause the female pain.

3) She screams.

4) She turns over and whacks him to drive him off.

5) And after a well-deserved three or four minute rest, they are at

it again.

One could argue they just cannot stop themselves.

But there is a period of courtship involved. And studies show that

females will and do reject certain suitors, fighting them off if they

can. There have also been witnessed occassions where hunting females

will stray from the pride and will reject the advances of rougue

males, even though they may be helpless, undefended, and in estrus.

This implies a degree of commitment to the pride male.

And when a new male enters the pride and drives off the old pride

male, the first thing he will do is kill any and all cubs to bring

the females into estrus, the final goal being to mate with the

females. But the females, though ready for sex, do not submit, but

will fend off the male until he successfully dominates them into

submission.

The allegiance of the females to the old pride male is unswerving to

the bitter end, even though they have witnessed that driving off of

the old pride male.

There has been witnessed other forms of affection and rememberence.

The most remarkable I've seen on TV was when an old pride male died,

and one of the most loyal females of the pride went to sniff at him

right under the watchful gaze of the new male. It has been witnessed

also that if the bones of dead males remain undisturbed, certain

pride females will revisit them over and over again, even though

there is nothing to be had from them.

Elephants also do this. It was either Mark and Delia Owens or else

Derrick and Beverly Joubert who made the mistake of picking up an

elephant tusk and keeping it in the back of their vehicle, meaning to

give it to the game warden the next morning so that the poachers

wouldn't take it and sell it on the black market. Imagine their

suprise when they woke up during the night to find themselves being

attacked by an elephant, who first battered the truck, and then found

and remove the tusk with its trunk and smashed it to pieces on the

ground, finally wedging the fragments in the crotch of a tall tree.

Animals have feelings. Animals display anger and irritation, have

demonstrated remembrence of the dead, and arguably have also

demonstrated loyalty, love and lust.

I see similar behavior in humans.

Now the depth and breadth of what HUMAN BEINGS call love is open to

debate, but my opinion is that life would be much easier if we tried

to acknowledge and accept the animal side of us too.

In other words, we can be over-intellectual and over-analytical.

Let me point out that I am somewhat of a religious Christian. And by

being so, I understand that according to what I have been taught,

human beings were made to be " superior " to animals. The Bible does

say that we are given charge over them, ergo, we must be superior to

them by reason of being given this responsibility. (Whether we are or

are not superior to animals is a subject for another debate, perhaps).

Nowehere in the Bible (that I am aware of) does it say that we are

animals. But, even if we had no Biblical or scientific evidence to

suggest that we are animals, I would posit that we are anyway.

Scientific evidence suggests that we are very closely related to

chimps, we share 98% of their DNA. But casual oobservance shows that

chimps and humans share various behavioral traits. Surely even if God

(if there is a God) made us superior, he made us SIMILAR to other

animals as can be seen by similar behavior patterns between our

species amd others, particularly ours in comparrision with the great

apeas. So it's not such a stretch to say that we ARE animals.

Thus it would appear to be worthwhile to learn from what animals can

teach us about love and sex.

I happen to regard animals as different, not primative. But let's say

for the sake of argument that ALL animals are primative. Primative

though they are, what they can teach us is that, while certain

proprieties are customarily observed (courtship, the mating dance,

the mating itself), animals tend not to sweat the details. They do

not sit around philosophizing as we do about what love or sex is.

Obviously, there is some evaluative criteria in the animal world.

Not all male suitors are accepted by females, and this hold true for

most if not ALL species. But even for animals with lifespans longer

than ours (certain parrots and tortoises) the evaluation is seasonal

and permanent. Once a suitor is rejected the first time it tries to

court, it is seldom if ever accepted during the female's entire

lifespan, and this holds true for most species.

Whereas we humans involve ourselves in possibly unworkable

relationships for years and years believing that these relationships

MIGHT work out, or that the potential partners MIGHT change, etc.

And the opposite is also true. We also heed the warnings of people

who say " You're moving too fast. "

Objectivity is definitely necessary, but too much objectivity tends

to rule our actions too much, I believe (for some people anyway).

Let it be stated here that I am a firm believer in monogamy, and am

against sleeping around, but at the same time, I think that there are

a lot of people who are wasting their lives because they are:

A) Sitting around in relationships that will never work out instead

of facing the facts and moving on,

or

Looking around for other potentially better mates while failing to

recognize that by working on relationships that they are currently

involved in, they could have happy and long lasting relationships

with their current partners.

or

C) NOT moving faster in the relationships they are in.

Instinct, intuition, soulmate; These are all terms that I think

society tends to view superstitiously, and I think that doing so is

counter-productive to fostering true relationships.

What I am saying here by way of conclusion is that Inger's

classifications of love below are ONE facet to the relationship

diamond, and that the animalistic side also needs to be given wieght.

Now for some people, that does not apply. For me it does.

Up until recently, I was very evaluative and did not recognize that,

not only was I human, but an animal as well.

Others, I believe, are too much the animal, and they would do well to

view what Inger posted very carefully and learn from it.

All together, I think this is a fascinating topic, and I think it's

great that Inger brought it up. I'm eager to hear what all of you

have to say, so let's not let this topic die if we can help it. Okay?

[And the rest of the board reading my post right now thinks: " The sex

part of your post was juicy, Zoo, but before and after

that...Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. " ]

Tom

> Anyone else notice that there are so many different types of love

and

> attraction? Since I enjoy listing things, here's an attempt to sort

them

> out:

>

>

> 1. SPIRITUAL

>

> a) Spiritual attraction.

> Feeling attracted to someone on a higher level, probably

the " agape " of

> which Plato spoke (now known as " Platonic love " ) which is so

etheral that it

> need not be lived out physically.

>

> Spiritual connection with others of the same " type " .

> Can be personal or impersonal, just a sense of belonging together,

> regardless of if there is a mutual liking or not, and regardless of

whether

> one has contact or not. This is how I feel about many aspies and

friends.

> Like a " spiritual family " so to speak, though only a handful feel

really

> close and rest like more distant relatives.

>

>

> 2. MENTAL

>

> a) Mental admiration.

> Enjoying reading or listening to someone with a brilliant mind,

without

> necessarily feeling any of the other types of attraction.

>

> Intellectual companionship/understanding.

> Talking the same language, understanding each other. Often combined

with

> frienship or partnership.

>

> c) Mental empathy.

> Intellectual understanding of another person's problem, with or

without an

> accompanying feeling of sympathy (= co-feeling).

>

>

> 3. EMOTIONAL

>

> a) Friendship.

> May be felt for anyone, regardless of age, or gender.

>

> Affection.

> This too can be felt for anyone, including animals and plants.

>

> c) Parental love.

> Seems to be one of the strongest and most enduring forms of love

there is.

> Love for one's kin seems to be a somewhat milder variation of it.

>

> d) Compassion.

