Talk:Puppy love

Quote issues

There are so many quotes without explanation or context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slusho815 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed some info

"The term "puppy love" is often met with fierce resistance from the people whose affections it is used to describe. The term is commonly perceived to be patronizing and belittling of genuine emotion. Use of this term might also be seen as an invalidation of the person's feelings."

The section quoted was removed by me, because I did not see it have near any relation to the true definition. The phrases are hard to understand. It took me three times to read that first sentence, to finally understand what it said. I also removed the information because of lack of citation. Sources need to be cited, especially because of the confusing viewpoints there. Jaypvip (talk) 01:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Puppy love?

Is puppy love like a love felt as if "by a puppy" or for a puppy? -Unsigned

My guess is a bit of both. There might be two flavours that contribute to puppy love. Reverence and playful obediance towards someone, then you are the puppy. If you dwell on their cuteness and want to take care of them, then they're the puppy. Basically, the master is the dominant/independant (traditionally male) personality and the puppy is the submissive/dependant (traditionally female) personality. As people can be dominant and submissive in various aspects of relationships, I think in them there tend to be aspects of puppy and master in both of them. Considering most relationships are like this, I don't think there's really any difference between puppy love and real love, it's mostly a dismissive and demeaning insult people throw to emotions they see other people who they view as lesser feeling, as a means of dismissing their importance as a defence mechanism.

Currently, this article only describes that of puppy towards master though, and not the reverse, which I think would also be called puppy love. Similarly the analogy is a bit tenuous since even grown dogs can behave 'like puppies' and be worshipful towards masters. Similarly, this is something experienced between adults, not only adolescents. The reason for the youthful naming of the term is likely because society associates a certain quality of shallow and stupid affection with youth, its existance is an example of an ageist association, in that foolishness associated with youthfulness is associated with foolishness associated with dogs. The young are compared to the old as dogs are to humans.

The article also says the love is not returned. I don't think this properly reflects its use in culture, because often youths are said to be 'in puppy love' even if both return each other's feelings. It is less to do with reciprocity and more to do with quality and depth of love that I think the term refers to. The article probably needs mending to reflect this. Who wants to start? Tyciol (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I say it should say LIKE puppy love. XXkelli8Xx (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Puppy picture

THERE SHOULD BE A PICTURE OF A PUPPY, WITHOUT IT, THIS ARTICLE IS INCOMPLETE

NO 24.149.151.254 04:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why do you all insist that we put a dog as the picture when we are talking about teenage love and not puppies. Love and animal are two different things they may connect but for our purposes they do not have anything to do with each other. January 31,2007 (8:34)

I am guessing for the humourous value, but really, it wouldn't hurt, since it is the analogy and displaying the affection of a puppy would help in represent the dotey-eyed stereotype people imagine when they hear the term. Tyciol (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, a humorous picture for humour's sake doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia. (And humorous only has one u: see List of common misspellings.)—Jchthys 14:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Limerance

Why the link to limerance? Limerance is described as being long-term and puppy love as short term... not the same. 172.200.75.142 00:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• sigh* Links in "See also" sections do not have to be virtual synonyms of the article itself. Use your brain. Think about it. Makes sense now, doesn't it? -Unsigned

Try editing it yourself

This whole article seems either irrelevant, or should be added to and cleaned up... "sooooooo embarrassing" doesn't sound like it would belong in an encyclopedia. Lone Lobo 02:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Calf love in Shakespeare

The passage quoted doesn't actually contain the phrase 'calf love'. While what is currently quoted may be relevant enough to include, it certainly isn't if it does not include the preceding passage which mentions the use of the alternative phrase being referenced. Going into the roots of this might also be useful. The relationship between human and puppy might be similar to human and calf, but considering the eventual fates of the animals and the attitudes humans have to the parents they come from, I would think there are possibly some differences in the intentions behind these analogy phrases. Tyciol (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

opposite sex only??

I find this dubious. I'm no medical expert but there must be puppy love, even among heterosexual children. After all, it does not imply sexual attraction since arguably very young children do not feel sexual attraction. Michaelh2001 (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean, "even among homosexual children"? Because certainly they may themselves not recognise it, but I'd think that even those who know they were attracted to the same sex from a young age would be able to experience "puppy love". I think the "opposite sex" part should be removed to simply read "between young people". I'd assume this article was written by someone who sees that as proper, or else they didn't pay any mind to it. 114.78.105.246 (talk) 06:27, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Homosexual children"?! That's ridiculous, most children don't become aware of their own sexual identity until adolescence.187.13.174.77 (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I just haven’t seen any evidence or source (or imagine one in my own mind) that would indicate this.—Jchthys 15:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

This article seems kind of superfluous to me, and might best be merged with the article on love or romantic love. Anybody agree? Xabian40409 (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a notable facet of romantic love. Powers ^T 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Article Title

