Love VS Biology

[Rooster_DAR]

Too be honest with you i dont and never have had the feeling of "needing to fall in love" beacuse i just dont care to go out and look for anyone...i dont do the whole realationship thing, and love seems like a fairy tale out of a kids book

 

Yeah, it does seem like a fairy tale. But I think it's part of being human to seek companionship, without it can be really tough sometimes.

 

I've actually become so comfortable being alone I don't long for a companion like I used to, it's not worth the pain when it ends anyway.

[Haloandhorns85]

Did not suggest that, but since you mention it believers do tend to take the easy answer over the difficult when it comes to matters of complication. IMO, faith leads to the easy answer, not the truth.

 

 

Thats just rude.

 

The Truth is God's word. IMO.

[Haloandhorns85]

Rooster, I'm not going to get into the spiritual aspect at all. IMO, people settle for others that aren't necessarily the best fit but since those crazy hormones are working overtime, they ignore the red flags and continue proceeding forwards.

 

If everyone were a little more careful about who they partner with, if the other person isn't a highly selfish individual, you'll probably find that more marriages would work out. When I say careful, it's about real core values that you're both willing to uphold. It also means a lot more mutual interests, goals and direction in life. You have to grow together, not apart.

 

 

I agree although I will add that people now days tend to be lazier when it comes to relationships. Something gets bumpy, they quit before they even have a chance to work it out. Divorce is so easy to jump to that its the solution for many problems that could have been solved by hard work and opening themselves up to learning more about themselves and each other. It is unrealistic to think that the person you marry today will be the exact same persona ten years from now. To keep the connection, you have to grow and work...most people are just too lazy to put forth the effort.

[Rooster_DAR]

Thats just rude.

 

The Truth is God's word. IMO.

 

Did not mean to come off as rude, I was just stating an observation/opinion.

[Rooster_DAR]

I agree although I will add that people now days tend to be lazier when it comes to relationships. Something gets bumpy, they quit before they even have a chance to work it out. Divorce is so easy to jump to that its the solution for many problems that could have been solved by hard work and opening themselves up to learning more about themselves and each other. It is unrealistic to think that the person you marry today will be the exact same persona ten years from now. To keep the connection, you have to grow and work...most people are just too lazy to put forth the effort.

 

I agree with you 100 percent, I think a lot of people realize that too. Unfortunately, many people just don't give a rat's a$$.

[NoIDidn't]

I think that finding a mate is a drive in humans. We are animals afterall.

 

We just have religions and other philosophies that color the way we go about it.

 

I don't agree that all relationships end or even have to end. People just aren't mature like they used to be. Growing old together is more than just watching the calendar. Its still *growing* together, just with *old* inserted in the middle.

[Trialbyfire]

I agree although I will add that people now days tend to be lazier when it comes to relationships. Something gets bumpy, they quit before they even have a chance to work it out. Divorce is so easy to jump to that its the solution for many problems that could have been solved by hard work and opening themselves up to learning more about themselves and each other. It is unrealistic to think that the person you marry today will be the exact same persona ten years from now. To keep the connection, you have to grow and work...most people are just too lazy to put forth the effort.

There's no doubt we're a more disposable society but on the otherhand, how many women turned blind eyes to infidelity in the past? Today, we can choose to say, nope, not going to put up with it. Cya!

[johnlucas]

Relationships called "romantic" (there's a problem with that word that I'll explain later) are the weakest form of human relationship there is.

 

Did I say that? Yes, I did. The "Lovers' Relationship" is fickle, weak, and fragile. That's why people keep saying "you have to work at the relationship" when talking about this kind. In other relationships you don't have to work so hard to maintain them so why this one?

 

No relationship between two human beings is potentially stronger than the one between parent and child. This is because the child is 1/2 of that parent and the parent sees himself/herself in the child.

 

Human beings are stuck on Self. Ego, or I should say the self-importance module, rules the human brain. We like dogs not for being dogs but for how these dogs remind us of Us and also do so much for Us. We recognize a bit of ourselves (or our wanted idealization of self) in everything we favor. Star Trek aliens just HAPPENED to look pretty much like human beings huh? But the alien from the movie Aliens with its insect like appearance is a monster by default. Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse, and Sonic the Hedgehog all happen to talk and walk on two legs just like a human being. We even anthropomorphize our cars, ships, and countries based on their service to Us.

 

So unless the parent somehow doesn't recognize the child as part of the parent (which does happen based on extreme sense of self) the parent will transfer their selfish protective feelings onto the child making sure this Self Outside Self lives on.

 

Family and Friends are next strongest relation. Family are the default and friends are the chosen but the relationship is the same. If a portion of self (ideologically, physically, etc.) is recognized in this family member or adopted family member (friend) then the person transfers the preservation routines of Self onto this other member. But unlike Parent to Child there are only portions of Self so the drive isn't quite as strong.