>

> e) Idol worship from a safe distance.

> A totally one-way affair. Can sometimes become total obsession.

>

> f) Romantic love.

> Cuddly " heart " feeling, often accompanied by cloudy head, temporary

loss of

> judgement and inability to see the other person in anything but the

best

> light. Those sides are actually there and the in-love state of mind

only

> enables one to percieve what may not be obvious otherwise. It's

just that

> there are other sides too... :-)

>

> g) Passionate desire, including erotic.

> Personality type that turns one on. May accompany romantic love and

other

> forms of attraction.

>

>

> 4. PHYSICAL

>

> a) Admiration of physical beauty.

> People who have physical beauty can be but are not always

attractive. I can

> enjoy resting my eyes on a handsome movie star, but very, very few

are

> actually attractive to me.

>

> Physical attraction.

> Feeling attracted to a certain body type/look and just wanting to

touch

> and/or look at that person, though not necessarily in an erotic way.

>

> c) Physical sexual attraction.

> Body type that turns one on.

>

>

> These feelings can be sublte or intense, fleeting or enduring, and

one can

> feel all, some or only one of the above types of

> love/attraction/affection/admiration for any one person.

>

> And for several people simultaneously or alternately.

>

> Also, one's feelings can be primarily selfish or unselfish, or a

combination

> of both. " True love " is wanting the OTHER what is best for others,

even if

> it does not satisfy one's own immediate needs or wants. For

example, to pat

> a pet who is looking to be so is a mutually gratifying expression

of love

> ,whereas to be able to withold an impulse to pat an animal while it

is

> eating (since that would most likely only be annoying it) even

though one's

> hands are longing to touch it, is a form of empathic understanding

of how it

> will feel for the animal, respect and true unselfish love for that

animal,

> proven in action. This is usually a lot harder for most people.

>

> It is easy to confuse the intense feeling one may have for a person

or

> animal, with actual love (of the type that is more beneficial to

the object

> than to the feeler). Often the love one feels is more or less

tinged with

> fear, jealousy, unrealistic unspoken expectations and being so

swamped by

> one's own subconscious needs that there is no real energy left to

actually

> put oneself in the other person's shoes and act from that

understanding.

>

> There is also self-empathy, self-respect and self-love. If one does

not have

> those, I belive it is hard to really have them for anyone else. But

if one

> truly understands, accepts and respects oneself, then it doesn't

really

> matter if anyone else does. If they do, that's just a bonus. If

they don't,

> well, then it's their loss. Nothing much to worry about or take

personally.

>

> Would be interesting to hear if anyone else has reflected on these

different

> types of love and which type they feel for the various people in

their

> lives. And which of them they primarily go by when choosing a

partner.

>

> Inger

[Guest guest]

Very interesting points you bring up here, . I thoroughly enjoyed your "rambling".

I didn't know that about lower class women wanting their males to fight. This might explain why this working class Irish BF I had always got into fights. I found it appalling and could not understand why. (Or how he managed to find anyone to fight with in Stockholm. We're not exactly vikings anymore over here.) :-)

I totally agree that it's annoying with this social pressure to be in a relationship to have any status in a group. And that you have to have a certain body type or income to get into a relationship in the first place (funny that about Japan, I didn't know that either). But am I wrong in beliving this is less true in the Aspie community?

I have never chosen a partner by height, looks or income. Usually it has been either sexual attraction (to their personality type, not their looks) or mental connection/sharing the same philosophy and/or simply falling in love. Only my Aspie XH was somwhat affluent, but we had separate economies and I never accepted a penny from him (which suited him fine since he was rather fond of his money). :-)

Even though my mother actually did her best to induce romantic fantasies in my teenage head (=to marry rich, like her sister did), her own actions were that of an independant woman who left my abusive father, got an education and supported herself, and I guess it is true that we are more inclined to do as our parents DO, and not as they SAY. Because I would frankly feel stifled if I were to accept money from a spouse or a partner. Just thinking about it makes me feel uncomfortable. I guess it's different if you have children together, but I can't even imagine myself in such a situation.

On a more philosophical note, I think the somewhat chaotic relationship situation we see in the West today is due to humanity as a whole nearing this "quantum leap" in human consciousness development, of which some have written (e.g. & Seebach in their book "Opening to the Infinite") and which has been predicted for a long time (e.g. by Rudolf Steiner and Alice ). It is as if the slow pace of learning that has been taking place under millions of years has suddenly been shifted into overdrive and going faster and faster at an exponential rate. As if God/evolution/the Universe (or whatever you want to call it) has finally lost patience with us and decided that we need to be woken up and evolve more quickly; to become aware of both our best and our worst sides by having them come out into the open.

This is what we see around us today; on the one hand more materialism, selfishness, brutality, pornography etc., and on the other more concern for the environment, for child-, animal- and human rights. The level of tolerance and true concern we see today, I see as a huge step forward.

I also think that the growing trend towards individuality and away from herd mentality which the West is currently leading - and of which we Aspies may in turn be the avant-garde (whether we are aware of it or not) - is something that may at first induce more chaos and selfishness (e.g. changing partners as one changes one's overcoat even though children may be severely affected by it) but that it will lead to a situation where we will find a balance between the old FORCED life-long monogamy & hard-working austerity, and the rather immature excesses we see (and perhaps parttake in ourselves) today.

What we are witnessing is simply the predictable overindulgance effect of a millennia-old cultural/religious oppression being removed. I believe that eventually we will get sick of the excesses of our current culture and learn to once again appreciate a simpler lifestyle and more stable and lasting relationships that are built on true spiritual connection, in which the parties are more independant in themselves (both emotionally, economically etc.) so that the relationship becomes more like a dance between two mature and self-contained individuals than a mutual co-dependence.

And (as I've mentioned earlier) I eventually see this development leading to once again merging in small gropus, as free, independant individuals who are in the group of their own free will and contribute as much as they can and want to - not unlike what we are doing in mail-groups actually, but on a physical level (e.g. living in groups rather than one- or two-parent family units).

But first we really do have to "find ourselves" and become whole and mentally independent, so as to not risk losing our individuality in the group. Because it is with our individuality we contribute, not with our compliance and trying to be a good "Borg". Those days are definitely over.

And on the road to finding ourselves, I actually believe that changing partners as often some of us do/have done, is a way to grow very rapidly, IF you have the attitude of learning something about yourself through the other person and from the mistakes you make. Friands, adversaries, family members and internet contacts also provide excellent opportunities to learn and evolve. Since I got my computer almost two years ago, I have learned so much about myself through the Internet friends I have made, that I actually have not needed a RL partner to learn from or share things with. And as IRL, it is often the difficult situations I have learned most from.

Inger

> An interesting post. That there are so many different kinds of love really isn't a surprise. The ancient Greeks and Romans had many different words for "love" each basically describing the variety mentioned in that list. That's kind of a failing in our language since we only have one word for all of there. Sure there are modifiers, but the one powerful word is still there and can cause confusion.

