Sandra Dodd

I want to float an idea out here for feedback, maybe history or citations.

I first hear "unconditional love" in the late 1960's, I think. It could have been the 1970's.

There was a pushback idea in those days that became kind of a movement: "tough love"
it was, partially, a treatment method for parents to use with juvenile delinquents. But I don't want to talk about "tough love." I want more thoughts and feedback about "unconditional love.'

"Love" is a problem in English anyway, because it has a large range of meaning and emotion.

Advice given to love one's child unconditionally seems great for very young children, and for seven and eight year olds, I guess. At some point, though, when the children become less and less a part of a dyad with the mother (which is much earlier than seven or eight in some families), it doesn't seem as appropriate to me.

As advice to parents of eleven, twelve, thirteen year olds--advice given by schools that need kids to be placated and encouraged--it makes some sense.

Here's my problem:
Love that is ONLY contingent and conditional seems to be payment, not love. But "love" that's based on nothing with NO expectations seems worthless.

Tear it up, if you're so minded. I'm not attached to this at all, and it's not about any current situation in my house or life. :-)

Sandra

Vicki Dennis

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> Here's my problem:
> Love that is ONLY contingent and conditional seems to be payment, not
> love. But "love" that's based on nothing with NO expectations seems
> worthless.
>
> Tear it up, if you're so minded. I'm not attached to this at all, and it's
> not about any current situation in my house or life. :-)
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
Seems to me that if it is based on anything external it is not
unconditional, and goes right back to your concept of payment.
For me, unconditional love flows from me to someone else and is not
contingent on them returning that love or performing any service. I used
to tell my children...."You cannot make me stop loving you. You can make me
unhappy with you."
I don't know what "based on nothing" means. I think the love felt for a
newborn can be a biology and genetic link effect but is still based on
"something", just not actions.

I think that expectations along the lines of "If you love me, then I
expect........" to cheapen the concept.

You are right about "love" being a problem in English because of
encompassing such a wide range. Mutual love is powerful. Unrequited love
can be painful. Puppy love can be real. I personally think conditional
love is a contradiction.

vicki


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-I don't know what "based on nothing" means. I think the love felt for a
newborn can be a biology and genetic link effect but is still based on
"something", just not actions.-=-

True, about babies.

If I get home from seven weeks away and Marty is sitting on the couch playing a video game, I will still love him. Even if he's drinking a beer. He's 23 years old. The love I had for him when he was a little boy I could pick up and rock to sleep is no longer the same, though. Probably natural, and healthy, that it's different now.

If I were to get home after seven weeks away and Marty had murdered his dad and burned the house down, that warm feeling would be less likely to well up in my motherly heart.

Somewhere things change.

I love my husband, but I can imagine things he could do that would cause that love to dissipate. I'd rather not envision them clearly enough to write them down, but love needs to be nurtured and maintained and can't last forever on memories and intentions.

Do all adults love their own parents "unconditionally"?

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Vicki Dennis

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:25 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
>
> If I were to get home after seven weeks away and Marty had murdered his
> dad and burned the house down, that warm feeling would be less likely to
> well up in my motherly heart.
>
> Somewhere things change.
>

The father of the perpetrator of the awful dragging death in Texas several
years did not try to defend his son but continued to love him and went to
court daily............even as he grieved with the victim's family. I had
respect for that. I have experience with families who "disown" their
children for various reasons, often because their church or religion tells
them they must. I do not respect that.

Isn't there a poem somewhere about "Love is not love that alters when it
alteration finds"?

Within my extended family we are dealing with demented older relatives
whose behavior has become downright mean at times. I explain to my
cousins that, for me, some people have built up a lot of credit over the
years and it will take a lot for them to exhaust that so that I feel I no
longer have any obligation. Yes, I understand that may be contradictory to
"love does not change" but I am talking less about love than "like" or
willingness to share.




> Do all adults love their own parents "unconditionally"?
>
> Sandra
>
>
I don't think *all* adults do anything!. But see above for my view that
some adults do love some family members unconditionally even into
adulthood. I also think that romantic love might end but love itself
continues.

When you were involved with Al-Anon was there discussion about loving an
alcoholic does not mean mandatory enabling? Or that feeling "if you loved
me you would not be addicted" was not accurate? Even less accurate "If
only I can love enough, then s(he) will change"? or "I will withhold love
to change the behavior".

So many kinds of "love". It is definitely complicated to talk about. But
I do believe unconditional love can exist even if I cannot easily explain
it.

vicki


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dawn Sharkey

The first time I ever really thought about the term "unconditional love" is when I read Alfie Kohn's book "Unconditional Parenting" when my eldest was a babe in arms (he's now two and a half) and before I discovered Unschooling.

The term was familiar in that I'd heard it a lot, but I'd never sat to think what it might mean, or look or feel like.

Kohn's premise is that all children need to experience unconditional love in order to thrive and become happy, intrinsically motivated adults. When adults punish children for certain behaviours (in particular by using time out), or sytematically praise them for other behaviours, children feel that a parents approval, and thus love, is conditional upon their behaving in a certain manner.

