We will be convening here at the ZigZag café, Suisse, on Thursdays for conversation and dialogue.
I invite you to stop by every Thursday for the question of the day. Your thoughts and participation are most welcome. Pull up a stool, avec un café, un thé, ou un chocolat chaud, et un croissant, and join in here on Thursday at the ZZ café.
For today:
Does being loved carry with it legitimate expectations as to how this love must be given and expressed?
6 comments:
I'm sticking with my answer from last week that while expectation is not good, hoping for love to be given and expressed a certain way can be a healthy thing (though not if we are unhappy with being loved when it is expressed in different ways).
I think if we love someone enough and are the one loving, we will inevitably want to love the other person well and will do what we can to love them in ways that they may prefer. Of course this is not perfect, but it may be a start...
John,
Thanks. I was wondering if we have a right to be loved in the ways we expect to be. To love the other, as you quite rightly point out, would seem to incorporate something of this concern - loving as this person prefers, but at the same time realizing that the lover has limitations to be able to accomplish this feat.
When we start talking about "rights" I think things get tricky, Greg. What are the three inalienable right according to the US Declaration of Independence? Life, love, and the pursuit of happiness (though I believe it was originally intended to be "pursuit of property").
But a right to be loved in the ways we expect to be? I guess I would have to first ask if your expectations are legitimate, and why you think they are. Then we must remember that the love that it shown us, even if we communicate that we prefer to be loved in a certain way, will not always meet those standards, per se.
John,
Someone might say, "if you're going to love me you should do it like this" therefore saying "I have a right to be loved in a way that is loving to me." Is this wrong?
Might someone have expectations that this right is legitimate, yet have to realize that rights are not going to be met? This wouldn't mean a negation of the right.
Greg -
I see a difference between "should" and "will." Should is an "I prefer" saying, where as "will" is a demand.
But that being said, both of these are putting qualifications on love. Does love have qualifications? Maybe not "agape" love, unfailing perfect love (ie love that only God can use perfectly), but I think you're talking about romantic love, am I correct?
I would never say "If you're going to love me, you have to do it (x) way." I may say "Here are some ways that I feel loved" and go from there, but never qualifications of "You must love me (x) way for it to be real love." Does this make sense?
I think someone could have expectations that the right is legitimate (and it actually be legitimate) and have to realize that the rights are not going to be met (fully). But isn't it in the nature of a "right" for it to be all or nothing? I may be drawing an unnecessary/unhelpful black/white distinction here...
John,
Thanks for your thoughts. love for the other could be romantic love, friend love, enemy love, etc.
To have a right, perhaps, is first of all a given from. Maybe if you have it and therefore are allowed some say so about being loved in a preferable way, then it's a right that is porous.
Post a Comment