> For the rest I will just focus one human relationships. I think the biggest problem we have today is the idea that everyone must be in a relationship to be of value as a person. It doesn't matter if it is really a good relationship or a terrible one, just so long as you are in one and it looks nice to everyone else. This a condition that has been spread from the romantic fairy tales, plays up to the present (Romeo and t is a prime example), movies and the other media, not to mention the modern day women's and girl's magazines. Men's magazines have some on this, but they tend to be more unashamedly about hook-ups and one night stands, though it seems many women's magazines focus along the same lines.

> This is all ruthlessly enforced in the teen years. The popular people ALWAYS are in relationships. The average people usually are, and those that aren't are cast to the bottom of the heap. Since no NT teen wants to be at the bottom, they will try to keep some kind of relationship going, even if it is a bad one. When I was in my mid 20's I chatted online with this girl was 15 years old. I had no intention of taking that anywhere, mind you, but we would talk online. What amazed me about her was one day she was talking about how she wanted a boyfriend, or man as she called it, but wasn't finding anyone. Well, she tells me one day she has met this great guy: he was 6'10", built and noone messed with him. Of course, it didn't sink in to her that he had just gotten out of prison for putting his previous girlfriend in the hospital. So it was no surprise when several times she told me that he had hit her or whatever, but she would never leave him. He even used her to hook up his over 18 friends with her underage friends. It was a bad scene and I eventually blocked her since I got itred of it.

> I have also known guys in bad relationships. Several guys I have knows stayed with manipulative women or gold diggers that spent them into the ground. I don't know why they never left these people, but they didn't. Of course, I have also seen guys who thought everything was going along just fine, only to come home and find the wife and kids gone and divorce papers on the table. At least one guy I know the reason was some banal as that his wife was not satisfied sexually with him (he was mild she wanted wild).

> On the other hand, there are a lot of people sitting on the fence waiting for the right one to come along. This again goes back to the media thing. Women in particular are told to wait for their Prince Charming sugar daddy to come along who will pamper them and give them endless money to spend. I could go into anatomical details that I have seen mentioned in some women's magazines too, but I think you can get where I am going (I think it might have been Cosmo a month or so ago that had a cover article about handling surprises in you date's pants [notice the tacit endorsement of promiscuity?]) This is one reason Japan's birthrate is so low. Most girls continue to live at home off of their parents while they spend thier personal money on junk while waiting for Mr. Perfect to come along. Their mister perfect is pretty much a sugar daddy, and most Japanese men, like elsewhere, really don't fit that profile. The result? Many men have given up even looking for women since they know they will turned down for lack of income. So both sides just party it up, or stay at home with all their toys and gadgets.

> In the US and Europe it is not quite as bad. In the US it is more about height and percieved physical prowess as much as income. I have seen surveys and studies that show short men, like myself, are pretty much ruled out from the get go. No need trying to tell me it isn't so as I see it every time I go out. Sure I get some social smiles from the smiley types, but that's it. I have been out with taller and single friends and seen the women staring at them and ignoring me, that or making snide comments and laughing. The emphasis on pure appearance, both physical and presentation of wealth, is amazing.

> Then amongst the lower classes, fighting ability is prized. A friend of mine, lower class but rising (he is smart and put himself through college) told me that many girls of his class would tell him to fight if anyone so much as looked at her wrong and would try to get him in fights. Personally, I find that the mark of people who need to be sterilized as they are throwbacks to the last stage of human evolution. Once I even had one try to get a guy to fight me. Apparantly she was attracted to me but wanted to see me fight first before she would make a move. Not knowing this I was kind of surprised when this guy came up all hostile like. Now, I didn't fight the guy for a couple of reasons (I will tell the story if anyone asks). Anyway, after that I noticed the girl hanging around with the other guys and obviously bad mouthing me.

> I really think that the relationship thing is totally messed up. People look for things they won't find, or are looking for the wrong things to begin with. Either way, if they end up with someone, they will most likely find reality isn't like the Hollywood, fairy tale and magazine world they believed in. Some will tough it out, but many don't.

> Sorry, kind of lost my train of thought and rambled there.

> Remember, we're all in this together. It behooves us to be supportive of one another and to participate fully in all this group has to offer. Zoologist AdministratorFAM Secret Society

[Guest guest]

Tom,

You are right in that one of the biggest problems is the selfish me-ism that affects Western Society. Much of that has to do with the things I have mentioned, but there are other factors as well. Two major factors in the US are no-fault divorce and state controlled child support and alimony collections. Prior to the introduction of no-fault divorce, most couples toughed out problems or sought help to fix them. Afterwards it was just easier to walk away from a "bad marriage" and then fight over the spoils. This is where the courts come in. There is this idea over here about deadbeat dads who don't pay their child support and all. I know cases like this do happen because my father was like that (thank goodness I had grandparents that helped up out and that includes my father's parents). So the solution was for the state to take over collections instead of leaving it to private lawyers. Of course, the state also gets a cut for its trouble. This has lead to a lot of abuse by the system.

I believe Ireland adopted no-fault divorce back in the late 80's or early 90's and saw a big spike in divorces as well, maybe it was England.

There are other things, but I'm not sure I want to go into them since they might create a stir.

The height matter is probably the biggest one still around. As stated, I have seen a lot of nice looking and presentable women that don't pay me any mind. This also extends into the cyber world. A number of times I have had women end otherwise good conversations once they found out I'm 5'4". By the same token, I placed personal adds that listed height. I never got a single reply to any of those. A couple of fake ones got quite a few. Once I posted two adds on the same site. The only difference real difference was that one said my real height and the other said 6'4". I even had pictures of me, not the same but pretty obvious it was the same guy. The second one got several responses while the first got none.

Physical size might have counted for a lot back in the caveman days, but even that is somewhat debatable, at least as far as homo sapiens goes. True one needed to be a great hunter back then, but with Sapiens, it has been found that people began specializing in labor. This made brains and talent very important. It would not surprise me if some of the more intelligent and possibly Aspie types were sitting around camp making axes and bows for the hunters, and making good trades for things in addition to that. That is like today. Save for sports stars and Hollywood, it is the smartest people that make the most money these days. A line backer could clean Bill Gate's clock, but Gates could buy his team and fire him.

In all fairness you are right. Much of this stuff is genetically ingrained in both males and females. There are key traits we look for in others, though some are less affected by them than others. Usually what I look at first is the eyes. Even though Aspies have trouble reading them, I am looking a spark of intelligence in there. Hmm, I'm running short on time before class tonight so I'll have to pick this up later.

[Guest guest]

Tom:

> I believe that even animals can love. Some people may not

recognize that because they do not understand animals. In fact,

I would wager that many people think animals ARE capable of

love, and that they have WITNESSED animals expressing love,

when in fact they have not witnessed it at all.

