-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Are you in love?
- Thread starter Spaniard
- Start date
WHOAWHOAHWOAHOHOHOOHHHHHHHHHHH
Firstly, thanks for all the feedback. I wasn't sure if this kind of thread would be of your interest.
I'm still laughing. Jim Carrey's face is very funny.
Back to the topic I'd like to say some things.
It was commented that two people can have children and none of them would be the same and so, the variety argument wouln't be valid. While it's true that the amount of possible combinations for one couple is unlimited it's true that they're going to share a lot of genetical traits, but if you have kids with different couples variability grows since genes come from different parents.
Someone said that love and sex are not the same thing. That's a good point. However, the main reason to have sex is that we naturally look for it so as to keep the species. Love is something we feel for other people and there's a big chance that if you love somebody and start dating them you end up having sex (it also happens the other way round). Anyway we cannot forget about passion. People often have sex without being in love because of passion. There are also couples that run out of it but are still together because they love eachother even if they don't have sex anymore. And that brings me to the original post: Even if we love our couples, are we programmed to naturally run out of passion? If the answer is yes, that could unleash the desire to look for sex outside our couple.
To finish this post I'd like to show you something very interesting I've found. You can take a look at it on this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4669104.stm
If you don't really feel like reading it (it only takes 3 minutes) this is what it says in short. Researchers have found out that people that have just started dating someone have high levels of a chemical agent responsible for feeling passion and being sexually aroused in their blood. While couples that have been together for some time have no trace of this agent.
What do you think about it?
I'm still laughing. Jim Carrey's face is very funny.
Back to the topic I'd like to say some things.
It was commented that two people can have children and none of them would be the same and so, the variety argument wouln't be valid. While it's true that the amount of possible combinations for one couple is unlimited it's true that they're going to share a lot of genetical traits, but if you have kids with different couples variability grows since genes come from different parents.
Someone said that love and sex are not the same thing. That's a good point. However, the main reason to have sex is that we naturally look for it so as to keep the species. Love is something we feel for other people and there's a big chance that if you love somebody and start dating them you end up having sex (it also happens the other way round). Anyway we cannot forget about passion. People often have sex without being in love because of passion. There are also couples that run out of it but are still together because they love eachother even if they don't have sex anymore. And that brings me to the original post: Even if we love our couples, are we programmed to naturally run out of passion? If the answer is yes, that could unleash the desire to look for sex outside our couple.
To finish this post I'd like to show you something very interesting I've found. You can take a look at it on this link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4669104.stm
If you don't really feel like reading it (it only takes 3 minutes) this is what it says in short. Researchers have found out that people that have just started dating someone have high levels of a chemical agent responsible for feeling passion and being sexually aroused in their blood. While couples that have been together for some time have no trace of this agent.
What do you think about it?
I think it's because people lack the willpower to control their urges, so when they first start dating someone they just have sex whenever they feel the urge (which is like 3-4 times a day). After a while it gets old, and their eyes start to wander, causing them to lust after other attractive people and ultimately leave their partner in favor of a new one they haven't had sex with before. This cycle can be countered by resisting the urge to have sex all the time when you are first with someone (no matter how much you both want to). This delays the problem of "getting tired of" a person, and also increases the sexual tension because you're denying yourself something you really want. It can only serve to increase the desire and passion you feel for that person, and thus keeps the sex better for longer.
Ugh, the pseudobiology in this thread is terrible.
There are evolutionary advantages to monogamy; particularly given how humanity has evolved socially. Monogamy is by no means the majority behaviour among life on Earth, but it's not that uncommon. Several birds (Pelicans and Albatross, for instance) and humans are obvious examples, but there are lizards that do the same (one species in central Australia will sit by the corpse of it's dead partner nudging it to 'wake' it if the partner was run over, until the living one starves to death). This is actually monogamy to a fault, because once the partner is dead there is no reason to remove the survivor from the gene pool.
There are some variants of monogamy too - social animals that revolve around an 'Alpha' will typically not be adulterous (so to speak) until the Alpha is killed, so while you have an Alpha with multiple partners, those partners don't go elsewhere.
In human society, the success of one's progeny is based on more factors than just casting the seeds widely. Social and economic factors mean it is better to have a smaller number of children that have a greater allocation of resources to each.