Khon argues that we should see the positive aspects in behaviours that traditional parenting would condem, and that parents should alter our environment, activities and expectations to accommodate or avoid other behaviours that are dangerous or hurtful.

He isn't very specific about how to do this.

When I first found out about Radical Unschooling and started reading the Always Unschooled list (some time before I joined this one) I felt that the parenting described here is how to do Unconditional Parenting in practice.

(From following this list for a little while I hear that there is no love lost between Kohn and the Homeschooling and Unschooling communities...perhaps he feels his ideas will have the broadest affect by targeting them at the school system...or perhaps he has an unconditional love of money?)

I agree with Sandra's example of coming home to find your child has committed some horrific act, and finding it hard to love the child, or maybe not even wanting to.  

This is very unlikely to happen, thank fully.

More likely is that a parent will use frequent withdrawal of love to modify a child's behaviour. I have seen a 4yo put in time out by a parent for refusing to have a drink when asked to by a grandparent. If you believe Kohn's idea's about how children experience love, the message there is "We will only love you when you do as you are told, regardless of your bodily needs"

That seems a very odd condition for love to me.

I don't think Husbands, friends etc warrant unconditional love. We form contracts with them, with clauses that are variously verbal or written, formal, informal or tacit. These are the conditions of our love. Sometimes we don't get the conditions all ironed out at the right rate, and this is a problem. Other times people decide to forfeit the love because breaking the contract, breaching it's conditions, looks better at that time.

But a child does not enter any kind of contract. They can even love when the most basic, humane conditions are not provided for, such as when abused.

When you have brought someone in to the world, or chosen to parent them, parents owe it to that individual to respect them for who they are.

Love, should it be there, should not be contingent upon their meeting particular standards.

You can't conjour love up. It is or it isn't and should not be used as a bargaining chip.

When there is no love for a child (or person) because they have done you great harm, conditions become irrelevant.

If you love a child as they are, and not some imagined them, conditions become irrelevant.
Conditions become important when you love the child in your head, not the child before you. Then your love is a catalyst to change them.

My thoughts.

Dawn

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

otherstar

>>>>Advice given to love one's child unconditionally seems great for very young children, and for seven and eight year olds, I guess. At some point, though, when the children become less and less a part of a dyad with the mother (which is much earlier than seven or eight in some families), it doesn't seem as appropriate to me.<<<<<

I have a couple of thoughts on this based on the difference between my parents and how they have interacted with me and my siblings over the years. First, I wonder what you mean by unconditional love because my thoughts are that unconditional love is always appropriate. My definition of unconditional love is a love that is based on honesty whereby two people can be completely honest with each other without fear of retribution. With my dad, I feel like I can tell him anything. When he talks to me, he tends to be pretty honest. When talking with mom, I have to be very careful about what I say because I know that she tends to take things personally and make them all about her. I cannot have interactions with her that are open and honest. Even as an adult, there is an underlying fear that she is going to withdraw her love for some kind of unknown reason. In my opinion, unconditional love is not synonymous with anything goes. I think unconditional love means that the relationship is based on honesty without spite and retribution. Unconditional love is about being able to consider the needs of both parties involved without making it too personal.

When I was in college and was going on interviews and doing other stuff that required a certain mode of dress, I would try on different outfits and ask my dad for his opinion. I knew I would get an honest opinion from my dad. He would tell me if something looked like crap. My mom would not. My mom wouldn’t give honest feedback about anything because she made everything about her. Her ability to give honest feedback was hampered by HER inability to be honest. It was hampered by HER needs and what was convenient for her. She was unable to separate herself and her likes and dislikes to give me an honest assessment. As a result, it seemed like everything had some kind of condition or underlying motive that was impossible to guess. As I am think about this, the conditions are not about the kids but are instead about the parent and his/her needs. My dad on the other hand would be straight up and tell me, “That looks like crap.” If I did something stupid, he would let me know but letting me know did not involve being punished or berated or belittled. The more I think about it, I think unconditional love is love that gives another person the room to be fully human without being berated, belittled, or punished. Even if my child murdered someone or burned down a house, I would not stop loving them. My actions toward that child might change but the underlying feelings of love would not. The love might be overshadowed by other thoughts and feelings but it would not diminish the underlying love. There would more than likely be conflicting feelings. One of the definitions of love is “to have a strong attachment to”. No matter what anybody does, I will still love them. I will still have that internal attachment. Having an attachment to somebody does not mean that I will become a door mat nor does it mean “anything goes”. I have a sister that I no longer talk to or have a relationship with. I still love her but my love for her is limited to a feeling of concern that I have for her. I won’t talk to her or have anything to do with her but I do not wish ill on her and I like hearing that she is doing okay. No matter what she does, we will always have a connection by virtue of the fact that we are sisters. How I choose to act on those feelings of love is up to me.