Such as when?

> Lets talk about my favorite subject: Cats.

Yes!

> Cats have an interesting way of reaffirming clannish bonding and

attachment. When two lions, for example, rub their faces up against

each other, they are expressing affection. Cats have scent glands in

their faces, and when they rub up against each other like that, they

are marking each other as their territory, and also combining their

scents into one.

> Thus if you see a lion rub its face against another and the other one

does NOT reciprocate, it is an indicator that the other one does NOT

have the same feeling of mutual bonding. It is simply allowing the

other to express affection or is allowing the other to mark it as its

territory. But if the second lion reciprocates, then the feeling is

mutual.

Yes. I have seen examples of both. There is a clear difference (though I

wasn't so aware of it until now that you point it out).

> The other thing that needs to be taken into consideration, is that

the second most dangerous weapon a cat has are it's teeth and jaws

(claws being the first). A lion's jaws can crush a zebra's neck and

spine and kill it within minutes. (One swipe of a lion's paw, even

without the claws extended, incidentally, can break a smaller

animal's back.) And so when a lion allows another to approach it and

allows the second most leathal weapon a lion has to get in direct

contact with its body, it means that the one being touched feels it

can trust the other one.

Interesting. Hadn't thought of that. But I remember being amazed at how

gently a puli (= hungarian sheep dog with rasta beads) we used to have could

play with a tiny little kitten, mock biting it without ever hurting it, and

how the kitten with it's needle sharp claws would make soft swipes at the

puli's head without ever scratching it, though it would have been easy

enough to tear her eyes out if it had wanted to. They were best friends and

totally trusted each other.

> And so when you are sitting in a chair and a cat comes up to you and

starts rubbing its face against yours, it is expressing affection for

you. The two of you are becoming one by combining facial scents.

Yes. With my empatic ability to feel what animals are feeling, I can confirm

that this is truly the case. I can feel it between big cats too when

watching them on TV. And between tigers in a zoo and some of the keepers

they have bonded with. It is very touching to see (and feel).

> On the other hand, when a cat is twirling around your legs and

rubbing it's face on your pants legs, all it's doing is marking you

as its territory. It is not combining scents, ergo, it's not

expressing love. It's just making you its property.

Yes. And often wanting something from you, like food or to be patted. (We

have one cat here whom I have renamed " pat me " because she really *demands*

it.)

> Now let's take a look at cat sex and how IT relates to cat love.

(Here is the sensitive part. Squeamish leave now!)

:-D

> Cats do not just go at it. There is courtship involved first:

> " When the male and and female cat locate each other, there is usually

a period of prolonged courtship. At first, the female resists the

male's advances, despite acting provocatively towards him.

(Leyhausen, 1979). There is a considerable amount of visual and vocal

communication, which is essential in reassuring these dangerous

carnivores that their intentions toward each other are mutual....The

male and female [cheetah] may spend several days together hunting

side by side " (pp. 181-182). The Natural History of the Wild Cats,

Kitchener, 1991, Comstock Publishing Associates, New York.

> Other cats display similar behaviors.

> " Although most carnivores are also probably induced ovulators, they

tend to have highly-developed penis bones or bacula for stimulating

the walls of the vagina and the cervix, which is necessary for

ovulation. Cats have poorly developed bacula..., but make up for this

by having a penis covered in keratinous spines " (p. 183).

:-o (Ouch!)

> The end result is that the female cries out during mating, possibly

because she is in pain from these spines piercing the inner walls of

her reproductive organs. She also swats at the male (who is pinning

her down at the neck with his teeth) afterwards.

Aha! So THAT's why! This makes total sense (finally). I've often wondered

about this.

> And yet:

> " Leyhausen found that in captivity a female would not scream out

or attack the male after mating if she knew him well " (p. 183).

Hmm, how would you explain that then?

> Further, lions mate as many as 100 times a day over as many as 7

days. (A female has 6 to 7 days of estrus). (Kitchener, 186)

Wow!

> Now, one COULD call this mating period SOLELY a period of

LUST, rather than love. For that you have to think about cats mating

this way:

> 1) The male mounts the female.

> 2) The male's spines cause the female pain.

> 3) She screams.

> 4) She turns over and whacks him to drive him off.

> 5) And after a well-deserved three or four minute rest, they are at

it again.

> One could argue they just cannot stop themselves.

> But there is a period of courtship involved. And studies show that

females will and do reject certain suitors, fighting them off if they

can. There have also been witnessed occassions where hunting females

will stray from the pride and will reject the advances of rougue

males, even though they may be helpless, undefended, and in estrus.

> This implies a degree of commitment to the pride male.

Yes.

> And when a new male enters the pride and drives off the old

pride male, the first thing he will do is kill any and all cubs to

bring the females into estrus, the final goal being to mate with the

females. But the females, though ready for sex, do not submit, but

will fend off the male until he successfully dominates them into

submission.

> The allegiance of the females to the old pride male is unswerving

to the bitter end, even though they have witnessed that driving off of

the old pride male.

Interesting. But hardly surprising, considering how closely bonded

especially lions are.

> There has been witnessed other forms of affection and rememberence.

The most remarkable I've seen on TV was when an old pride male died,

and one of the most loyal females of the pride went to sniff at him

right under the watchful gaze of the new male. It has been witnessed

also that if the bones of dead males remain undisturbed, certain

pride females will revisit them over and over again, even though

there is nothing to be had from them.

Awww.

> Elephants also do this. It was either Mark and Delia Owens or else

Derrick and Beverly Joubert who made the mistake of picking up an

elephant tusk and keeping it in the back of their vehicle, meaning to

give it to the game warden the next morning so that the poachers

wouldn't take it and sell it on the black market. Imagine their

suprise when they woke up during the night to find themselves being

attacked by an elephant, who first battered the truck, and then found

and remove the tusk with its trunk and smashed it to pieces on the

ground, finally wedging the fragments in the crotch of a tall tree.

Wow! Elephants actually seem very emotional, both from what I have seen on

TV and from what I can feel empathically. Oddly for such huge animals, their

feelings are actually very delicate. Often much more so than most humans'

feelings. Did you happen to see the footage of those two elephants who had

been separated for a very long time and were later reunited, and the

unmistakable joy they displayed when seeing each other again? It was one of

the most touchting scenes I have ever seen. And how they grieve their dead.

I can feel that they really do.

> Animals have feelings. Animals display anger and irritation,

have demonstrated remembrence of the dead, and arguably have

also demonstrated loyalty, love and lust.

> I see similar behavior in humans.

Yes. But there are many different " feeling type " , and just like it varies

between species I believe it varies between human types. Around the same

time as I realized that I was probably autistic, I also realized that my

feeling type and way of functining is a lot more like that of a cat. Whereas

most humans seem to feel and function more like dogs.