Spreading the seed wide, assuming perfect information, also means that your desirability as a mate will decrease, because it is generally expected that if you have a child with someone, you will stick around to help raise and support it.
As far as the particular question of the OP:
Generally, love is categorised into two (or sometimes more) phases in humans. The first is the 'spark', characterised by youth, physical attraction and sexual passion. The brain chemistry produces endorphines associated with excitement and adrenaline.
After a while, though, the brain chemistry changes and the desire shifts from short-term sexual gratification and a longer-term stable emotional state. Different sorts of endorphins, associated with comfort and security, are produced. It's this period where people tend to settle down, raise a family, etc.
As far as divorce, I would say the influence of biology is overall fairly small. Social factors are more influential, I would have thought.
Personally, I have been broken hearted. My first girlfriend was a diagnosed sociopath, and after we broke up she made life very hard for me, and I developed clinical depression for about a year. Since, I have had feelings for other people, but I think I was fundamentally changed by that first relationship and so all of the feelings that I've had, including for my current girlfriend of almost 2 years, are different. For the most part, I have dismissed the notion that there is 'one special someone' and accepted that love are feelings created by certain types of brain chemistry, and so therefore it is possible to love and be compatible with many different people. It also means that, regrettably, sometimes people can fall out of love, but I don't think that it's inherent and inevitable, nor do I think a particular single variable can be identified for why it happens.
There are evolutionary advantages to monogamy; particularly given how humanity has evolved socially. Monogamy is by no means the majority behaviour among life on Earth, but it's not that uncommon. Several birds (Pelicans and Albatross, for instance) and humans are obvious examples, but there are lizards that do the same (one species in central Australia will sit by the corpse of it's dead partner nudging it to 'wake' it if the partner was run over, until the living one starves to death). This is actually monogamy to a fault, because once the partner is dead there is no reason to remove the survivor from the gene pool.
There are some variants of monogamy too - social animals that revolve around an 'Alpha' will typically not be adulterous (so to speak) until the Alpha is killed, so while you have an Alpha with multiple partners, those partners don't go elsewhere.
In human society, the success of one's progeny is based on more factors than just casting the seeds widely. Social and economic factors mean it is better to have a smaller number of children that have a greater allocation of resources to each.
Spreading the seed wide, assuming perfect information, also means that your desirability as a mate will decrease, because it is generally expected that if you have a child with someone, you will stick around to help raise and support it.
As far as the particular question of the OP:
Generally, love is categorised into two (or sometimes more) phases in humans. The first is the 'spark', characterised by youth, physical attraction and sexual passion. The brain chemistry produces endorphines associated with excitement and adrenaline.
After a while, though, the brain chemistry changes and the desire shifts from short-term sexual gratification and a longer-term stable emotional state. Different sorts of endorphins, associated with comfort and security, are produced. It's this period where people tend to settle down, raise a family, etc.
As far as divorce, I would say the influence of biology is overall fairly small. Social factors are more influential, I would have thought.
Personally, I have been broken hearted. My first girlfriend was a diagnosed sociopath, and after we broke up she made life very hard for me, and I developed clinical depression for about a year. Since, I have had feelings for other people, but I think I was fundamentally changed by that first relationship and so all of the feelings that I've had, including for my current girlfriend of almost 2 years, are different. For the most part, I have dismissed the notion that there is 'one special someone' and accepted that love are feelings created by certain types of brain chemistry, and so therefore it is possible to love and be compatible with many different people. It also means that, regrettably, sometimes people can fall out of love, but I don't think that it's inherent and inevitable, nor do I think a particular single variable can be identified for why it happens.
^ninja'd (sorta) :(
Oh my god... OP, you are painfully over-simplifying the complex and multi-pathed map that is human reproductive strategy... then you go further to make yourself appear even more ignorant about the vast diversity of reproductive strategies exhibited by a number of other animals. I really cannot believe it.
Before we talk about anything, let's remember that raising human offspring is totally different from any other organism on the planet, and for one reason: The human brain. The human brain is so huge and complicated, that it causes tremendous complications during reproduction. It takes an extensive time to nourish (9 freakin' months), and is so big it literally endangers the safe birth of the mother. Furthermore, in order to facilitate the birth of such a big brain, evolutionarily speaking, all humans are born prematurely, being completely helpless and blind at birth. It takes a lot of available resources (food) and security (protection from predation and environment) to make this dangerous strategy viable. Fortunately, all of that is provided by human society, the brainchild of the human mind, ensuring we have the food and security needed to raise human offspring--of course, society requires technology and culture to function, so humans have to go through extensive education in order to keep it running.
tl;dr: Human kids take a SHIT load of work to bring up, and that makes human reproduction a very special proposition.
