Talk:Love styles

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: * 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)
thread_title:  there are several forms of authors bias in this article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: 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)
thread_title: Revision/Expansion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Agape 

message: Does the abused spouse who refuses to prosecute display agape or pragma? Wnt (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Mania, quite possibly.  "In its extreme, mania becomes addiction or codependency." Yothgoboufnir (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Abuse? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Examples 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:   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)
thread_title:  Main/secondary styles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge with Color wheel theory of love 

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