>>>But "love" that's based on nothing with NO expectations seems worthless. <<<<<

I think that one would need to untangle the feelings of love from the actions of love. I can feel love without any reason. Some questions that came up for me when thinking about this are:
How does one prioritize love of self versus love of others?
Can a person have expectations with or without love? Does love mean dropping ALL expectations? As I think about these questions, I am thinking that a person can have expectations about how they want to live in the world without thinking about “love”. For example, I do not need to love somebody in order to want them to treat me a certain way. I expect to be able to go out into the world and have people have a certain level of respect/regard for my space. I expect to be able to go to the store without having random strangers walk up and hug me or hit me or invade my space. Those expectations have nothing to do with love. I can have compassion and understanding for another human being without feelings of love. For me, expectations exist with or without love. Love does not change the fact that I am not okay with murder or other behaviors that I think are “bad” or unacceptable.

I was trying to make sense out of this and did some research because I had a faint memory of learning about the different types of love in one of my philosophy courses.

I found this link about Theories of Love on about.com: http://psychology.about.com/od/loveandattraction/a/theoriesoflove.htm

Here is a link from Wikipedia about C.S. Lewis’s book The Four Loves: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Four_Loves I haven’t read the book but it gets closer to what I remember about the different types of love. I am not enamored with the Christian focus in the discussion of agape but I think it gets closer to what is meant by unconditional love and how I interpret it. It says, “Charity (agapē, ἀγάπη) is the love that brings forth caring regardless of the circumstance.”

I tried to do some searches on love and philosophy because it seems that philosophical discussions of love are the most robust and present the most options. Most of the stuff that I came up with was really long and convoluted. Since unconditional love is typically described as agape, I did a search on that and came up with this Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

The quote from it that captures my thinking is this: “ Thomas Jay Oord has defined agape as "an intentional response to promote well-being when responding to that which has generated ill-being."[3] “ Based on this definition, that would mean that even if I came home and found that my child had burned down the house, then I would still try to promote his or her well-being. What “promoting his/her well-being” looks like will be very different depending on the situation. However, promoting somebody else’s well-being should not override my own well-being. A lot of times, love gets tangled up because of self love versus love for others. Some parents get so caught up in self that they are incapable of unconditional love, which is NOT the same as anything goes. I think some people get caught up in self because of living a life full of unmet needs. One of the things that was brought up in some of the philosophical discussions was reciprocity. In my opinion, unconditional love is reciprocal. However, that reciprocity is not born out of expectations or “have to”. The reciprocity is born out of the fact that it benefits both the person that is loved as well as the person that is doing the loving. With my mom, I feel like she is the one that gets the most benefit out her love for her children. With my dad, everyone benefits.

Connie



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-Isn't there a poem somewhere about "Love is not love that alters when it
alteration finds"?-=-

Shakespeare, a sonnet quoted in Sense and Sensibility, is where that's most had exposure lately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnet_116

That's not binding on anyone. :-) No poetry is scientific proof or rules or law.

-=- I explain to my
cousins that, for me, some people have built up a lot of credit over the
years and it will take a lot for them to exhaust that so that I feel I no
longer have any obligation.-=-

Yes. My mom had spent all her credit before I was even grown, but I continued to help her for many, many years. Not because she was nice; because I was.

-=-When you were involved with Al-Anon was there discussion about loving an
alcoholic does not mean mandatory enabling? Or that feeling "if you loved
me you would not be addicted" was not accurate? Even less accurate "If
only I can love enough, then s(he) will change"? or "I will withhold love
to change the behavior".-=-

Sure.

I love the memory of my half-brother when he was young. I loved him hugely when he was a little boy.
I don't love the man he became. I won't have him around my children, nor even around my adult children, nor around my husband. If I were the last survivor of my immediate family, I might let him back into my life.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=- I think unconditional love means that the relationship is based on honesty without spite and retribution. Unconditional love is about being able to consider the needs of both parties involved without making it too personal.-=-

That's about trust.

-=-. One of the things that was brought up in some of the philosophical discussions was reciprocity. In my opinion, unconditional love is reciprocal. However, that reciprocity is not born out of expectations or �have to�. The reciprocity is born out of the fact that it benefits both the person that is loved as well as the person that is doing the loving. With my mom, I feel like she is the one that gets the most benefit out her love for her children. With my dad, everyone benefits. -=-

Also about trust, and faith in that person's reliability or integrity.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

I would recommend reading 'Alfie Kohn- Unconditional Parenting' on this subject, one of the best books I have read on the subject for crystal clear, no nonsense ideas and arguments. Here is a chapter
http://www.alfiekohn.org/up/content/excerpt.asp

and a quote:
'Ultimately, conditional parenting reflects a tendency to see almost every human interaction, even among family members, as a kind of economic transaction. The laws of the marketplace - supply and demand, tit for tat - have assumed the status of universal and absolute principles, as though everything in our lives, including what we do with our children, is analogous to buying a car or renting an apartment.'