Getting to the actual strategies, I can't believe you can talk about genetic/reproduction strategy without talking about the inherent difference that lies between male and female strategies.
Females have only 1 egg per month, and must carry a child for 9 months before it's born, all the time it is sucking up valuable resources from the mother's body like a parasite, and the birth itself can be dangerous. On the other hand, men produce millions of sperm on a constant basis, and can mate "freely" without risk of pregnancy, and have much better strength and speed with which to face natural hazards. This obviously means their reproduction strategies are going to be radically different.
Obviously human women will have strategies based on security. They need protection and food, for themselves and for their offspring. This is extremely difficult for a lone woman to provide, especially during the months of pregnancy. Obviously, it will be much more beneficial for her to find a mate with which to work with--this is where the benefits of marriage, one-on-one relationships because much more obvious. Without a male to help provide for her and her children, reproduction becomes difficult, and so women are evolved to try to "tame the male." You now know why women are so into making bonds, and are so happy to get married-- doing so vastly improves her chances for reproduction.
On the other hand, there is still the roots of old mammal instincts that demand she obtain the genes of the "best" male, and now you know why many women sleep behind their man's back. It's sad to say, but the built in priorities are (1) finding a male provider and (2) getting the best genes for the offspring. Sometimes, those two goals don't coincide on the same male.
More often they do though, especially when there is a big risk of losing her provider if she cheats, and also it's very difficult in modern society to judge which traits are "more fit" to begin with (since let's face it, strength, speed and sometimes even intelligence are pretty unimportant when it comes to providing in modern society).
By contrast, males could theoretically impregnate countless women in a single month, given the opportunity. This simple truth is still rooted in our ancient mamalion male instincts-- and many men never get past the roaming and romping to "spread the wild oats."
But, marriage wouldn't exist if men had no reason to settle down.
First, the female ovulation cycle is designed to almost force us to do so. Unlike in many other mammals, human females have no "heat," there are no obvious chemical or visual signals that a female is ovulating. Furthermore, there is no mating season--women are fertile all year, but only in the most narrow time frame, and unlike females of many other species, human women's reproductive organs are very unreceptive to actually reproducing. The vagina is filled with sperm-killing acid, and the uterus full of sperm-killing (and sperm-targeting) white blood cells-- the chances of any singulary instance of sex leading to pregnancy is dramatically low compared to many other mammals.
Why guys? Because them ladies want to force you to stay to make sure you got the job done--have a happy honeymoon, and know why human males are interested in sex with the same female repeatedly. Why? Well it comes back to the premise of human reproduction--you need tons of resources to secure a healthy human rearing, and a lone mother often can't get the job done. She's built to force you to stay. You know that without you, her odds of successfully reproducing is very low--that in and of itself is a huge incentivizer to settle, even for males. No matter how many women you sleep with, even successfully impregnating many of them, that's no guarantee that any of your offspring will actually fare well after.
...except for the fact that one can always fall back on the graceful hand of society these days... Social Service kind of fucks hard with all of this, just saying... You know what the best strategy to work the system is? Have lots of kids with different partners and have them all put up for adoption because some hard working folks out there will get cuckoo'd into rearing your genes... Or else the girl you ditched will be saved by government handouts. Sounds good!
...taking a step back from my possibly tasteless rant, let's mix society into the mix. Remember that society is the big insurance for humanity that it can produce the wealth and security needed for successful human rearing. But, society has its own interests and presses its own agenda on reproduction. Without stable family units in a traditional human society, there are a lot more orphans, a lot more starving women and children, and a lot more disorder. Disorder is bad for society, which depends on social harmony and cooperation to run efficiently. Society therefore, will promote the strategy that promotes the most social stability...
...wait for it...
...marriage, 1 man, and 1 woman. Who'd have guessed?
Let's face it, divorces and broken families are not good for societies. Women cheating behind their husbands backs, and trying to "Cuckoo" the nest isn't good for societies outlook on family units, so that female strategy is highly frowned on (though maybe not on the west coast of the US, which is pretty fucked up when you think about it).