Dogs' feelings are much more passionate, deep, intense, acute, easy to hurt

and reaching over a much wider spectrum than those of a cat. This is

mirrored in dogs' voice- and hearing range spanning so many octaves. Their

feelings range from the most passionate love to the deepest resentment,

viciousness and fear. Anyone who has heard a dog whine and squeal will be in

no doubt as to how hurt it can feel when ignored or rebuked.

Cats are usually more aloof and values physical comfort and harmony more

than anything. Their soft feeings seem to only range from affection &

selfish hedonism to being somewhat miffed & indignant when things aren't

going their way.

For dogs, being loved, appreciated and part of a flock seems to be most

important, so they will gladly suffer any physical or other discomfort just

to be accepted and loved. Dogs also seem to appreciate excitement,

stimulation and change and don't mind obeying orders and finding their place

in a strict hierarchy.

A cat usually wants predictability when it comes to others, but personal

freedom to follow impulses when it comes to itself.

A dog gobbles, a cat nibbles. At food and at life.

> Now the depth and breadth of what HUMAN BEINGS call love is open to

debate, but my opinion is that life would be much easier if we tried to

acknowledge and accept the animal side of us too.

Who says we don't?

> In other words, we can be over-intellectual and over-analytical.

So you didn't appreciate my trying to sort out all the various feelings that

we tend to clump together under one enormously misunderstood word? ;-)

> Let me point out that I am somewhat of a religious Christian. And by

being so, I understand that according to what I have been taught,

human beings were made to be " superior " to animals. The Bible does

say that we are given charge over them, ergo, we must be superior to

them by reason of being given this responsibility. (Whether we are or

are not superior to animals is a subject for another debate, perhaps).

I'd say we have a potential to be. But that we have a long way to go before

being mature enough. It is very easy for us to misinterpret things in the

Bible and not get what was actually meant.

> Nowehere in the Bible (that I am aware of) does it say that we are

animals. But, even if we had no Biblical or scientific evidence to

suggest that we are animals, I would posit that we are anyway.

Scientific evidence suggests that we are very closely related to

chimps, we share 98% of their DNA. But casual oobservance shows that

chimps and humans share various behavioral traits. Surely even if God

(if there is a God) made us superior, he made us SIMILAR to other

animals as can be seen by similar behavior patterns between our

species amd others, particularly ours in comparrision with the great

apeas. So it's not such a stretch to say that we ARE animals.

Not ONLY animals. I'd say we are animals +

This is how Swedish author Sten Andersson tabulates the differences between

kingdoms:

Mineral - matter

Plant - matter + life

Animal - matter + life + consciousness

Human - matter + life + consciousness + self-awareness

> Thus it would appear to be worthwhile to learn from what animals

can teach us about love and sex.

> I happen to regard animals as different, not primative. But let's say

for the sake of argument that ALL animals are primative. Primative

though they are, what they can teach us is that, while certain

proprieties are customarily observed (courtship, the mating dance,

the mating itself), animals tend not to sweat the details. They do

not sit around philosophizing as we do about what love or sex is.

Obviously, there is some evaluative criteria in the animal world.

Not all male suitors are accepted by females, and this hold true for

most if not ALL species. But even for animals with lifespans longer

than ours (certain parrots and tortoises) the evaluation is seasonal

and permanent. Once a suitor is rejected the first time it tries to

court, it is seldom if ever accepted during the female's entire

lifespan, and this holds true for most species.

Interesting! I didn't know that.

> Whereas we humans involve ourselves in possibly unworkable

relationships for years and years believing that these relationships

MIGHT work out, or that the potential partners MIGHT change, etc.

LOL!

> And the opposite is also true. We also heed the warnings of

people who say " You're moving too fast. "

> Objectivity is definitely necessary, but too much objectivity tends

to rule our actions too much, I believe (for some people anyway).

> Let it be stated here that I am a firm believer in monogamy, and am

against sleeping around, but at the same time, I think that there are

a lot of people who are wasting their lives because they are:

> A) Sitting around in relationships that will never work out

instead of facing the facts and moving on,

> or

> Looking around for other potentially better mates while failing

to recognize that by working on relationships that they are currently

involved in, they could have happy and long lasting relationships

with their current partners.

> or

> C) NOT moving faster in the relationships they are in.

Hmm. So whatever one does, it's wrong...? ;-))

> Instinct, intuition, soulmate; These are all terms that I think

society tends to view superstitiously, and I think that doing so is

counter-productive to fostering true relationships.

Possibly, yes.

> What I am saying here by way of conclusion is that Inger's

classifications of love below are ONE facet to the relationship

diamond, and that the animalistic side also needs to be given wieght.

But that was included in the " physical sexual attraction " and " passionate

desire " (neither of which I belive needs to be desribed in any greater

detail than that)?

> Now for some people, that does not apply. For me it does.

> Up until recently, I was very evaluative and did not recognize that,

not only was I human, but an animal as well.

I see.

> Others, I believe, are too much the animal, and they would do well

to view what Inger posted very carefully and learn from it.

I belive in balance. That we are here to learn how to develop a balanced

personality and balanced relationships. So I totally agree that those who

are overly analytical and careful may be well served to practice spontaneity

and following their instincts, and vice versa. Just like a person who has

been overly selfish and self-indulgent all of their lives may need to

develope empathy and tart taking other people's feelings into consideration

too, while someone who has been overly self-obliterating and only focused on

serving others may need to start setting limits and have some fun

themselves.

> All together, I think this is a fascinating topic, and I think it's

great that Inger brought it up. I'm eager to hear what all of you

have to say, so let's not let this topic die if we can help it. Okay?

> [And the rest of the board reading my post right now thinks:

" The sex part of your post was juicy, Zoo, but before and after

that... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. " ]

:-D

Inger

[Guest guest]

> I think the biggest problem we have today is the idea that

everyone must be in a relationship to be of value as a person. It

doesn't matter if it is really a good relationship or a terrible

one, just so long as you are in one and it looks nice to everyone

else. This a condition that has been spread from the romantic fairy

tales, plays up to the present (Romeo and t is a prime

example), movies and the other media, not to mention the modern day

women's and girl's magazines. Men's magazines have some on this, but

they tend to be more unashamedly about hook-ups and one night

stands, though it seems many women's magazines focus along the same

lines.

> This is all ruthlessly enforced in the teen years. The

popular people ALWAYS are in relationships. The average people

usually are, and those that aren't are cast to the bottom of the

heap. Since no NT teen wants to be at the bottom, they will try to

keep some kind of relationship going, even if it is a bad one.

I have observed this too. Society tends to perpetuate this and I

see it as being good mostly for placing obstacles (in the form of

ridiculous expectations and setting superficial standards for all to

follow)in the way of attaining what I believe to be the apex of the

perfect relationship.

The apex would be what Inger would call spirituality - a meeting of

the minds, in other words, and the willingness to use that sort of

union to continue the exploration of the inner self and the external

world together.

