Love Styles

 Love Styles 

Of all the love styles, western culture encourages Ludus, Eros, and Mania the most. On the surface this can seem like a very pessimistic observation, but if we look closely, what we call love has turned into a very self-centered device. Ludus infers a casual type of feeling, one where there is little to no commitment, Eros is based on sexual interest, and mania is focused more on control (Bowman 2019). Gen Z sees love as a noun and not a verb, chasing feelings instead of real love. Maria Stanchieri states “Gen Z is not necessarily looking for the "one and only" soulmate touted in romantic comedies, but rather different people who meet different needs, romantic, sexual or otherwise” (Stanchieri). Because of the self-centered/self-care culture we live in, people no longer practice the more arguably beautiful love styles like agape or storge. They are more focused on themselves. This does not mean that taking care of oneself is inherently bad, but when you are the only one you focus on the world cannot grow. Cultural sayings like “love is love” or “do what makes you happy” encourage people to have no definition of the word and think only of themselves. When there is no definition of love given, and these love styles are not clearly defined into categories, people cannot recognize the difference between love, lust, abuse, and other forms of relation. Dharius Daniels defines unconditional love in his book Relational Intelligence; “unconquerable benevolence. A commitment to seek my highest good. You have to handle the best of me and the worst of me without changing how you deal with me” (Daniels 2020). Western culture treats others how they treat you but love styles like Agape and Storge are committed for the long-term (Bowman 2019). 

Our culture encourages strategy and playing hard to get instead of practicing the more beautiful, caring, and loving love styles like Storge and Agape. One might argue that the so-called “love styles” have been mislabeled as love styles. Perhaps what I mean to say is that Eros, Ludus, and Mania may not even qualify as love styles in certain contexts; sexual interest does not always imply love, it could very easily be a form of hate if you consider rape or sexual assault. A “hunt for a partner” (Bowman 2019) can also be a form of selfishness; when 1 Corinthians 13 tells me love is selfless, Ludus does not appear as true love at all to me. If Mania is “characterized by territoriality ... and control” (Bowman 2019) I have a hard time seeing that as love too. You see, some of these “love styles” have been mislabeled as love, and that is one reason there is so much confusion in today’s relationships. I think some of the characteristics of the other love styles can be good when under the umbrella of what I would consider love; agape love, which seems downplayed. Precept Austin explains it well: 

Biblical agape love is the love of choice, the love of serving with humility, the highest kind of love, the noblest kind of devotion, the love of the will (intentional, a conscious choice) and not motivated by superficial appearance, emotional attraction, or sentimental relationship. Agape is not based on pleasant emotions or good feelings that might result from a physical attraction or a familial bond. Agape chooses as an act of self-sacrifice to serve the recipient. … Agape love does not depend on the world’s criteria for love, such as attractiveness, emotions, or sentimentality (Precept Austin 2023). 

This is the kind of love that the characteristics of other love styles should fall under. Sexual interest is good under the umbrella of Agape love, with the other person's wellbeing in mind, and in a marital covenant. The hunt for a partner can be loving when you are searching for someone with the intent to serve them and serve others with them. The loyalty in Mania can be good when “protecting the relationship from outside intrusion” (Bowman 2019). An intrusion of something that would bring harm to an otherwise healthy relationship. 

 

Works Cited 

Bowman, Jonathan M. Interpersonal Communication: Interconnections Foundations and Contexts. MindTap - Cengage Learning, 2019. https://ng.cengage.com/static/nb/ui/evo/index.html?deploymentId=5799847154192693996956595&eISBN=9781337554121&id=1986405705&snapshotId=3798006.  

Daniels, Dharius. Relational Intelligence. Zondervan, 28 Jan. 2020. 

Precept Austin. “2 Peter 1:6-7 Commentary | Precept Austin.” Www.preceptaustin.org, 9 Aug. 2023, www.preceptaustin.org/2_peter_16-7#love. Accessed 15 Feb. 2024. 

Stanchieri, Maria. “For Gen Z, Love Is Not a Priority.” Nss Magazine, 14 Feb. 2023, www.nssmag.com/en/lifestyle/32227/gen-z-series-valentine-s-edition.