Inversely, countless restless men, unable to find mates is also very bad. There's an ancient Chinese saying that says, "1 Bachelor is an annoyance, 1000 bachelors equals a war," and it's true. You don't want thousands of men, who can wield weapons, running around frustrated unable to find mates-- which is why male polygamy (strongest men take many wives) is also a recipe for trouble.
The 1 woman 1 man pattern solves a lot of problems. It's not perfect, and of course individual humans have tons of conflicting agenda-- but overall, it's the simplest, most effective pattern most suited for human reproduction. Humans are so complicated, so flexible, and often so stupid that we can and will sway from the pattern, and frequently.
But society will usually settle on it, and the majority of people will as well-- because for a lot of fundamental reasons, it's just the best pattern available. Also remember that society is the tool that makes the train of human survival go-- disobey society, and it'll bite you in the ass. You can try to use society to your advantage like with my earlier example, but there are definitely strong incentives to obey societies pressures-- like tax cuts and good relations with your neighbors.
BTW I LOVE my girlfriend, she's great ~~<3<3<3 If you want to hear my actual opinions/advice on love and romance, that will take another monster post...
Oh my god... OP, you are painfully over-simplifying the complex and multi-pathed map that is human reproductive strategy... then you go further to make yourself appear even more ignorant about the vast diversity of reproductive strategies exhibited by a number of other animals. I really cannot believe it.
Before we talk about anything, let's remember that raising human offspring is totally different from any other organism on the planet, and for one reason: The human brain. The human brain is so huge and complicated, that it causes tremendous complications during reproduction. It takes an extensive time to nourish (9 freakin' months), and is so big it literally endangers the safe birth of the mother. Furthermore, in order to facilitate the birth of such a big brain, evolutionarily speaking, all humans are born prematurely, being completely helpless and blind at birth. It takes a lot of available resources (food) and security (protection from predation and environment) to make this dangerous strategy viable. Fortunately, all of that is provided by human society, the brainchild of the human mind, ensuring we have the food and security needed to raise human offspring--of course, society requires technology and culture to function, so humans have to go through extensive education in order to keep it running.
tl;dr: Human kids take a SHIT load of work to bring up, and that makes human reproduction a very special proposition.
Getting to the actual strategies, I can't believe you can talk about genetic/reproduction strategy without talking about the inherent difference that lies between male and female strategies.
Females have only 1 egg per month, and must carry a child for 9 months before it's born, all the time it is sucking up valuable resources from the mother's body like a parasite, and the birth itself can be dangerous. On the other hand, men produce millions of sperm on a constant basis, and can mate "freely" without risk of pregnancy, and have much better strength and speed with which to face natural hazards. This obviously means their reproduction strategies are going to be radically different.
Obviously human women will have strategies based on security. They need protection and food, for themselves and for their offspring. This is extremely difficult for a lone woman to provide, especially during the months of pregnancy. Obviously, it will be much more beneficial for her to find a mate with which to work with--this is where the benefits of marriage, one-on-one relationships because much more obvious. Without a male to help provide for her and her children, reproduction becomes difficult, and so women are evolved to try to "tame the male." You now know why women are so into making bonds, and are so happy to get married-- doing so vastly improves her chances for reproduction.
On the other hand, there is still the roots of old mammal instincts that demand she obtain the genes of the "best" male, and now you know why many women sleep behind their man's back. It's sad to say, but the built in priorities are (1) finding a male provider and (2) getting the best genes for the offspring. Sometimes, those two goals don't coincide on the same male.
More often they do though, especially when there is a big risk of losing her provider if she cheats, and also it's very difficult in modern society to judge which traits are "more fit" to begin with (since let's face it, strength, speed and sometimes even intelligence are pretty unimportant when it comes to providing in modern society).
By contrast, males could theoretically impregnate countless women in a single month, given the opportunity. This simple truth is still rooted in our ancient mamalion male instincts-- and many men never get past the roaming and romping to "spread the wild oats."
But, marriage wouldn't exist if men had no reason to settle down.
First, the female ovulation cycle is designed to almost force us to do so. Unlike in many other mammals, human females have no "heat," there are no obvious chemical or visual signals that a female is ovulating. Furthermore, there is no mating season--women are fertile all year, but only in the most narrow time frame, and unlike females of many other species, human women's reproductive organs are very unreceptive to actually reproducing. The vagina is filled with sperm-killing acid, and the uterus full of sperm-killing (and sperm-targeting) white blood cells-- the chances of any singulary instance of sex leading to pregnancy is dramatically low compared to many other mammals.
