wheelwright Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 I believe in evolution which means I think that love in humans has evolved because the human species survives better with it, than without it. Human babies need the care of their parents to survive beyond infancy so feelings of love by parents towards their offspring have evolved. All in the interests of perpetuating the species. So in a biological sense neediness and love go together. I am not using neediness in a pejorative way in saying this. In more traditional societies women with babies needed the support of men. This was for the good of the whole tribe/group/family/society whether or not they existed in modern-day nuclear families. Groups of humans with a balance and contribution of both genders reproduced and survived better than those that did not have that balance and contribution. Humans are social mammals which is why most of us are so distressed when excluded from a group. So in a nutshell love has derived and evolved from the human need to be cared for by each other. As a species we do better with love. BTW I saw the movie 'Creation' about Charles Darwin the other night - it was quite good. I also read Richard Dawkins with enjoyment. OK. I respect what you say as intellectually thought out and carrying some meaning. But I disagree with you absolutely. Firstly, if this is is your view, then I cannot see how a coherant view of morality could be in place. A mother feels she should look after her young, but if, as you seem to propose, this morality is just about carrying on the species, then where is the love? It becomes a narcissistic trait. The feelings of love I have felt in my life are overwhelming (not to say they are not Darwinian for that). And Dawkins is an unfeeling idiot. I am no creationist, or any other -ist. But he is very singular in his ability to beguile the masses in some nightmarish version of 'rational' man. There are no feelings or creativity in his writing. He is a wraith among philosophers. Even if what he says is true (WTF?) it is worthless. I am sorry to say I totally disagree with the amateur historians here. Love is not the same as neediness or want. Although it does answer a need in us. It is about what we want to give rather than receive. Most parents know all about it, and many adults who are the products of healthy upbringings do too. I believe there is more than this to it too. I think needs and wants are far away from love's remit. It connects souls in an indescribably beautiful way that sweeps Hawkins under the table. But for me, it is nothing to do with survival of the fittest. If I believed that, all hell would break lose.
SidLyon Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 OK. I respect what you say as intellectually thought out and carrying some meaning. OK But I disagree with you absolutely. That's fine. Firstly, if this is is your view, then I cannot see how a coherant view of morality could be in place. My view about this small issue is not talking about morality at all. A mother feels she should look after her young, yes but if, as you seem to propose, this morality is just about carrying on the species, then where is the love? What is "this morality". I didn't mention it and I don't agree anyway. It becomes a narcissistic trait. This argument doesn't make sense to me as it doesn't relate to anything I said. I didn't mention anything about love=morality=narcissistic trait. The feelings of love I have felt in my life are overwhelming (not to say they are not Darwinian for that). Me too. And Dawkins is an unfeeling idiot. I am no creationist, or any other -ist. But he is very singular in his ability to beguile the masses in some nightmarish version of 'rational' man. There are no feelings or creativity in his writing. He is a wraith among philosophers. Have you read the Ancestor's Tale - it's a wonderful book. On the other hand his books The God Delusion and The Greatest Show on Earth are not so good. He is excellent in his field of biology and evolution, which is why I read him. But far less interesting in some of his anti-creationist rants. He should stick to his field IMO. Even if what he says is true (WTF?) it is worthless. I disagree I think it's very worthwhile. I am sorry to say I totally disagree with the amateur historians here. Love is not the same as neediness or want. Although it does answer a need in us. It is about what we want to give rather than receive. Most parents know all about it, and many adults who are the products of healthy upbringings do too. I believe there is more than this to it too. I think needs and wants are far away from love's remit. It connects souls in an indescribably beautiful way that sweeps Hawkins under the table. I haven't reasd any Hawkins although I have tried reading Stephen Hawking. But for me, it is nothing to do with survival of the fittest. I still believe it's an evolved characteristic to ensure our offspring have the best survival chances. If I believed that, all hell would break lose. So may people do believe it yet all hell hasn't broken loose. I'm interested in why it would for you if you came to be convinced of it. *******************************
fooled once Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 It does make sense. And when I first read it, I thought I agreed with it. And then I look at my H and I do NEED him. I love him, I want him and I need him. He is part of me now. I don't need him to pay my way or raise my children or be by my side 24 hours a day, but I need him to be my friend, my lover, my partner. And of course I don't mean that if something happened and he passed away or we divorced, I'd kill myself or anything, but there would be a deep void. There would be that need unfulfilled that I think JW illustrated so eloquently. Humans do need each other. And I don't think that means they are needy. Needy is self-seeking, obsessive, compulsive, destructive. But love is all that is good. Love puts others first and is what keeps people together. IMHO GEL We agree. I don't NEED my husband to survive, but without him, my life would be empty and full of sadness. I seek him out wherever we go, because I can tell by a look, a body movement, a glance what he is thinking and the majority of the time, he knows what I am thinking. We communicate without words many times; but that doesn't mean we take saying the words "I love you" for granted or say it without meaning. I think too many people today use those words differently than I do. I don't just tell anyone I love them -- I believe those words are special and only special people who I love hear them.
