Cohen Perry 2/2/12 PHL Love and Sex The Dangers of Definition Raja Halwani outlines sixteen key

points which make up romantic love. Only one is necessary (It always has concern on the part of the lover for the well being of the beloved (27)). Eight are generally necessary and seven of which are not necessary. He proceeds to mention that all of these characteristics can be found in virtually every form of love and that they are not exclusive to romantic love. Does this statement not prove the futility of defining the concept of romantic love? Furthermore, is the categorization and labeling of love not irrelevant at the least, and dangerous at the worst? Take society's views on sexuality and gender. There is a very linear paradigm on how we define the two. Currently, one is either male or female. Although some recognition of transgendered or ambiguously gendered people exists, they are often forced to be categorized under the dichotomous lens of male or female. This poses problems for those that are unable to fit under one or the other. Instead of allowing this archaic view to perpetuate, a matrix of gender should replace the current system, allowing for diversity. Gender exists yes, males and females exist as well, but so do other genders. In other words one should see this matrix as at least, but not limited to. When we look at the systematic categorization of love, we see the same linear perspective when in reality love is a matrix of definitions. Many, when first falling in love, are unable to explain or comprehend the emotions happening. We are told that this is love, but never again is the feeling the same. When we attempt to define the feelings, apply labels, and categorize the processes happening, we begin to lose sight of what is actually going on. Halwani never insinuates

that romantic love is limited to his sixteen point list (except for number sixteen), which makes the whole process itself just meaningless. If none of these characteristics, aside from the arguable point sixteen, are able to define romantic love, than what is their purpose except to help one try to assimilate their feelings to the masses. Romantic love is how the individual defines it, and just because a man categorized sixteen important experiences he had with this romantic love, does not in anyway lead one to understanding what romantic love is. If a man on the street told you there would be an earthquake tomorrow, you would think nothing on it. Considering this, where is the logic in accepting that 1. It occurs between adult human beings (27). In Disney's Lady and the Tramp, two dogs share an undeniable romantic love. This is symbolic of a larger concept that is able to transcend humanity, and it also makes point number one moot. In fact, a real world example can nullify every point made. In essence, Halwani makes valid arguments. None of his points are wrong, just as none of his points are right. They are simply one man's list of experiences. Personally, his points are of interest, however they are of unimportance. It would be a tantamount more helpful to hear these points contextualized, as they seem to wander lost without a story. I can tell you that I brushed my teeth this morning as I often do, but that means nothing to the future, or really anything but my own hygiene. It is irrelevant. For example, take the following statement, like any other emotion, it is neither morally good nor bad (27). This statement basically says that romantic love is not morally measurable, but the question of its morality was never thought of until the statement was posed. This murky and irrelevant information creates unnecessary ideas and concepts. As Buddha said, the way to enlightenment is through right mind, and this means avoiding poisonous thoughts that can corrupt.