I think there should be no difference in unconditional love for a younger and older child, or even when they are adults. They should not at any point have to 'earn' love. This book really clarified for me those behaviours I should work at avoiding with my children and why, as the parenting I had was very conditional, something I was aware of from a very young age.(and it has done me no favours). I have this book to hand all the time and keep rereading parts.
A


--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> I want to float an idea out here for feedback, maybe history or citations.
>
> I first hear "unconditional love" in the late 1960's, I think. It could have been the 1970's.
>
> There was a pushback idea in those days that became kind of a movement: "tough love"
> it was, partially, a treatment method for parents to use with juvenile delinquents. But I don't want to talk about "tough love." I want more thoughts and feedback about "unconditional love.'
>
> "Love" is a problem in English anyway, because it has a large range of meaning and emotion.
>
> Advice given to love one's child unconditionally seems great for very young children, and for seven and eight year olds, I guess. At some point, though, when the children become less and less a part of a dyad with the mother (which is much earlier than seven or eight in some families), it doesn't seem as appropriate to me.
>
> As advice to parents of eleven, twelve, thirteen year olds--advice given by schools that need kids to be placated and encouraged--it makes some sense.
>
> Here's my problem:
> Love that is ONLY contingent and conditional seems to be payment, not love. But "love" that's based on nothing with NO expectations seems worthless.
>
> Tear it up, if you're so minded. I'm not attached to this at all, and it's not about any current situation in my house or life. :-)
>
> Sandra
>

Sandra Dodd

-=-
When you have brought someone in to the world, or chosen to parent them, parents owe it to that individual to respect them for who they are.-=-

Owe?
:-)

-=-When you have brought someone in to the world, or chosen to parent them, parents owe it to that individual to respect them for who they are.-=-

For how many years? 25? 46?

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-You can't conjour love up. It is or it isn't and should not be used as a bargaining chip.-=-

Oooh.... That's harsh, though.
Some parents have instincts kick in BIG when they have a child.
Others don't.

Sanra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rachel

My own personal opinion is this. The closet thing to unconditional love I
have is from me, as a parent, to my child. I do not really see true
unconditional love anywhere else.

A pet does not give you unconditional love (which many say they do) as they
love the person that feeds them and pets them the most.

A child does not give unconditional love to a parent, I have disowned my
biological father because of the bad choices he made. I may not have seen
those choices till I was older, but I certainly do not have unconditional
love for him. If a parent provides a loving, safe home, then love flows
from child to parent, but if the home is not safe, then one day the child
may resent that. So a child's love is conditional on the type of
environment the parent provides.

Same goes for siblings or other relatives, they certainly could do things
bad enough to turn me away if they so chose.

A husband-wife relationship isn't about unconditional love either. My love
for my husband is based on the mutual respect and trust we have for each
other. If we lost that, the love would be gone.

But as far as my love for my child, there is nothing I can imagine my child
doing (drugs, murder, hard time in jail) that I would turn my back
completely on him. If things got bad enough, the love may fade, and worry
may take over, but I feel like there will always be a seed of love for my
son no matter what. I am not sure that I would even call that
unconditional love though, but I suppose it's the closest thing to it. I
will say, though, that this is not every parent, I know many parents that
base their love on many conditions, like my own biological father, which is
why I no longer speak to him.

Rachel


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

otherstar

-=- I think unconditional love means that the relationship is based on
honesty without spite and retribution. Unconditional love is about being
able to consider the needs of both parties involved without making it too
personal.-=-

That's about trust.
*************************

How? How is ME considering the needs of my children without making it too
personal about trust? Trust does not enter the equation at all on my end.
How is me being honest with my kids about trust?


-=-. One of the things that was brought up in some of the philosophical
discussions was reciprocity. In my opinion, unconditional love is
reciprocal. However, that reciprocity is not born out of expectations or
“have to”. The reciprocity is born out of the fact that it benefits both the
person that is loved as well as the person that is doing the loving. With my
mom, I feel like she is the one that gets the most benefit out her love for
her children. With my dad, everyone benefits. -=-

Also about trust, and faith in that person's reliability or integrity.
********************

I am not sure that I understand what you mean. How does reliability or
integrity determine whether or not both parties benefit?


Connie


Pam Sorooshian

I think about it more in terms of behaviorist psychology:

Conditional love would mean love that someone doles out as a reward in
order to "condition" the other person - to get them to do what they want
them to do - or withdraws in order to exterminate a behavior they don't
want them to do.

Unconditional would mean that it is given without an ulterior motive of
trying to condition or shape the other person.

-pam


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Vicki Dennis

I don't know that I would say (or think) "given". More that it just "is".

vicki

P.S.: I was always unwilling to adopt the practices called "tough love"
which I think may have been a coopting of the word. I was unwilling to
take a chance that my child would be found dead and I would be far too
likely to blame myself.

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I think about it more in terms of behaviorist psychology:
>
> Conditional love would mean love that someone doles out as a reward in
> order to "condition" the other person - to get them to do what they want
> them to do - or withdraws in order to exterminate a behavior they don't
> want them to do.
>
> Unconditional would mean that it is given without an ulterior motive of
> trying to condition or shape the other person.
>
> -pam
>
>
> [
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pam

Hello all. This is my first time posting as I am still new to the group and to unschooling. I am not new to thinking about and loving unconditionally.