wheelwright Posted July 28, 2010 Posted July 28, 2010 ******************************* I do believe I went on a bit of a rant in that reply. Sorry for my tone. But it does get to me, this line of reasoning. I've read S. Hawking too. Did a dissertation on 'time' many moons ago. In fact I find this subject very difficult. Tigers etc. run around tearing their prey to pieces. It's what they have to do. Sometimes people are forced to kill others if they wish to survive. It's very stark, harsh and decidedly unsentimental. Love however, seems to me to be a feeling that transforms us beyond the reality of existing to survive and perpetuate the race. And I mean transforms rather than enables. But this argument unfortunately rests on faith and the way I experience the world. If I believed love (and other higher forms of human thinking/action such as empathy or altruism) was merely an enabling emotion, which I infer perhaps wrongly from your argument, then I really wouldn't see people as very different to tigers. Hence no morality. I don't know why Dawkins gets me so mad, but I find the lack of faith, or more importantly respect for faith, hard to stomach. If I didn't have this faith, then it would seem to me that anything which is going to help me set up me and my kids and others in my 'group' is allowed. And people do believe this, and all hell doesn't (too often) break loose. You're right. But many people seem to have something (a soul?) that makes them reject forms of behaviour which are cruel (perhaps we are back to empathy here). Anyway, the argument is hard to resolve. You could argue that empathy and love help us perpetuate the species, and therefore we have no need to consider the idea of a soul. But to me this makes them vulnerable to being seen as empty, with no intrinsic worth. And other things such as desire to steal a load of pensioners' money in an effort to set myself up would have just as much worth if it was going to help me and mine. Anyway, your points are interesting, and your reply has helped me work through what I really think and why. Sorry for the rant
mmk1 Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 I think there is a difference between having needs and neediness. Having needs and communicating those needs to your partne is, IMHO, normal and healthy. Neediness, again IMHO, is when nothing your partner can do can meet your needs, no matter how much they give. This is because of your issues, not your partner's issues.
White Flower Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 I love my H, but I can't say I really need him. After all, I managed just fine for decades without him... He's definitely the icing on the cake, and I wouldn't willingly give him up - but I would survive. I choose him because I want him, not because I need him. But I also know that if he was just a decoration in my life, he'd feel spare and disposable, and that's not good either. He needs to feel he plays a useful and important role - so his feeling valued, loved, and - yes - needed, are important for the R.The perfect example of need but not neediness. Please explain how you accomplish this. If I may, suppose it is the balance of having the other partner do things for you that you appreciate, but can live without if he/she were not there. She needs sex and he provides it when asked for. He needs a drink but is caught up in heavy work so she fetches it for him. He's in the hospital and she fills out the necessary forms with insurance cards that she brings in. We can do all these things for ourselves, but when our partner does it for us and we appreciate it they feel needed. They feel a sense of having an important place in our lives.
