Why by saying love is not necessary only desired? That it is extravagance and not needed for living a healthy productive life? You do not need to love your kids to make them happy and healthy and productive. You just need ethics and a decent morality.
Where did I ever say we shouldn’t want it? Decadent it is because it addictive, it makes one daydream and feel giddy, It makes a person do silly wasteful things like buying gifts of no value, or skipping work to go on a picnic, it starts fights causes pain, It creates false environment feelings of bravery, overcoming obstacles attempts. It is the ultimate addictive indulgence, we do not need it. We do want it and should. It is decadence. Now where did I say decadence is a bad thing? Its only your views on the word that made it seem bad. 
Try rereading my posts. Oh and look at my location, , permanent maternal mode. That requires a heavy decadent dose of loving.
Because you have a too narrow view of what things are, and misinterpet its consequenses.
Not all are fools for love, not all loses their heads and do silly things. With age people makes more sensible things.
You have a prejudistic approach to things. According to your postulations then everything is decadence, we don’t need long nails, we don’t need more than 1 pair of shoes, we don’t need paintings, wall paper, more than 1 kid, we don’t need a beautiful house but only a barrel to live in.
We don’t need songs, theathers, restaurents, we should live like Spartans in a modest and lowly way. We don’t need to travel, we don’t need to smile and laugh.
It is sickly!
Are you trying to help my argument?
Apparently so, till the world burns the decadet are the damnated.
But you’ve contradicted yourself in this matter by claiming that you need your family.
You’d not have them to rely on if there were no love between you.
Thus if you need them, you need love.
Okay
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decadent
Also helpful definition:
merriam-webster.com/dictiona … indulgence
The word is intended to describe ‘excessive and unrestrained’ behavior. Why are you using it for situations which simply go beyond minimum needs?
Also we can use the world luxury besides decadence. Some things can be luxurious without being decadent.
Coworkers need each other, all you need to have is knowing the honesty of the other and reliability. Ability to relate, to cohabitate peacefully. Love is desired, wanted and most often, craved.
Is love simply going beyond minimum needs? Or does it change us, make us do abnormal things that can harm us? Does it not fill libraries with stories? Love can and does create great changes and once we taste it, we want more, can you deny that? Love is excessive and highly self indulgent. It is High that can surpass drugs.
Whoa. You some kinda hot mama. 
It seems to me that decadence gets used way too often as a critique of what is there, rather than a critique of what is missing.
IOW there is nothing wrong with many of the things that are called decadent, but if that is all that fills your Life, very important things are missing.
As a form of implied asceticism, the critique, decadent, is one I dislike.
If however it is saying that people are wandering around in a meaningless wash of shallow experiences and nothing else is happening, well, that is a problem. And the same experience can be decadent for one person and not at all that for someone else.
Why is decadence wrong? Its not. The results of decadence can be wrong or bad but, that is more about stupidity then decadence.
ROFL, well that’s a first. Never been called that before, thank-you
The Word itself has a negative connotation, this can be seen in the definitions. So if you want to describe whatever it is and you do not Think it is negative, you should use a different Word.
Like using the Word ‘bully’ for someone who is self-assertive, or defends herself or whatever, is confusing. The listener, reader, will be confused.
It doesn’t make it wrong because of it’s connotations, a thing is wrong only by definition. Decadence may , in actuality, be a meaningless word: they say that of women who are on a diet, yet are over indulging eating chocolates are decadent. Maybe it’s a form of overindulgence. Maybe it consuming more then we need. That’s why the so called marxists used to speak of the decadent west as consuming more then they deserve. However, is love using up more feeling then it can digest? Is it an exorbitant distance away from mere “like”?
I was always thought by my priest, that one can only love God and anyone to whom this divine love can be extended to: like your wedded spouse and children to whom this immortal love enimates to.
It may be a sign of decadence to extend love to other things like pets, material possessions like money and the things money can buy, although people use the word widely and with little discrimination.
Moreno: I just realised I am just rephrasing your comment, I apoligise for the redundancy.
Moreno, the readers here should be a cut or two above and be able to read and comprehend rationally not focusing on one aspect of a word. Context is more important than that word.
it is not irrational to take the Words decadent and decadence negatively. Just as it is not irrational to take the Word bully as a negative term. In a poem or ironic text, sure. In some kind of non-fictional Communication, you would need to make it clear you are using the Word idiosyncratically. I don’t Think that because the readers are a cut above this makes any difference. They are more likely to know it has a negative meaning. Sensuality, pleasure-seeking, even hedonism is closer to neutral…and certainly other Words would be better used if one had a positive view of whatever you would want to describe as decadent, but mean it in a positive or neutral way.
Obe,
no problem, I appreciate, in context, your similar response.
Moreno, I agree but, as I said those here should be reading and comprehending the entire not just picking on a word. If we were in a bar drinking it would be understandable even expected. If linguists jumped like this would you not doubt their skills? This is akin to the miniskirt thread in a very loose way. Apropriate and expectations.
Yes, likewise!
So far you have only accused this and that for beind decadent, not presented a sound argumentation for WHY it has brought decadense to society.
In USA there’s a heavily “drive by culture” (drive in), making people overly lazy and fat, instead they should get out of their big cars and get some excersize. So drive in makes many decadent, but all the other examples you made up makes no sense.
This argument can be extended to. A general thesis: that the worst invention of mankind was the horseless carriage. Signs of decadence because of the car are everywhere: global warming, environmental decay including that of ancient archiological artifacts such as the classical buildings and ruins, smog related ilnesses, perpetual middle east conflicts due to issues relating to oil, and the destruction of the simple, yet dignified life.