No, wrong.
You do not own your offspring, they are in your care for a certain time only.
Despite how you wish to word it, most parents have a deep and selfless love for their offspring.
There are exceptions of course and perhaps you are one of these.
In which case, no point in discussing this further with you.
Shrug
Children are extensions of the ones that produced them. Even when they get older and become independent the curious phrase of that being my child is still used.
What is love? Nobody can ever seem to describe the fleeting emotion.
I call it possession which might be for a lack of a better term attachment.
Of course attachment and possession are very similar.
Yes, now continue to stomp out of the thread like an angry child. Here’s a lolipop…
Settle down Hardy Ha Ha.
I think I wrote that in my first post on Love.
Yes, your articulation of love is filled with the usual metaphorical and emotional mumbo jumbo.
For me emotions can cloud things from getting to the crux of any given issue.
Often enough emotions are deceiving.
I don’t dispute any of that, in fact I agree with you, on all points.
but
it could be said that people who have this view, may be afraid to ‘love’, to sign on the dotted line, believe in the Easter Bunny. Whatever.
It is true I am a misogynist something of which I accept as a badge of honor and I’m very skeptical of all relationships along with most social interactions having seen the ugliness of humanity in depth much of my lifetime, still even amongst all of that like any other human being I am a social one which causes me enormous difficulties offline as I am naturally suspicious of everyone to the point I trust nobody beyond myself.
Nonetheless, these opinions, perceptions, or outlooks of mine didn’t develop overnight but instead have been compounded by expirience.
Having been burned most of my life I’ve come to think the way that I do.
When I was a younger man I tried to love many times and in each instance I was shredded psychologically at every turn which caused me to question the existence of it altogether.
Most would call me a monster but very few ask themselves how the monsters became to be…
It is difficult to trust people, certainly not without scrutiny, but also, there are few people who are worthy of such trust.
To make it more difficult, the problems of practical survival demands that much more of a person who is struggling emotionally or physically or both.
Sometimes life can be a pure bitch.
From my expirience nobody is worth trusting. I’ve never found anybody worth it to trust especially of the opposite sex.
Zinnat,
.
Isn’t that more a romantic notion, Zinnat? There would be situations where that is important - for instance, dealing with a child. Parents must unify and be strong in the face of something happening in the child’s life ------ or ------ situations regarding the couple.
,
I’m not even sure there is such a thing as unconditional love but wholehearted acceptance? What if the other is doing things which are not acceptable?
What about boundaries? Do you see boundaries where real love is concerned? Or do they simply float away because two people love each other so passionately that they feel they are one?
But act according to which party? Yes, that’s a wonderful kind of closeness and understanding but remember there are two individuals here whose needs might not exactly harmonize. Does the man or woman always give into the other? Is there discussion, compromise…
.
That’s also very romantic but it sounds more like enslavement than real love. Where is the breathing and the space between the two? Do they have so much ONENESS, togetherness, that they lose their separate individualities?
I might use the word “commitment” rather than owning. Commitment has a more freeing spirit to it - as in free choice - owning implies lack of personal freedom and choice.
I don’t really agree with this Zinnat. I suppose that you feel that “true” love is lasting, doesn’t end.
I think that two people can have/experience real love but things happen which could separate them. (not speaking of death here). That doesn’t discount the fact that what they felt was real. People are individuals and there is always the chance of loss. This is why to me “true” commitment and an understanding of what both are about is more important than passionate romance. That’s the icing on the cake.
Does that mean that you are not worthy of being trusted? If you can’t see it in others…in anyone… 
No, I can always definitely trust me, myself, and I.
And would you say primality is a form of love?
Again, as so often, conflating love with lust (sexual or otherwise).
Actual/“real” love is about the urge to help support, maintain, enrich, and/or enhance another in some way. Usually the desire to be around the other is inherent because both desires feed each other, but not necessarily so.
And children are only half owned at best. Ownership is a question of degree of authoritative control.
Are you sure of that, HaHaHa? 
Do you ever doubt your beliefs which may be about to persuade you to do what you are about to do?
There was a time in my life when I found it really difficult to trust others. Why? Because at that time, I didn’t know how to trust myself.
Perhaps your “I” might betray you to yourself.
No, primality is instinctual impulse.
Altruism? 
Thanks, I needed the laugh.
Of course I have doubts and question myself from time to time.
I always trust myself to reach the best answers and conclusions.
In other words, there can’t be love that isn’t covering something up, and the love that is covering something up, isn’t love at all.