Untouchable_Fire Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 The perfect example of need but not neediness. If I may, suppose it is the balance of having the other partner do things for you that you appreciate, but can live without if he/she were not there. She needs sex and he provides it when asked for. He needs a drink but is caught up in heavy work so she fetches it for him. He's in the hospital and she fills out the necessary forms with insurance cards that she brings in. We can do all these things for ourselves, but when our partner does it for us and we appreciate it they feel needed. They feel a sense of having an important place in our lives. I also thought it was a good example. I've always made sure to ask for help on things from time to time... and to be appreciative of that help. That is hard for me to do as a guy. What I can't figure out is that sometimes I feel needed, though I know I'm not and I like it... but sometimes I am apathetic about it... depending on the relationship. I guess I just don't want to feel easily replaceable. Overall I think this is a good thread.
crazycatlady Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 Yes, I agree there is a difference between needing love, and neediness. There are times in my marriage/life when I feel needy. It is an uncomfortable feeling. At those times, I cling to my H in bed and say something like "I'm feeling needy right now." It is not more normal state of love (which does include needing him in my life and our family). Neediness is a feeling I experience when something (usually something inside me) is "off". eta....neediness, ime, is when the love I need is there, but I still feel "needy". I need extra reassurance of what I already know: I am loved and desired. For me, it is an occasional feeling. XXOO - I totally get this. I need my H. He brings out all the colors in the world and makes them truly bright. Sure I can manage just fine without him, but I don't want to. Oddly enough I know my H needs me even more then I need him. I know he could manage without me, but it would be a far greater struggle for him then it would be for me. However when it comes to neediness, I'm more likely to get there then he is. Part of that is because I give more then he does, and I when I hit that neediness feeling, then I have to take a moment to assess what it is that I need inorder to not be needy which to me is a very insecure feeling. CCL
2sure Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 Lets not forget about WANT. Love, neediness , and want. They are all entwined in a healthy relationship. Its when there is an unbalance among those that there is a problem. The Want - I only recently understood and is part of the motivation of narcissist behavior. What they Want is of utmost importance to them. So important that when they get it or have it - they really do think its love, so important that when it is taken from them they really feel they cant live without it. At all costs. The thing is, the wants can be endless, and one is as important as the other.
In_Repair Posted July 29, 2010 Posted July 29, 2010 Definitions: Neediness - The state of being needy Needy - In a condition of need or want (when used as an adjective) So, why do some you seem to think that the word neediness is so terrible? It's just a word that means you are currently either in need of or want something. I don't understand some of the sentiments here, such as "yeah, I need my husband, but I'm not needy" You have needs and wants, and basically everything you do or acquire is based either on a need or want. Either we need love to sustain life, or we want love to enhance life. Which is it? Barring any worldwide catastrophes, the only thing required for survival of the species is procreation, and that certainly doesn't require any of these "love" rituals that we practice. It just requires a man's fun parts to blow a load in a woman's fun parts. Also, that fact isn't changed depending on whether we were created or we evolved. That's just the way it is. I somehow think that all of us, including me, have missed the point here. I don't know what thread the initial quote came from, but presented as-is, without context, the related discussions could go in many directions.
RedDevil66 Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 It just requires a man's fun parts to blow a load in a woman's fun parts. that right there is some sweet talk ;-) I LOL when I read this
White Flower Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 I also thought it was a good example. I've always made sure to ask for help on things from time to time... and to be appreciative of that help. That is hard for me to do as a guy. What I can't figure out is that sometimes I feel needed, though I know I'm not and I like it... but sometimes I am apathetic about it... depending on the relationship. I guess I just don't want to feel easily replaceable. Overall I think this is a good thread. Do you feel replacable when you feel needed or is it the opposite? I always assumed that guys enjoyed be needed so long as it was truly appreciated, but when it was expected and taken for granted, that is when the apathy comes in. Is that right?
