>>>is western/non-western love more the issue
>>>
>>Those two things are totally different and incompatible.
>
>i don't understand how. we are
>all animals first and foremost
>beneath all things. but we
>have brains that we can
>use to twist our thoughts
>into oblivion. love, though, is
>a universal human function. a
>human NEED i would say.
>can't live without love.
>
>love is a basic human function.
>culture can only mess so
>deep with it.
>
>of course, we live in a
>world that's pretty obsessed with
>love. because of that we
>call all kindsa things love.
>and all that extra stuff
>(which is not love anyway)
>confuses the hell out of
>us.

I gotta agree with Solarus, "love" in the romantic sense was contrived during the Shakesperian period. Not every culture needs "love" in the sense that westerners (particularly the US), look at arranged hindu marriages. Their partners are chosen by parents, and in a sense they "love" each other, but not in a western sense. An Indian woman cannot be compatible with a western man unless he adapts to the western state of mind. Part of the problem with the romanticized image of love in our society is that it is almost an unattainable standard, you have to be completely compatible to this person in every sense from the get-go, when in reality, you live and learn and adapt to that person and they adapt to you, much like arranged marriages work. You've never met that person before the wedding date and you learn to live with them and raise a family. Notice how arranged marriages have a much lower divorce rate? I'm not suggesting that arranged marriages should be a standard for us, but eastern and western love is so opposite, that it wouldn't be compatible.