The way I see, the closest truth you’ve hit on is that we are primarily ego driven creatures, mainly fending for ourselves and our personal survival. Even when we are acting kind towards others, or being altruistic, it is as a strategy to gain long term alliances and protection and service from others. This we can get from the goodness of their hearts or by compelling them out of guilt (remember that favor I did for you? You owe me.).
We have to expect that from evolution. Self-serving creatures is the only practical outcome that one can reasonably expect from a process of evolution. Those with more of an instinct for altruism will always be gobbled up by those who without (most of the time, willingly!).
But there are rare circumstances when the exception proves itself in the face of the rule: love for our children, for example. Thank God this has never been tested, but I probably have an instinct within me to jump in front of a speeding bus to save my daughter. Some will say this is me trying to protect my genetic lineage, and they would be right–but this alters the original point slightly. The original point was that we are self-serving creatures, not gene-serving creatures. There is a subtle difference as the example of my daughter proves. If I were to sacrifice myself for my daughter, sure I’m protecting my genes, but I’m definitely not protecting myself. The ego dies for the sake of its lineage. The point is, my daughter can trust me.
Then there is the survival of the species. This is a third distinction. It differs from survival of the self and survival of the gene. Survival of the species means that it is possible to have a minority of altruists within the population. It would have to be a minority otherwise the entire species would be all to willing to sacrifice itself wholesale. If it happens to be a condition of life for a particular species that a few amongst them must, when circumstances arise, sacrifice themselves for the whole, then a few of them will. I don’t think human being are one of these kinds of species, but they do exist out there.
But the point remains that self-service is generally the rule, and gene-service and species-service are the exceptions.
Now when it comes to love between a man and a woman, we have an interesting middle ground. For a gene-centric species like ours, there will be a very powerful drive to protect and love a member of the opposite sex whom we are attracted to. They are the means by which we will reproduce. It wouldn’t make very much sense to sacrifice one’s own life for one’s partner since that kills all chances of reproducing, but then again, I wonder what would happen after reproduction. Given that evolution has fitted out women to be the better care givers of our offspring, there just might be an instinct within men to sacrifice himself for her if he deems it necessary. The whole “I’d die for her” motto might not be such an exaggeration at all. But I don’t think this would kick in in all men, and for the men in which it does, I think it would have to be an extraordinary set of circumstances that calls for it.
But even in less extreme cases, there will always be a strong desire to show kindness, compassion, understanding, and altruism to a certain degree towards the one you love and wish to reproduce with (<-- btw, this “wish” is not necessarily conscious; don’t confuse it with the desire to have sex). The reason for this is that you want to show the other person, and setup an environment in which, you can be trusted and relied one, and in turn the other person can reciprocate that trust and reliance. If you can establish that–a relationship of mutual trust and reliance (because you both want it)–then you have what most of us call “love”. The pay off is that you not only get an allie that can help you in the game of survival, but someone with whom you can reproduce and help nurture your offspring through their development.
This is all perfectly within the parameters of the game of evolution. It helps us to survive and reproduce. You can still say the end goal is self-interest and interest in one’s own genes–gaining an allie to help you in the game of survival, someone with whom to reproduce–but the point is trust and reliance. You gain these things by establishing a relationship of trust and reliance. You can trust the other person because they know their own survival and chances at reproduction depend on this–they depend on keeping your trust–and they want to rely on you so they do what they must in order to show you that you can rely on them. It’s a mutually reciprocal relationship that grows upon itself.
Now I do think this kind of relationship is extremely rare. And it is not the only way to survive and reproduce. I was at a pub just the other night eavesdropping on the two guys sitting next to me. The one guy was talking about a friend of his who was paying $1800 in child and spousal support. According to his story, the girl had a baby with the guy, and seven months later, divorced him, racked him up with $1800 in support, and now sits on her ass at home with the baby doing nothing (no work, just feeds off the support).
That’s one way to do it.
But the scenario I described above–what most call “true love”–is by far, in my opinion, the most desired way. I think this may be where you disagree with me most, but I believe both men and women want a relationship with each other based on trust and reliability–it’s what being in love boils down to; some may be too jaded in life to believe it’s possible, so they don’t try. Some may believe it’s possible, but it’s too much work; they’d rather try another method. But whatever the case, I believe it is possible to be in love, for both members to be in love–mutually–and to make it work.
To GIB,
What about the mother who uses her child as a bullet shield amongst civil war in Rwanda to protect herself?
Yes, my conclusion is that the thing trying to cover up the expression or realization of our primordial instincts that calls itself love isn’t love at all. You’re getting an understanding of what I am saying except I disagree with your insistence of putting a positive spin on it all.
It’s pointless to give up on the only hope you have, regardless of the low probability.