Originally Posted by Erato
I've used it myself and always got the answer: "It's not the same [type of love]."
So... one of Franklin's essays uses the child/romantic partner analogy to explain why having a different romantic relationship doesn't make breakups less painful. I think the analogy works well there.
But I don't find it very helpful in explaining polyamory in general. The answer you got is... kind of complicated to address and also pretty common. On the one hand, of course it is a different kind of love! If it wasn't, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be the thing itself. The response is sort of denying that analogies are ever useful.
On the other hand, the word "love" is doing a lot of work there, and the objection could be better phrased as "Because English uses the same word for both emotional dynamics, you're trying to sneak in an equivalence that I don't believe exists." I find that pretty reasonable.
Incidentally, I think that the whole neuropsych discussion is a blind alley. Unless we're positing some sort of Cartesian "ghost in the machine", it's all brain chemistry. I doubt that we want to give up on talking about lived experience entirely, so my brain chemistry is not your brain chemistry, and so on and so forth. Which is not to cast aspersions on the discipline, just on trying to draw conclusions about what is natural/normal and what is not in humans, or to draw conclusions about what we're capable of from what is natural/normal.