It seems that using the word "puppy love" is encyclopedic. I prefer the term "crush," but if anyone can give me a reason to stick with puppy love, I'll gladly comply. 147.226.196.254 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree to the term "crush"

Aye, but 'puppy love' might be popular wherever the page-starter was from. Bosredsox24 (talk)

Missing Information

Shouldn't you also put that puppy love/crush could be between two adolesence or children? So far all it states is children/adolesence adoring older people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.7.39 (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I like him/her

This might be too small to be mentioned on the talk page, but I think that the informal term "like" should also be mentioned somewhere, if you know what I mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.218.58 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Premières amours

The French word "amour" has the strange particularity to be masculine when it's singular, and feminine when it's plural. The expression "first loves" is "premières amours", not "premiers amours".

Merge from Crush (relationship)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Crush_(relationship)

The source article contains a lot of fluff and flannel, and some hard facts which may be salvaged and should then be merged with this article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

An editor has recently added elements about homosexuality

As it stood before the addition the article was generic. The addition was a quotation from an author who appears to believe that an innate sexuality can be changed or controlled in some manner. I believe this it a coatrack and is out of place in this article, as, indeed, iis any discussion on sexuality. Such things are well covered in other articles. Accordingly I have reverted the edits, and left a message on the editor's talk page that consensus is required before the introduction of this type of material. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it better to use the title "Crush (relationship)"?

As in the article "The term is often used in a derogatory fashion, describing emotions which are shallow and transient in comparison to other forms of love such as romantic love." User:ffffafsd (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have always felt that each term is derogatory, and have a marginal preference for puppy love. My basis is that terming this phenomenon a simple crush implies that the smitten party is incapable of "real" love, and dismisses it as some sort of transient element. At least "puppy love" has love in the title. Puppies grow into dogs. Crushes are ... odd. Fiddle Faddle 09:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes probably as that’s what we call them at school (I’m 11) Anara2812 (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In pop culture

Should there be a section for puppy love in pop culture when it is such a universally human experience? Would we have to include the many stories including it (Archie, Sussudio, Phineas and Ferb, etc.)?Simplificationalizer (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Puppy love in China

"Puppy love" has a very special meaning and usage in China, which is described in the corresponding article in Chinese Wikipedia. I suggest that a new article, puppy love in China, should be established and the language link should be changed.--Obonggi (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Informal move to delete

Please read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

At best, this should be buried under Falling in love or maybe Limerence.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 07:43, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Random Info

The first paragraph should be extended to include more information rather then general facts. The sigmund freud reference shouldn't be included in my opinion as its not very topical to this subject. It references an earlier part of the first paragraph. Maybe split into its own section with reference to other philosophers and writings with references to early stages of love, but definitely not in the first 3 sentences. I also feel that a crush is more of a limerence then puppy love. Where as a crush is typically secretive, shared by one or two individuals but noticeable by many individuals, puppy love is typical known by all individuals including the recipient although it may or may not be acted upon in the reverse and indeed may be revered or disgusted by said recipient if said recipient doesn't want this kind of affection and may be the first steps in a obsessive or stalking relationship. This article needs work.

2604:2D80:BA80:E300:440C:D77B:4C30:F6EF (talk) 08:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Internetdude

Requested move 9 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against a merger proposal. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

---

Puppy love → Crush (relationship) – WP:COMMONNAME Iamreallygoodatcheckers^t@lk 04:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Leaning oppose – This would significantly change the scope of the article, as crushes are not unique to adolescence or prepubescence. I don't know that a change in scope is desirable, and no rationale for a change in scope was presented. Graham (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with that a move would expand the article's scope, but I'm not sure if two WP:DICDEFs in one article is any better or worse than one. I oppose the disambiguator "relationship" as both vague and inaccurate. Although this article has been around since Precambrian Wikipedia, it might be better to merge it into infatuation. —  AjaxSmack  06:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that it could be well worth exploring merger. Graham (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - I think that "Puppy Love" is the proper term, and, yes, while it's commonly called a crush, I think "Puppy Love" would be fine, as like @Graham11 said, a rename would change the article's focus and scope. UrlumRing (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vickygoodlucky, Superlalala (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Nymaker (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Let’s add the sitting in a tree song

You know it you’ve sang it enough (Name) and (name) sitting (pronounced siig)i a tree k-I-s—s-I-n-g first comes love second comes Marriage here come a baby with a baby carriage Anara2812 (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

References

" the feeling of real love takes a long time to develop and does not fade with time and or in the absence of the other."

Could we have a better, more peer-reviewed source for this information than Marriage God's Way: A book every Christian couple must own a copy. Love is an incredibly subjective emotion. Varkman (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)