It is my belief that a true spiritual relationship enhances all

other aspects of it, providing a mutual fulfillment that feeds

itself, thereby giving people enjoyment, and also the freedom to

progress in their relationships unencumbered by the more base

emotions, such as fear, jealousy, and resentment.

> I have also known guys in bad relationships. Several guys I

have knows stayed with manipulative women or gold diggers that

spent them into the ground. I don't know why they never left these

people, but they didn't. Of course, I have also seen guys who

thought everything was going along just fine, only to come home and

find the wife and kids gone and divorce papers on the table.

And again, this would be because the spiritual connection had never

been made, or at least the spiritual relationship was dis-functional

or intermittent at best. When two people know each other backwards

and forwards, these sorts of problems simply do not occur, because,

while two people are always individuals of course, hurting the other

person in the spiritual relationship would be like hurting

themselves. If one aspect of a relationship is a unification of two

people, why would you want to hurt one of the two people in it? It

doesn't make sense.

The answer of course is that the person who does the hurting is

still operating on a ME ME ME ME SELFISH level, instead of an ME ME

US US SELFLESS level.

> At least one guy I know the reason was some banal as that his wife

was not satisfied sexually with him (he was mild she wanted wild).

I would asrgue that when a spiritual bond is achieved, the physical

aspect of the relation CAN be worked out only because for

spirituality to be maintained, all other components of the

relationship must be maintained. And aside from that, two people who

have reached that special level of bonding would WANT to seethat the

other is pleased, I should think.

> On the other hand, there are a lot of people sitting on the

fence waiting for the right one to come along. This again goes back

to the media thing. Women in particular are told to wait for their

Prince Charming sugar daddy to come along who will pamper them and

give them endless money to spend. I could go into anatomical

details that I have seen mentioned in some women's magazines too,

but I think you can get where I am going (I think it might have

been Cosmo a month or so ago that had a cover article about

handling surprises in you date's pants [notice the tacit

endorsement of promiscuity?])

There are two big lies that I've heard mentioned quite often. The

first is: " Size doesn't matter. " For some women, that is definitely

true; Size really DOESN'T matter. I would wager that many of these

are women who are looking for a relationship on that deeper level

that Inger describes. These women are willing to overlook what they

might regard most literally as a man's " short comings " in favor of

other rewarding aspects of what a " deep " man may have to offer.

And of course, women who simply prefer a smaller size for reasons of

physical pleasure must not be discounted either.

But a woman who rejects a man ONLY for reasons of size is possibly -

probably- not someone a man would want to be involved with anyway.

The other lie I will address later on.

> In the US and Europe it is not quite as bad. In the US it is

more about height and percieved physical prowess as much as income.

I have seen surveys and studies that show short men, like myself,

are pretty much ruled out from the get go. No need trying to tell me

it isn't so as I see it every time I go out. Sure I get some social

smiles from the smiley types, but that's it. I have been out with

taller and single friends and seen the women staring at them and

ignoring me, that or making snide comments and laughing. The

emphasis on pure appearance, both physical and presentation of

wealth, is amazing.

I have seen those studies and also had the benefit of seeing some TV

program or other where they line up four tall male bachelors and one

short one behind a one sided mirror and asked consecutive sets of

five women to comment on them. The short man was made to be the

most successful and affluent of all of the men, but was consistently

the one who was most rejected by woman, even when the study's

coordinators upped the short man's income.

For me to say that all these women were shallow would be too harsh.

Certainly the physical appeal of a potential mate to another one

needs to be a factor in relationships, but these women weren't even

willing to give this man a chance. And that is where my problem

lies. These women would rather forfiet what could potentially be

the most rewarding spiritual relationships of their lives purely on

the basis of a man's physical stature.

And so the idea that " Height doesn't matter " is probably the second

biggest lie that I've heard because it would seem from the study I

saw that to the majority of the women studied, height DID matter.

It's important to note that men are just as guilty of both

prejudices as women are. Men may dismiss a woman out of hand based

on her chest size or weight.

It is natural for both sexes to be attracted to what each considers

the ideal physique of the opposite sex, and I do believe physical

appearance should be an evaluative criteria in relationships, but it

should not be given disproportionate weight during the evaluative

period, particularly when the deeper -spiritual- aspects of the

relationship have not even been touched upon yet.

This is why I am a great believer in getting to know people very

well before engaging in physical intimacy.

> Then amongst the lower classes, fighting ability is prized. A

friend of mine, lower class but rising (he is smart and put himself

through college) told me that many girls of his class would tell him

to fight if anyone so much as looked at her wrong and would try to

get him in fights. Personally, I find that the mark of people who

need to be sterilized as they are throwbacks to the last stage of

human evolution. Once I even had one try to get a guy to fight me.

Apparantly she was attracted to me but wanted to see me fight first

before she would make a move. Not knowing this I was kind of

surprised when this guy came up all hostile like. Now, I didn't

fight the guy for a couple of reasons (I will tell the story if

anyone asks). Anyway, after that I noticed the girl hanging around

with the other guys and obviously bad mouthing me.

I am not going to perpetuate prejudice by saying that this sort of

behavior is typical of the lower classes, and it must be recognized

that abusive behavior occures in any and all classes, but I will

acknowledge that I have witnessed more brutality in lower class

households that middle and upper class ones. This may be either

because the lower classes may be experiencing more stress on the

most basic and fundemental levels (paying the bills to make sure

their is food on the table, a car to get to work, and a roof over

their heads, for example) or because hiding abuse from the general

public is not culturally familiar to them, or else it may because of

reasons that I cannot fathom.

But regardless, evidentally, even among the higher classes, physical

prowess is generally regarded as a noteworthy trait for men to have.

> I really think that the relationship thing is totally messed

up. People look for things they won't find, or are looking for the

wrong things to begin with. Either way, if they end up with someone,

they will most likely find reality isn't like the Hollywood, fairy

tale and magazine world they believed in. Some will tough it out,

but many don't.

A most succinct (and, in my opinion, accurate) way of looking at it.

> Sorry, kind of lost my train of thought and rambled there.

Your rambling produced some of the best conversation I have seen on

message boards in quite a while. Feel free to ramble when it

pleases you.

Tom

[Guest guest]

> Wow! Elephants actually seem very emotional, both from what I have

seen on TV and from what I can feel empathically. Oddly for such

huge animals, their feelings are actually very delicate. Often much

more so than most humans' feelings. Did you happen to see the

footage of those two elephants who had been separated for a very

long time and were later reunited, and the unmistakable joy they

displayed when seeing each other again? It was one of the most

touchting scenes I have ever seen. And how they grieve their dead.

I can feel that they really do.

I did see that show and I can provide you with a link to the

elephant sanctuary where those elephants reside. You can watch them

on live video feed.

> But there are many different " feeling type " , and just like it

varies between species I believe it varies between human types.

