Talk:Love styles

Pseudoscience
Is there anything remotely resembling empirical support for any of this, or is it the mere just-so story that it appears to be? -- Thomas Dubito, 2011-09-30 17:42 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.116.252.3 (talk)

Not only is there no empirical support, it's the original research of someone who has no idea what Ludus IS, as "playful" has no connotation of game-playing in that sense. The books - excuse me, the MOVIES cited as examples are completely wrong. This is like the homework of someone who didn't read the assignment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.47.174.65 (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The emperical support is the study of couples/marriages which succeed, in the light of so many that don't. Sociology/family/study of human love seek to understand what enables healthy relationships. There is a lot of no longer valid advice out there which claim this is not love or that is not love, and often leads to unmanageable disagreements caused because of personal views and opinions. ex. That eros is a form of love in the light of the religious disparagement of lust, is one such eye opener 74.79.51.144 (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC) GK

there are several forms of authors bias in this article

 * Some styles are shown to be superior or inferior. I think the comparison of one style with another and saying is better or inferior is incorrect, and is not the intent of the classification. ex like agape is better than eros
 * The narration ascribes higher or lower attributes to the people who primarily show a style. ex. those with manic style have low esteem
 * the narration also seems to believe that one must alter one's style of love based on the superiorness or inferiorness

In order to be a 'style of love', what is being described should be an act or effort to try and create happiness and security for the other or both


 * I believe the original researchers wanted to say Each style is not only valid, but also necessary in moderate extent, at least up to the mutual satisfaction of both partners.
 * Each style when imposed excessively leads to one kind of relationship problem.
 * Each style when conspicuously absent also leads to another kind of relationship problem.
 * For each style, if a person has lesser need in a relationship, then that person has an implicit power and can cause abuse through withholding or non-cooperation.
 * A person with power in the relationship, can abuse that power to intimidate a partner into excessive participation of a few styles, and in non-participation of others.

In my opinion the narration of each style needs to be tempered

74.79.51.144 (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC) GK

Merger
I think the merger is a good idea if all love styles are moved into this article. In thier current short forms I do not think they warrant an individual article each. If the individual love type articles were larger I would not recommend this merger. Hobo 03:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision/Expansion
Obviously, this article needs expansion. I'm basing my knowledge of the love-styles on what I've learned in my sociology class, so fact double-checking is more than welcome.--Indecisive 01:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Agape
Agape love has no listed disadvantage... it has the start of the disadvantage sentence but it ends abruptly, with no ending to the sentence or listed disadvantages. Someone more qualified than I please list a disadvantage or remove the sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.174.154 (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Done, though it is notable that the disadvantage - now rephrased somewhat more neutrally - was previously removed without comment. 212.56.88.63 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Abuse?
Does the abused spouse who refuses to prosecute display agape or pragma? Wnt (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mania, quite possibly. "In its extreme, mania becomes addiction or codependency." Yothgoboufnir (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * it is not unthinkable for several of these styles to be operating at the same time at different intensities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.93.114 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Examples
For each type of love, this article gives several examples from films. However, these examples are not referenced. It may seem obvious that some character in some film is an example of some type of love, but without a reference it's essentially original research; instead, this should say 'according to John Lee, Star Wars is an example of Eros' or something like that. Many of these examples can be contested, anyway; we've already got Titanic listed under both Eros and Agape, which are very different. Robofish (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Main/secondary styles
Some sources (for instance, http://las.blogspot.com/) indicate that Eros, Ludus and Storge are love "statements" while Pragma, Mania and Agape are love "behaviors." Shouldn't the article include this division into two categories, instead of categorically listing all six? Kbog (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * only if this article is going to represent that concept instead of the one it does. 2 authors, 2 concepts. are we experts in love style theory? Modern counseling doesn't embrace any particular theory anyway. they tend to do what works. a "portal" covering all useful beliefs and theories is more in order than a single article covering "the truth". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.24.93.114 (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)


 *  a "portal" covering all useful beliefs and theories is more in order than a single article covering "the truth". ' This. This article is/was not about a specific book, no matter how great you feel it is. Wes Turner (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Color wheel theory of love
User:Utcursch proposed merging Color wheel theory of love with Love styles without starting a discussion, so here it is. Clearly these are covering the same ground. Colours of Love - the title of Lee's book - seems like the best title to merge them to, reframing the article slightly to be about the book. --McGeddon (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Lee might not be the one to propose the love styles, but that he proposed the arrangement of love styles on the color-wheel, his organization into primary, secondary and tertiary and his specific interpretation of what each style is. There will be others who arrange and consider their properties and interconnections differently. The ideas of these love styles, feelings, emotions exist, are perhaps as old as humanity itself. The color wheel theory of love can be one specific form of love styles that ought have its own page. Personally, I don't see what a circular arrangement and the ascription of color signifies, a way of re-selling an idea with innovative packaging maybe. It seems appropriate that there be one general article without an original postulator, and pointers to other articles that have "CS lewis theory", "Greek theory", "Sanskrit theory", "Alan lee Color Wheel theory", "triangular love theory", etc 67.249.245.96 (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The Color wheel theory of love might be the better title for the merged article it what this article is specifically about. The material here is organized entirely according to his theory.  DGG ( talk ) 11:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I followed the suggestios above n at Talk:Love styles, and redirected to this more specific title. I merged almost all the text form there to the appropriate section--there may be some duplicating or trimming needed.  DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe this redirect to be inappropriate. A less opinionated approach would have been to have created an additional page for this specific book, and then to have linked that article under 'See Also'. I believe we should restore the Love_styles page as is/was, and link to Color_wheel_theory_of_love as one specific resource on the general topic of Love Styles. Wes Turner (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I reverted the redirect revisions and added a See Also link to Color wheel theory of love by John Alan Lee Wes Turner (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)