I believe that you can love unconditionally someone you have issues with, and/or issues with their behavior more specifically. We have had this tested in the past in a huge way when our son decided to go through life breaking laws, acting disrespectfully towards the family, being hateful in word and deed to just about anyone who came into his path.

During these years we continued to love him, to be respectful towards him, to stand along side of, go to court with him, visit him in jail, sort through his thoughts, ideas, grief, anger... It was not pleasant, easy, desirous at times. We love him, so we were able to continue to be unconditional with that love - even when we did not like him, his behaviors, choices, actions, reactions. We set boundaries that we knew were healthy for our family, including him. He did not always agree, and when he made choices in our home, or in life that came back into the home that were dangerous, scary, hurtful... we asked him to leave.

He accused us of not loving him at times because we did not give into what he demanded. Now that we are through that season in life, he can speak to knowing that we did truly love him enough to not allow that which was unhealthy/dangerous to be part of any of our lives. We supported him, not his ill behavior. We did open our doors up to visits, and then for his return into the home when he was willing to abide by the boundaries in place.

Our love for him was not always "touchy feely" type of love. Sometimes it was "by the grit of our teeth", or that of a protective Momma bear protecting a cub (even if said cub was making poor choices). We wanted him to live, to be part of life in a way that was not hurting himself or others. We opened our doors and fed his friends, even when we knew that the friendship was not good for any of them. We loved him, loved them (even though we did not know them - we loved them because they were someone's son/daughter, because they as human beings have worth, and individually they all had their "story" that had led up to where they were at that moment.) They knew, or soon learned, of the "rules of the house" that were in place for everyone's protection. Most willingly left their worst attitudes/behaviors outside. They were treated with respect, even when they were not being respectful to themselves or others(outside our home). If that lack of respect rippled out onto the rest of the people in our home, it was time to leave - with the knowledge that they were welcomed back later IF they chose to abide by the expectations we had. Even though we did not all agree on the why's of things, we could agree to disagree at least for a while.

We did not set rules and regulations just to have a set in place. We made and revised as needed to provide a safe haven for our family and friends. We did not always react or respond lovingly and when that happened, we apologized. Stress levels ran very high for the better part of 3 years, and try as we might, we sometimes failed in reigning in our own emotions. The neat thing about our failures though, ended up with our son (and on occasion, a friend or two) being able to recognize that we too are human, we err, and we can still be loved - even when acting unlovable. It was a learning opportunity in his life regarding that very same unconditional love.

Our son is now a husband (first anniversary today), father to a sweet little boy, and experiencing a different level of unconditional love that he didn't understand before becoming a father/husband himself.

This is the same for Mothers/Fathers/Siblings... we did not choose them, and might not other wise spend time with them, but we can love them, even if we need to put miles in between us for some semblance of a continued relationship. I know that even when I am at total odds with my Mom - in many areas of life, there is a connective love that continues to bind our hearts together. The older I get, the easier it is to let go of real or perceived hurts and just love. Part of all of that is getting over my own belief that "I am right" when we all know that we all are layers of experiences and "teachings" that are often faulty at best. It is taking me a while, and reading through the threads here have made a huge impact on my thinking and beliefs of what is worthy of continuing - or not!

Vicki Dennis

I don't know that I would say (or thing) "given". More that it just "is".

vicki
P.S.: I was always unwilling to adopt the practices called "tough love"
which I think may have been a coopting of the word. I was unwilling to
take a chanc

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>wrote:

> **
>
>
> I think about it more in terms of behaviorist psychology:
>
> Conditional love would mean love that someone doles out as a reward in
> order to "condition" the other person - to get them to do what they want
> them to do - or withdraws in order to exterminate a behavior they don't
> want them to do.
>
> Unconditional would mean that it is given without an ulterior motive of
> trying to condition or shape the other person.
>
> -pam
>
>
> [
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Vicki Dennis

AARRGGHHH............should be "think".


On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Vicki Dennis <vicki@...> wrote:

> I don't know that I would say (or thing) "given". More that it just "is".
>
> vicki
> P.S.: I was always unwilling to adopt the practices called "tough love"
> which I think may have been a coopting of the word. I was unwilling to
> take a chanc
>
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...>wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> I think about it more in terms of behaviorist psychology:
>>
>> Conditional love would mean love that someone doles out as a reward in
>> order to "condition" the other person - to get them to do what they want
>> them to do - or withdraws in order to exterminate a behavior they don't
>> want them to do.
>>
>> Unconditional would mean that it is given without an ulterior motive of
>> trying to condition or shape the other person.
>>
>> -pam
>>
>>
>> [
>>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dawn Sharkey

-=-You can't conjour love up. It is or it isn't and should not be used as a bargaining chip.-=-

Oooh.... That's harsh, though.
Some parents have instincts kick in BIG when they have a child.
Others don't.


Sandra

*****************************

I didn't mean to be harsh.
Are you refering to parents who have trouble bonding with babies? I guess most have bonded by the time the child is old enough to be aware? I hope anyway. If not maybe the child can be happy as long as they *feel* loved. That is distinct from the love a parent feels.

After all who can say that the love you and i feel for our children is equal, the same or even enough?

