Human Love; Analogous to Insects.

There are three types of Love; 'Abdominal', 'Thoracic' and 'Cranial'.

I recall that whilst studying biology at school, there were two defining qualities of Insects. 1. They have six legs (everyone knows that) and 2. They are divided into Head, Thorax and Abdomen.

I, like so many people, have tried to understand love - it has certainly passed me by, but then that's another story.

A few weeks ago I was watching Stephen Fry's TV program concerning homosexuality and the different attitudes to it in different nations around the world. At one point he argued with some religious leader in Uganda by saying "What has sex got to do with being gay?" I thought this a rather naive statement at first (the alternative to the term gay being homoSEXual,) but then I thought on.

There is no question that the Greek root meaning "having a sexual attraction to" is indeed 'sexual', when applied to humans specifically. It is almost exclusively combined as a suffix when forming a contraction such as homosexual or heterosexual.

However, for some inexplicable reason it has been decided that in the case of certain subjects (most commonly animals or children) the suffix that's used instead is 'philia' not 'sexual' and I can only assume that this has come about due to sloppy journalism whilst reporting on such issues decades ago, and it's just stuck. The etymological root of 'phile' or 'philia' does not describe or even infer sex in any way. It describes more of an intellectual or cerebral love. Admitedly, it is true that it's often used in a slightly different way in medical or biological descriptions in describing plants and animals, those that have a particular affinity to something or thrive in certain situations, but this piece is specifically relating to human affections.

All in all, it occurs to me that there is 'intellectual' love/attraction to something and there is 'sexual' love/attraction. So what about Romance or 'emotional' love/attraction? - I'm guessing that was what Stephen Fry was refering to in his debate with the Ugandan. It occurs to me that perhaps Romance is not quite the same as 'emotional' love, although couples often use it as a metaphor implying sexual fun and games. So Romance, therefore, is not really the same as love, or more accurately it is a culmination of ideas and social behaviours that arise from the effects of mainly 'emotional' and 'sexual' love (although we'll see that overall behaviours are affected by all three 'loves' to some extent or other.)

'Abdominal' ('Sexual') love (or lust) is obviously a very powerful and universal kind of love in the sense that it influences the behaviour of pretty much all living things, and certainly motivates all animal behaviour at some stage in their lifetimes.

'Thoracic' ('Emotional') love doesn't really apply to plants. I can't say I've ever heard of a plant swooning for lack of affection. Generally, flowers and blossoms thrust their sexual organs into the air in the hope that a bee or other kind of insect will transfer pollen to the stamen. (Did you see what I did there?) When it comes to animals there appears to be a vast range of the effect of 'emotional' love. Swans mate for life, yet with many other creatures it's "wham, bam, thank you ma'm". But then, it is difficult to define accurately what 'emotional' love really is. Also, how does Romance compare to Spiritual love?

'Cranial' ('Intellectual') love isn't really so hard to define. It often applys to a fascination in inanimate things, but moreover it describes a love based on the intrinsic value of something rather than appearance or physical characteristics. Something that is (as far as I know) only humans are capable of discerning.

I hope the reader understands that this view of "what love is" is a metaphorical model and I am not suggesting that love emanates from different parts of the body. Obviously, all forms of love or attraction are motivations that manifest themselves in the mind; the brain. However, for anyone who has suffered any kind of mental stress or torture, as a result of someone or something they really care about, they will know how physical discomfort can also be sensed below the kneck, often as though it comes from the heart, the pit of the stomach or even lower down.

So these three mechanisms that determine attraction to some-one/thing exist in the mind. As such it would seem a sensible suggestion that they no doubt affect each other at times. For instance, if someone is 'emotionally' drawn to someone it's likely that they would feel 'sexually' attracted to that person as well. If someone has an 'intellectual' fascination with something, it is quite likely that they would be 'emotionally' attached as well. It has to be said though, that forming a 'sexual' desire is not so likely to immediately stimulate an 'intellectual' one as well. It might be that a 'path' has to exist first between either one of these two mechanisms and the 'emotional' one before completing the chain. I believe this is what might be described as "being in Love", not something that is generally a part of anything other than human relationships.

After some thought, I have to conncede that, maybe, there is just two forms of attraction, being that of the intellect and the libido, and 'Emotional' love only exists as a result of an interaction between 'Sexual' and 'Intellectual' forces. As if 'Sexual' and 'Intellectual' were akin to the two poles of a magnet, or perhaps a better analogy would be with meteorological forces of High and Low pressure. When High and Low pressure come close together in the atmosphere they give rise to Warm and Cold fronts; I see these as comparable to Romance and Spiritual love. In a sense, when 'Intellectual' love dominates over 'Sexual' love it culminates in a more Spiritual love. Whereas, if 'Sexual' love dominates over 'Intellectual' love then it is biased more towards Romance. So far, so good. It seems to make some sort of sense to me. But then, trying to understand love scientifically probably explains that other story, and why I've spent most of my life alone.