Around the same time as I realized that I was probably autistic, I

also realized that my feeling type and way of functining is a lot

more like that of a cat. Whereas most humans seem to feel and

function more like dogs.

> Dogs'feelings are much more passionate, deep, intense, acute, easy

to hurt and reaching over a much wider spectrum than those of a cat.

This is mirrored in dogs' voice- and hearing range spanning so many

octaves. Their feelings range from the most passionate love to the

deepest resentment, viciousness and fear. Anyone who has heard a dog

whine and squeal will be in no doubt as to how hurt it can feel when

ignored or rebuked.

> Cats are usually more aloof and values physical comfort and

harmony more than anything. Their soft feeings seem to only range

from affection & selfish hedonism to being somewhat miffed &

indignant when things aren't going their way.

> For dogs, being loved, appreciated and part of a flock seems to be

most important, so they will gladly suffer any physical or other

discomfort just to be accepted and loved. Dogs also seem to

appreciate excitement, stimulation and change and don't mind obeying

orders and finding their place in a strict hierarchy.

Your inuitive assessment and understanding of dogs astounds me

because it is right on the mark. A dog is a pack animal and is never

happier than when it is fulfilling its function within the pack.

When a dog's owner teaches the dog to obey or do tricks, and when

the dog willingly obeys and does those tricks on demand and without

reward, it can be safely stated that the dog has come to recognize

the trainer as the lead pack animal.

Once it's place is understood, the dog can then proceed to function

within that place, and any reward bestowed upon it is, in its mind,

indicative of the lead pack animal's praise and acceptance of him or

her. And as long as this bond is maintained, the dog will follow the

lead pack animal wherever you go, and through thick and thin. (How

many times do dog lovers have to tell their dogs to " stay " when

leaving the house for work in the morning?) Additionally, when you

are under threat, the dog will fall into its pack animal role and do

its part to defend you. Because all but the lead dog are followers,

most dogs have a hightened sense of anticipation and preparedness to

deal with any situation the lead dog might get them into, and,

because the follower dog wants to please the lead dog to keep its

social standing intact, it will go at any new activity with

enthusiasm and gusto.

> A cat usually wants predictability when it comes to others, but

personal freedom to follow impulses when it comes to itself.

Except for lion prides and cheetah coalitions, cats are solitary by

nature, coming together only to mate. The male and the female will

usually separate long before the female gives birth and males seldom

play a role in cub rearing.

>A dog gobbles, a cat nibbles. At food and at life.

A dog gobbles because, even though they will hunt in packs

sometimes, they are mostly carrion eaters in their wildest state and

have to fight with other carrion eaters (including other dogs in the

pack) while eating.

Cats are predators and hunters and thus are more able to afford the

luxury of picking at their food, though they do tend to gobble when

there are carrion eaters such as vultures or hyenas around, and

lions will goble when they are eating as a pride just to make sure

they all get their fill.

But your metaphor showing the similarity between how the two animals

eat and how they live is a good one.

> So you didn't appreciate my trying to sort out all the various

feelings that we tend to clump together under one enormously

misunderstood word? ;-)

I did and do appreciate it. Very much so. It's just that my

problem personally is that I tend to be too analytical while keeping

my animal instincts and behaviors on too short of a leash.

> This is how Swedish author Sten Andersson tabulates the

differences between kingdoms:

>

> Mineral - matter

> Plant - matter + life

> Animal - matter + life + consciousness

> Human - matter + life + consciousness + self-awareness

I would probably add self-awareness to animals too, but I would also

add some sort of qualifier, like a percentage. I think that some

animals, although not all, do have self-awareness. The question is,

how much do they have? As much as us? More? Less?

> > Objectivity is definitely necessary, but too much objectivity

tends to rule our actions too much, I believe (for some people

anyway). Let it be stated here that I am a firm believer in

monogamy, and am against sleeping around, but at the same time, I

think that there are a lot of people who are wasting their lives

because they are:

>

> > A) Sitting around in relationships that will never work out

> instead of facing the facts and moving on,

>

> > or

>

> > Looking around for other potentially better mates while

failing to recognize that by working on relationships that they are

currently involved in, they could have happy and long lasting

relationships with their current partners.

>

> > or

>

> > C) NOT moving faster in the relationships they are in.

>

> Hmm. So whatever one does, it's wrong...? ;-))

No. It's just that some people may find themselves having

relationship problems for one of these reasons.

> > What I am saying here by way of conclusion is that Inger's

classifications of love below are ONE facet to the relationship

diamond, and that the animalistic side also needs to be given wieght.

> But that was included in the " physical sexual attraction "

and " passionate desire " (neither of which I belive needs to be

desribed in any greater detail than that)?

The animalistic side isn't purely sexual, in my opinion. It's

instinctual, and plays a relevant part in the progressive parts of

the relationship strata ranging all the way from courtship to sex.

> > Others, I believe, are too much the animal, and they would do

well to view what Inger posted very carefully and learn from it.

>> I belive in balance. That we are here to learn how to develop a

balanced personality and balanced relationships. So I totally agree

that those who are overly analytical and careful may be well served

to practice spontaneity and following their instincts, and vice

versa. Just like a person who has been overly selfish and self-

indulgent all of their lives may need to develope empathy and start

taking other people's feelings into consideration too,

Yes.

>>while someone who has been overly self-obliterating and only

focused on serving others may need to start setting limits and have

some fun themselves.

Very wise indeed. I think someone else may have told me that

recently.

Tom

[Guest guest]

Dogs are indeed pack animals. This is where some of the problem comes in with people. Dogs don't consider humans to be superior beings, but part of the pack, especially house dogs and those that socialize with people and aren't just tied out in the yard. So, a lot of dog behavior can be described in pack behavior terms. Dogs will test you to see who is the alpha in the pack. It is very possible that the dog could indeed be the alpha in a given family. Much of their bad behavior is about pack status and so forth. This is just a basic description of course as books have been written on the subject.

Pretty much all of my dogs knew who was the alpha, which was me. When I had two they would jockey for position now and then, but usually the male was next in line. Oddly enough, they seemed to consider my mother as being the omega of the pack. They usually didn't listen to her and would always do things like chew things and get into the trash when I wasn't around but she was. She also accidently got bitten a few times trying to break up their fights, where as all I had to do was yell or jump up really quickly and walk toward them.

Many years ago I read in a magazine that the German word "Aus" sounds to a dog like the mother dog's discipline growl. Not long thereafter my dogs were having a growling standoff and I yelled, almost growled "rrrrrausss". The female turned, ran and jumped up in the chair by my mother. The male jerked and stood there staring at me, stock still, for about a minute before he came over rather meekly and jumped on the sofa by me and curled up and didn't move for a while. I didn't have any trouble out of them for a while. Unfortunately, that seemed to be a one shot deal with those two. Still, a swat on the nose while saying no got the point across. Water pistols work pretty well too.