We don't know what each other experiences as love. More words for different kinds of love *might* help. :-)

Lots of children are hugely loved by their parents, but feel that that love is conditional on certain behaviours.

Love being present isn't the key in my mind. Love being felt by the child is what matters. Love not being dangled as a carrot.

I can relate to what Connie says, i was loved greatly by my mother, but that love met her needs before it met mine.




-----Original Message-----
From: Sandra Dodd
Sent:  20/06/2012 6:46:19 pm
Subject:  Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: unconditional love

-=-You can't conjour love up. It is or it isn't and should not be used as a bargaining chip.-=-

Oooh.... That's harsh, though.
Some parents have instincts kick in BIG when they have a child.
Others don't.

Sanra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dawn Sharkey

-=-
When you have brought someone in to the world, or chosen to parent them, parents owe it to that individual to respect them for who they are.-=-

Owe?
:-)

******************************

Yep. :-)

We don't have to have children. We could have dogs instead and use punishment and reward to make them behave exactly as we want at all times. Or we could not bother with any of that and only form consensual relationships with people of our choosing for mutual benefit.

But to my mind, children didn't choose to have us, we should respect that they are not us, that are not our ethics/values etc made manifest.

We love them, or not, or to varying degrees, but the offer of love, should not be used to control their behaviour.


**************************


-=-When you have brought someone in to the world, or chosen to parent them, parents owe it to that individual to respect them for who they are.-=-

For how many years? 25? 46? 


************************

I don't know :-)
Even if you love someone unconditionally, as an adult, they might walk away. You would still love them. Maybe *you* might walk away and still love a child. Or partner, or friend. Because it didn't "work" in spite of the love. 

I think I mean that your love should not be used to *Make it work* because that would be using love to condition the other person. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

lisamitch

-=- "Love" is a problem in English anyway, because it has a large range of meaning and emotion.-=-

I say more than in just the English language...!
(It would be interesting to find which countries or cultures in the world do *not* sing songs about love, unrequited love, love lost, the love-sick blues, etc...!)

-=- Here's my problem:
> Love that is ONLY contingent and conditional seems to be payment, not love. But "love" that's based on nothing with NO expectations seems worthless.-=-

That last love, that's the only "pure" version of love that there can be. True love.
Anything other than that is conditional.

I read a book on the subject of love that "blew my mind".
("I Need Your Love - Is that True?" by Byron Katie).
Seen in her light, we all love conditionally. PERIOD.
We are all seeking something (approval, acceptance) in the other.
If we were all able to "walk the talk" of that kind of truely unconditional love, the world would be a peaceful place. We would simply love, and truly expect nothing in return.

I'm not a religious person, but I think it's explained very well in "Corithians 1:13" (which interestingly enough is often read at weddings...how quickly we forget! ;))

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
Love never fails...."

Meredith

Dawn Sharkey <sharkeydawn@...> wrote:
> When you have brought someone in to the world, or chosen to parent them, parents owe it to that individual to respect them for who they are.
************

I don't find it helpful to think of parenting in terms of what I owe - to me, that's the essence of "conditional love" right there, the idea that I owe it to someone. I don't owe my kids love or kindness or care. I know that, because I've seen plenty of parents who are careless or unkind, or parent to meet their own needs - and all of them say they love their children. I choose to be kind and thoughtful and gracious to my kids and partner... but I'm not sure I choose to do that out of love. It depends on how one defines the word.

There's a massive disconnect between what most people mean by "love" as a feeling and "loving" behavior, which leaves this topic rather bitter for me. I don't see parents loving unconditionally, for the most part. I do see that some people make the amazing and sometimes challenging decision to act kindly and thoughtfully and graciously, to be mindful and joyful and sweet, some of them parents toward their children. Maybe that's one definition of love - if so, it's the only one which interests me, because it's so rare and precious. I don't know that it's unconditional, though - to an extent, it's based in a kind of self interest. When I'm mindful and joyful and sweet, my life is better, right then And other people are much more likely to be sweet to me. But that's a condition, at least in the behavioristic sense. I'm "loving" (if that's love) because it makes me happy, it's self-rewarding behavior.

> Even if you love someone unconditionally, as an adult, they might walk away. You would still love them.
****************

Would you? Definitions, again. Can you love someone without knowing them? If you don't see someone for years, is it possible to love them? Or can you only love a memory of them, an idea of them?

---Meredith

Sandra Dodd

-=-We don't have to have children. We could have dogs instead and use punishment and reward to make them behave exactly as we want at all times. Or we could not bother with any of that and only form consensual relationships with people of our choosing for mutual benefit.-=-

It's a very recent truth, "we don't have to have children."

And as a "truth," it doesn't apply to all people. There are forced pregancies, accidental pregnancies, religious-obligation pregnancies.

Choice is a technological luxury.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=- to an extent, it's based in a kind of self interest. When I'm mindful and joyful and sweet, my life is better, right then And other people are much more likely to be sweet to me. But that's a condition, at least in the behavioristic sense. I'm "loving" (if that's love) because it makes me happy, it's self-rewarding behavior. -=-

Being loving makes a person more lovable.