seren Posted July 30, 2010 Posted July 30, 2010 I had a day of menopausal blues the other day, cried for ages, H asks what's wrong. I launch into a, I want to be pink and fluffy, I want to be not so capable, perhaps I helped the A by being too capable and strong, I want to be the helpless fluffy female, etc (it really was so pathetic). H says he loves my strength, loves that I am the dragon slayer, loves that I can stand up for myself - but, I say, I feel so bloody dependant, so pathetic, so goddammed needy. He says, while giving me a huge, much needed cuddle, that when he needs me, I am there for him, when the s*** hits the fan, he knows I will sort it out, that he needs me, that knowing I am there is all. But, but, say I, why? ..... he says that we both need each other at times, to varying degrees, for various things. While we could both cope separately, (he says me more than him), we don't want to because that's what relationships are all about. Giving and taking, each having each other's backs. He says that the knowing that there is someone who put's their needs before their own, who, in our case, forgives the worse things and still loves, is what it's all about. I so needed to hear this, I needed H to be strong, needed to know that pink and fluffy would drive him bonkers. That H understood that my neediness at that time needed him being stong arms around me, IMO = love. Back to normal dragon slayer today, and back to normal state of play. Yes, I need my H. Was listening to the song Need Your Love So Bad, Fleetwood mac and it just made sense.
White Flower Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 I had a day of menopausal blues the other day, cried for ages, H asks what's wrong. I launch into a, I want to be pink and fluffy, I want to be not so capable, perhaps I helped the A by being too capable and strong, I want to be the helpless fluffy female, etc (it really was so pathetic). H says he loves my strength, loves that I am the dragon slayer, loves that I can stand up for myself - but, I say, I feel so bloody dependant, so pathetic, so goddammed needy. He says, while giving me a huge, much needed cuddle, that when he needs me, I am there for him, when the s*** hits the fan, he knows I will sort it out, that he needs me, that knowing I am there is all. But, but, say I, why? ..... he says that we both need each other at times, to varying degrees, for various things. While we could both cope separately, (he says me more than him), we don't want to because that's what relationships are all about. Giving and taking, each having each other's backs. He says that the knowing that there is someone who put's their needs before their own, who, in our case, forgives the worse things and still loves, is what it's all about. I so needed to hear this, I needed H to be strong, needed to know that pink and fluffy would drive him bonkers. That H understood that my neediness at that time needed him being stong arms around me, IMO = love. Back to normal dragon slayer today, and back to normal state of play. Yes, I need my H. Was listening to the song Need Your Love So Bad, Fleetwood mac and it just made sense. I think there is a time and place for neediness. This was one of those times. You even stated that you thought it was pathetic, as I would have done:love:, because sometimes we just feel small and meaningless; and he reassured you that it wasn't and you weren't. What an AWESOME guy!
NoIDidn't Posted July 31, 2010 Posted July 31, 2010 I'd just concentrate on understanding yourself, what makes you happy , what your boundries on acceptable behaviour in relationships are. In the words of another thread you need to set your own bar that prospective partners need to be able to clear. Similarly you need to set your own bar for your life, your standards, what validation you look to from others and what you are content to give yourself. I can't see, to be honest, how this woman ever was in love with you. She was in one R and hadn;t had any clear space to really work out what she wanted, so any expression of "love" was most likely driven by a need to fill a void in her. In order to "love" you she would need to have loved herself first .. and, given her point in life that you describe, I doubt she did ..., I would imagine her deep self esteem was quite low. Similarily you didn't love her .. your not in a position of peace in side to love her ... your driven by your needs to fill something inside you that you ... and that's not love that's need. Look into yourself, come to peace with yourself, learn to love yourself first .. Be safe Chris This is an interesting point. I have to wonder how much true love is going on in most of the affairs detailed here. They are mostly driven by the needs and desires of the people in them. Yet, if I go to a site like MB, it talks about fulfilled needs creating love, or recreating love, in married couples. Maybe all this "love" is just all of us being "needy" to begin with. Very thought provoking. Thanks. Posted in another thread by a MM wondering why his OW fell out of love with him. Not sure of where the OP took the quote from, but this exchange is one such thread where it was used. MM wondering why OW fell out of love with him. The context was one of the possibility that the MM wasn't feeling love at all, but rather wanted a need to be met (the adoration of the OW he spoke of in the thread). The bold is what was being responded to when the love possibly being needy question was asked.
Recommended Posts