 

Enemies are the inverse of this same relationship. It could be hatred of Self motivating hatred of this Self Outside Self or a recognizance that this is the Other, the Opposite of Self which motivates hatred. This usually overlaps resulting in the lifelong rivals, enemies kind of thing. Family members can become enemies too as most people know. You don't have to work to keep your enemies and true friends. True friends can not see each other for years and decades and pick right back up like yesterday once they meet. And so can enemies. And this overlap is also why enemies can easily become friends and vice versa. It depends on the person's view of Self and Self Outside Self.

 

Meanwhile Lovers or I should say Lusters are more looking at the person as a Service For Self. What can this person do for me or provide me? Not to say this doesn't happen in 'Fairweather Friends' also but it also explains why both relationship fade out when things are not favorable to the person looking for the service.

 

The only time Lovers can last is if a Family/Friends relation is parallel with it. If that's not there it will only last for as long as the person feels they are receiving the service they desire.

 

Romantic? The Romans were an Empire of Savages. They conquered many lands and put their culture (way of life) as supreme over the ones they conquered resulting in positive connotations of words like "Romantic." The word "Romantic" just means "Of The Romans". In this terminology it's the Roman way of having sex (making love for the euphemism). Much like Greek sex and Jamaican sex and French kiss and Latin lover and what have you. The ancient people who were sexed remembered this time fondly and fawned over the imperial Romans. Over the centuries it got lionized and glorified and taken as the be-all word for affection in sex.

 

So "romance" is not how you keep a relationship going. It's a sense of kinship from the Family/Friend bond on top of the Lovers relation which keep people together beyond the biological time limit on liaisons.

 

Knowing this I don't take Lovers relationships all that seriously since they are not designed to last on their own. It's like an amusement park ride. It's fun while it lasts and when it's over it's over. No need for crying if you understand what it's really all about.

 

If people feel that they are still getting a service from their lovemate/lustmate then a Lovers relation can indeed last a pretty long time. Bobby & Whitney must have had good sex going on for that to last that long. The feelings from sex are indeed drugs which put people on highs so as long as people continue getting those highs, a non-family/friend Lovers/Lusters bond can go for quite a long time. But forever? For a lifetime? Hardly.

 

Now don't mistake people staying together for truly being together. Two people can occupy the same house and even the same bedroom and be strangers to one another. The evidence is in the interaction. Two mates can physically be in the same room but not really be "TOGETHER". That is a transitional step between changeovers to a new Lover/Luster (if they can get one, that is. some transitions last longer than others).

 

This is one reason I don't believe in marriage (though I won't rain on anyone's parade who decide to take this route. Freedom of choice I say). For the grand majority of people it's not practical or reasonable. People do it and then cause more harm with all the sneaking around and deceit than if they were honest with themselves. It's DEFINITELY a Choice to operate by this lifestyle and some can do it. More will find sooner or later that they can't.

 

The funny thing is that it takes this weak bond to produce the strongest bond between people. Paradox! You can't reproduce asexually so you have to add another person into your life to make babies. It's all up to the people involved if they want to make it a Lovers/Lusters bond or a true Family/Friends bond. For whatever choice I hope there will be more honesty about these kinds of things in the future. But who am I kidding? These are human beings we're talking about!

 

John Lucas

[Rooster_DAR]

Relationships called "romantic" (there's a problem with that word that I'll explain later) are the weakest form of human relationship there is.........................

 

John Lucas

 

I would agree with nearly all of that, well said.

 

Although there are many people that will disagree with your hypothesis, I think it's fundamentally correct.

 

Cheers!

[fral945]

John Lucas,

 

Very good post. I agree with your comments regarding romantic relationship being the weakest. That's why marriage was never originally based on love. Love is a feeling, and feelings are fickle. Now that marriage is essentially based on love (or at least it being one of the main components for most people in the Western world nowadays), we are seeing how difficult it is to actually sustain such a relationship for any length of time.

 

All that being said, I can't imagine you will win over many women with your argument.

[electric_sheep]

Here is an interesting site that addresses this, and it does so with a clever and nontraditional blend of ancient wisdom and modern science. This certainly isn't an endorsement! Much of this site smacks of new-age shenanigans, but some of it is not so easily dismissed. Could be they are onto something here! Could be they are new-age crazies. I'll let the reader decide, and there is certainly a lot to read.

 

http://www.reuniting.info/science

[0hpenelope]

I like this thread.

 

How'd your coursework paper go, Rooster? johnlucas brought up very interesting points and it reminds me of how people cling on to the fleeting fickle feelings of romance. The "high" parts of it, if you know what I mean.