Someone wrote:
-=- Even if you love someone unconditionally, as an adult, they might walk away. You would still love them.-=-
****************
Meredith wrote:
-=-Would you? Definitions, again. Can you love someone without knowing them? If you don't see someone for years, is it possible to love them? Or can you only love a memory of them, an idea of them? -=-
_____________

I have some longterm friends for whom I have years and years of memories and fondness. One became a meth user for a long time, and stole money and lied and destroyed several friendships around him. I'm wary of him. He's cleaned up and is living in a distant town. He asked if he could stay with us at New Year's and I would have said yes, but I've already told a couple of families they could stay here after the Always Learning Live symposium in Albuquerque http://speakingsandradodd.blogspot.co.uk/p/december-27-albuquerque.html

I love memories of things we did when we were younger. I feel committed to being available to him emotionally, but not to providing him a place to stay when he's in town. Even though he's sober/"in recovery", I don't trust all his newer friends. I love the core of him and have sympathy for him because I know his family, and his ex wife, and was there as things unfolded for him.

Some of the emotion that goes along with that is protection of the safety and peace of my home. That's prioritization of my children and my husband over my friendships with sometimes-questionable people.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dawn Sharkey

I wrote....

-=-We don't have to have children. We could have dogs instead and use punishment and reward to make them behave exactly as we want at all times. Or we could not bother with any of that and only form consensual relationships with people of our choosing for mutual benefit.-=-


Sandra wrote...

It's a very recent truth, "we don't have to have children."

And as a "truth," it doesn't apply to all people. There are forced pregancies, accidental pregnancies, religious-obligation pregnancies.

Choice is a technological luxury.
************************************

That's correct. I was making a generalisation. I think most people in the western world do chose to become parents. And most "choose" to parent conditionally.
It's often a passive choice as many people parent as they were parented. That's why I put choose in quotes.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dawn Sharkey

Meredith wrote ***I don't find it helpful to think of parenting in terms of what I owe - to me, that's the essence of "conditional love" right there, the idea that I owe it to someone.***

It's interesting (to me) that I feel differently about this. I don't think that my owing my children respect as and individual is conditional upon them doing anything. Maybe it is a condition I set for *my self* when I *chose* to have children. But in truth I didn't think about any such things before I had children, or for a while after. I came in to parenting thinking that children needed to be bent to adult will, and that praise and punishment were how this was to be done.


So despite now thinking that I created a sort of contract for my self when i chose to have children, one in which I decided that I owed my children unconditional love. I actually got pregnant with every intention of being completely conditional.

Now I try to be unconditional and think others should too...hypocrisy? Maybe. I have changed my view certainly. I seem to think others should reach the same conclusion as me, and that they should do it a a point in their parenting journey, that is earlier than I did. Wow, what a lot of judgment is in me!

Meredith wrote  ***I don't owe my kids love or kindness or care. I know that, because I've seen plenty of parents who are careless or unkind, or parent to meet their own needs - and all of them say they love their children***

Just because those kids don't receive respect, kindness, care, rainbows on sticks or personal jets, does not mean they aren't owed them. Not saying that all those things are owed to children, but that  I don't think non-receipt is evidence that something was never owed. All manner of ills are committed in the name of love, i feel.

Meredith wrote ***There's a massive disconnect between what most people mean by "love" as a feeling and "loving" behavior, ***

I agree and also think there is a huge disconnect between love as it is felt with in one individual toward another, how it is shown by actions intended to be loving, *and* how this is perceived in/by the recipient. All of this is making the discussion really challenging for me. Unconditional love is a concept I thought I had some thoughts about. But they seem to unravel as I type, and I'm not very experienced at putting arguments together (so thank you all for your patience as I pick apart my thinking).      

Meredith wrote ***When I'm mindful and joyful and sweet, my life is better, right then And other people are much more likely to be sweet to me. But that's a condition, at least in the behavioristic sense. I'm "loving" (if that's love) because it makes me happy, it's self-rewarding behavior. ***

But it is not about conditioning a child to respond in a particular way. The condition exists, as a response, a feeling in you that is positive. If the feeling became bad, you would change your behaviour right? You would not expect a child to create the environment for your happiness, you are finding happiness by responding to the individuality of your child. By meeting their needs. If I am understanding correctly....

Meredith wrote ***Can you love someone without knowing them? If you don't see someone for years, is it possible to love them? Or can you only love a memory of them, an idea of them? ***

I struggle with the extent to which we really know each other anyway. Maybe because my children are young, the oldest is only just verbal, so I am only just getting to know him, as in the him in his head that has abstract thoughts, rather than the baby him that is full of instant needs. Maybe as he (and then his sister) grows I will know them in a way i have never known anyone before and I will better understand this line of thought. Maybe others are more confident in their knowledge of other people. I guess I always feel people might be thinking  something and not revealing it. My mother often asks questions that I dare not answer, because I can tell she has got the whole conversation mapped out in her head, but I don't have a copy of that script. I know I'll get it wrong somewhere, and she'll be angry or disappointed. Maybe this has coloured my view of how well we truly know people, even when we love them and they profess to love us.