I've never had cats so I can't say much about them. I don't dislike them, like some dog owners do but they don't seem to like me as much as dogs do. The next door neighbor's dogs really like me and I am one of the few people outside of the family they will let come near them, let alone pet them. But their cat completely ignores me and won't let me come near him.

[Guest guest]

:

> The height matter is probably the biggest one still around. As stated, I have seen a lot of nice looking and presentable women that don't pay me any mind. This also extends into the cyber world. A number of times I have had women end otherwise good conversations once they found out I'm 5'4".

Really? That's bizarre! You have the most interesting thoughts. How can anyone not want to hear them because of your height??? *truly baffled'*

> By the same token, I placed personal adds that listed height. I never got a single reply to any of those. A couple of fake ones got quite a few. Once I posted two adds on the same site. The only difference real difference was that one said my real height and the other said 6'4". I even had pictures of me, not the same but pretty obvious it was the same guy. The second one got several responses while the first got none.

Well, I have to admit that if I were to go by body type alone (which I never do) I too prefer a guy who is a bit taller than myself (I'm about 5'2" or so). But I have had 2 rather short BFs. They had so many other attractive characteristics that their height really didn't matter much to me.

> Physical size might have counted for a lot back in the caveman days, but even that is somewhat debatable, at least as far as homo sapiens goes. True one needed to be a great hunter back then, but with Sapiens, it has been found that people began specializing in labor. This made brains and talent very important. It would not surprise me if some of the more intelligent and possibly Aspie types were sitting around camp making axes and bows for the hunters, and making good trades for things in addition to that. That is like today. Save for sports stars and Hollywood, it is the smartest people that make the most money these days. A line backer could clean Bill Gate's clock, but Gates could buy his team and fire him.

Exactly. I am not the only woman who finds intelligence, inventiveness etc. very attractive features in a man. But I personally prefer the type of clarity of mind and good heart that spots injustice etc. and tries to so something about it. That is something I find a lot more attractive than just being cunning enough to rip off other people's ideas and make a fortune on them. (Still have a PC though, so perhaps I should shut up.) :-)

> In all fairness you are right. Much of this stuff is genetically ingrained in both males and females. There are key traits we look for in others, though some are less affected by them than others. Usually what I look at first is the eyes. Even though Aspies have trouble reading them, I am looking a spark of intelligence in there.

Interesting. I don't think I could tell by just looking at eyes. I really like the internet in that it provides an opportunity to get to know another person's deep thoughts without getting distracted by their looks. I am constantly amazed at how many incredibly gifted and wonderful people there are, especially among Aspies. And most of them don't even realize it themselves.

I'm very glad to be among some here too.

Inger

[Guest guest]

I’ve been

following this discussion with great interest... all aspects of it... though I’m

not thinking clearly enough to add something of value.

’s post

below brings something to mind though.

My dog (while I was growing up) knew she was the lowest in the house,

but interestingly – my grandfather used to come live with us during the

winter months and would bring his dog.

You would think the

two dogs would fight over status, but they didn’t. My dog (female) accepted

being lower than my grandfather’s dog (male and a few years older).

They never fought – never. She imitated him and followed his lead

almost always, the same way she would when visiting him at his house, even as

far as trying to lift her leg to urinate (which was pretty funny and messy, and

then the dance would start – he would mark her mark, then she’d

imitate him and he’d go back and do it again, etc.... lol).

Another interesting

thing is that if my dog ate from my grandfather’s dog’s bowl, he

allowed it, even at his house (sometimes she would even push his nose out of

his bowl and he would just step aside!).

Maybe he felt *she* was the

leader?

Wendi

Re:

Re: Different types of love

Dogs

are indeed pack animals. This is where some of the problem comes in with

people. Dogs don't consider humans to be superior beings, but part of the pack,

especially house dogs and those that socialize with people and aren't just tied

out in the yard. So, a lot of dog behavior can be described in pack

behavior terms. Dogs will test you to see who is the alpha in the pack. It is

very possible that the dog could indeed be the alpha in a given family. Much of

their bad behavior is about pack status and so forth. This is just a basic

description of course as books have been written on the subject.

Pretty

much all of my dogs knew who was the alpha, which was me. When I had two they

would jockey for position now and then, but usually the male was next in line.

Oddly enough, they seemed to consider my mother as being the omega of the pack.

They usually didn't listen to her and would always do things like chew things

and get into the trash when I wasn't around but she was. She also accidently

got bitten a few times trying to break up their fights, where as all I had to

do was yell or jump up really quickly and walk toward them.

Many

years ago I read in a magazine that the German word " Aus " sounds to a

dog like the mother dog's discipline growl. Not long thereafter my dogs were

having a growling standoff and I yelled, almost growled " rrrrrausss " .

The female turned, ran and jumped up in the chair by my mother. The male jerked

and stood there staring at me, stock still, for about a minute before he came

over rather meekly and jumped on the sofa by me and curled up and didn't move

for a while. I didn't have any trouble out of them for a while. Unfortunately,

that seemed to be a one shot deal with those two. Still, a swat on the nose

while saying no got the point across. Water pistols work pretty well too.

I've

never had cats so I can't say much about them. I don't dislike them, like some

dog owners do but they don't seem to like me as much as dogs do. The next door

neighbor's dogs really like me and I am one of the few people outside of the

family they will let come near them, let alone pet them. But their cat

completely ignores me and won't let me come near him.

Remember, we're all in this together. It

behooves us to be supportive of one another and to participate fully in all

this group has to offer.

Zoologist

Administrator

FAM Secret Society

[Guest guest]

> Tom,

>

> You are right in that one of the biggest problems is the selfish

me-ism that affects Western Society. Much of that has to do with

the things I have mentioned, but there are other factors as well.

Two major factors in the US are no-fault divorce and state

controlled child support and alimony collections.

> Prior to the introduction of no-fault divorce, most couples

toughed out problems or sought help to fix them. Afterwards it was

just easier to walk away from a " bad marriage " and then fight over

the spoils. This is where the courts come in. There is this idea

over here about deadbeat dads who don't pay their child support and

all. I know cases like this do happen because my father was like

that (thank goodness I had grandparents that helped up out and that

includes my father's parents). So the solution was for the state to

take over collections instead of leaving it to private lawyers. Of

course, the state also gets a cut for its trouble. This has lead to

a lot of abuse by the system.

Your points are well made, although the no fault divorce has its

merits. After exhaustive attempts to work through my marriage, I was

only too pleased to avoid further anguish on both sides by filing

for a no fault divorce. I do agree that the method is abused,

however.

> I believe Ireland adopted no-fault divorce back in the late

80's or early 90's and saw a big spike in divorces as well, maybe

it was England.

Ireland, I think.

> There are other things, but I'm not sure I want to go into

them since they might create a stir.

If you want to bring it up, that's fine. I have no objections.

>