When my babies were born I felt a huge hormonal love but barely knew them. Did I love *them*, an idea of them or something else? What were the conditions I placed on my love? How could I ask anything of them?




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joyce Fetteroll

On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:25 AM, Sandra Dodd wrote:

> If I were to get home after seven weeks away and Marty had murdered
> his dad and burned the house down, that warm feeling would be less
> likely to well up in my motherly heart.

But a big dramatic change in values does't just happen. If this happened and Marty felt justified in what he did, either you were blind to what was going on, or Marty has become delusional. If he was remorseful there was something understandable behind it.

It's a straw man argument since it's only surface actions not the reasons beneath it.

> Somewhere things change.

Maybe the two conditions of "unconditional" love are 1) as long as the child has not adopted ethics counter to the ones you feel are necessary to be worthy of your love, and 2) the child is mature enough in their development to have adopted ethics.

For that statement to make the sense that thinking people want "unconditional love" to have -- e.g., not as an unbreakable rule -- ethics needs understood as moral principles not just values.

I think what adds to the confusion is that some people may say they could still love an offspring who was making immoral (by the parent's standards) choices. Some parents may continue to love an offspring who understood they were killing people in order to make money but others would see that as the breaking point. The ability to continue to feel love for someone no matter what may be biological and/or depend on their own ethics, where that particular principle falls in their ethics set and what other principles they have ahead of it.

That "somewhere" you mention happens as someone grows in understanding the consequences of the choices they make. When they deliberately make a choice that harms what you feel must not be harmed when they had the ability to make not-harmful choices then they've met the conditions when unconditional love doesn't apply.

When kids are young, their understanding of the consequences of their actions, their ability to grasp how to make better choices work, is still developing. If they're making poor choices, it's not because they've adopted ethics that are counter to the parents. It's because they still need support, growth and seeing the values used to meet their own needs to make better choices.

Withdrawing love from a child who still needs support in making good decisions is manipulative. Withdrawing love from someone who no longer seeks support in making decisions is making a choice to put a value on the love they give rather than because they believe it will change the offspring. I can also see how for some people love may have a stronger biological tie so choice doesn't come into it. Choosing to love or not love wouldn't take sense to them. I don't know if that permanent biological love is true or not, but the way some people write about it, that theory seems to make sense.

Joyce

Sandra Dodd

-=- I created a sort of contract for my self when i chose to have children, one in which I decided that I owed my children unconditional love. -=-

I decided that I was going to treat my children as welcome, honored guests. I didn't owe it to them. I gave it to them.

-=-All of this is making the discussion really challenging for me. Unconditional love is a concept I thought I had some thoughts about. But they seem to unravel as I type, and I'm not very experienced at putting arguments together ...-=-

Many people use terms they have not, themselves, examined or considered.
People will pick a phrase up and bandy it about without the ability to paraphrase it in their own words.

Don't feel guilty if you never thought about unconditional love in a critical way. It has an aura of sacredness around it. It is set up as an ideal, but as with many rhetorical phrases, it sets up a false dichotomy.

-=-When my babies were born I felt a huge hormonal love but barely knew them. Did I love *them*, an idea of them or something else? What were the conditions I placed on my love? How could I ask anything of them?-=-

I like to read and consider ideas like those. Those are good questions.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-Withdrawing love from a child who still needs support in making good decisions is manipulative. Withdrawing love from someone who no longer seeks support in making decisions is making a choice to put a value on the love they give rather than because they believe it will change the offspring. I can also see how for some people love may have a stronger biological tie so choice doesn't come into it. Choosing to love or not love wouldn't take sense to them. I don't know if that permanent biological love is true or not, but the way some people write about it, that theory seems to make sense. -=-

This reminds me of a book that I find disturbing, but some other parents have gushed about. I will note that they gushed about it when the had young children, and I haven't asked again since their sons are old enough to have girlfriends.

It's called Love you Forever, and it's all fine until the mother takes a ladder to climb into the grown son's bedroom window (where he lives in another house).

Ah. I've just looked it up for more information. It was written by a man. It was written because he and his wife had two stillborn babies.

http://robertmunsch.com/book/love-you-forever

Illustrated by Sheila McGraw.
She's the one with the idea of the ladder and the mom getting into the grown son's bedroom.

The text is here: http://www.rogerknapp.com/inspire/loveforever.htm

I've been through all those early stages, and I expect my kids to be willing to take care of me some (that's already starting).

It's love we've built on, though, and a love we decide once long ago was "unconditional."

Keith shouldn't continue to love me just because we got married in 1984. I shouldn't expect him to love me equally no matter whether I'm kind or honest or took good care of his children or was careful with the money he made and the things he built for us.

Love should be nurtured, and it should show in actions and attitudes. And it's not a decision to love someone (spouse or friend or child). It happens. And something that happens can't be declared eternal. For one thing, there's a mutuality of some sort (imagined, perhaps, in some cases). It's part of a relationship.

Sandra