Why guys? Because them ladies want to force you to stay to make sure you got the job done--have a happy honeymoon, and know why human males are interested in sex with the same female repeatedly. Why? Well it comes back to the premise of human reproduction--you need tons of resources to secure a healthy human rearing, and a lone mother often can't get the job done. She's built to force you to stay. You know that without you, her odds of successfully reproducing is very low--that in and of itself is a huge incentivizer to settle, even for males. No matter how many women you sleep with, even successfully impregnating many of them, that's no guarantee that any of your offspring will actually fare well after.
...except for the fact that one can always fall back on the graceful hand of society these days... Social Service kind of fucks hard with all of this, just saying... You know what the best strategy to work the system is? Have lots of kids with different partners and have them all put up for adoption because some hard working folks out there will get cuckoo'd into rearing your genes... Or else the girl you ditched will be saved by government handouts. Sounds good!
...taking a step back from my possibly tasteless rant, let's mix society into the mix. Remember that society is the big insurance for humanity that it can produce the wealth and security needed for successful human rearing. But, society has its own interests and presses its own agenda on reproduction. Without stable family units in a traditional human society, there are a lot more orphans, a lot more starving women and children, and a lot more disorder. Disorder is bad for society, which depends on social harmony and cooperation to run efficiently. Society therefore, will promote the strategy that promotes the most social stability...
...wait for it...
...marriage, 1 man, and 1 woman. Who'd have guessed?
Let's face it, divorces and broken families are not good for societies. Women cheating behind their husbands backs, and trying to "Cuckoo" the nest isn't good for societies outlook on family units, so that female strategy is highly frowned on (though maybe not on the west coast of the US, which is pretty fucked up when you think about it).
Inversely, countless restless men, unable to find mates is also very bad. There's an ancient Chinese saying that says, "1 Bachelor is an annoyance, 1000 bachelors equals a war," and it's true. You don't want thousands of men, who can wield weapons, running around frustrated unable to find mates-- which is why male polygamy (strongest men take many wives) is also a recipe for trouble.
The 1 woman 1 man pattern solves a lot of problems. It's not perfect, and of course individual humans have tons of conflicting agenda-- but overall, it's the simplest, most effective pattern most suited for human reproduction. Humans are so complicated, so flexible, and often so stupid that we can and will sway from the pattern, and frequently.
But society will usually settle on it, and the majority of people will as well-- because for a lot of fundamental reasons, it's just the best pattern available. Also remember that society is the tool that makes the train of human survival go-- disobey society, and it'll bite you in the ass. You can try to use society to your advantage like with my earlier example, but there are definitely strong incentives to obey societies pressures-- like tax cuts and good relations with your neighbors.
BTW I LOVE my girlfriend, she's great ~~<3<3<3 If you want to hear my actual opinions/advice on love and romance, that will take another monster post...
some of my friends have been so close that it seemed they would get married somewhere down the line. one couple suddenly broke up without warning or scandal and don't speak to each other anymore. there are also a few who are still together and sometimes i wonder what will happen to them in 10 years.
there are 7 billion people in the world. chances are that the right person, the right place, and the right time are somewhere out there.
agreed with mrindigo about the pseudobiology.
there are 7 billion people in the world. chances are that the right person, the right place, and the right time are somewhere out there.
agreed with mrindigo about the pseudobiology.
Good post there, Chou.
When I was a single, I wouldn't understand these things about love. But now that I have my lovely wife and two kids, I would say that being in-love with your partner is one of the greatest thing in the world. It will be the foundation of everything you've got since you have vowed - your future, your partner's future and MOST IMPORTANTLY, your children's future.
I don't care on the biological reasons, society and anything else influencing my feelings, but I do know that she is the only one for me. I'm human anyway, and for sure I'll have no reason for this stuff. And the good thing is, everything else follows, with no reason at all.
When I was a single, I wouldn't understand these things about love. But now that I have my lovely wife and two kids, I would say that being in-love with your partner is one of the greatest thing in the world. It will be the foundation of everything you've got since you have vowed - your future, your partner's future and MOST IMPORTANTLY, your children's future.
I don't care on the biological reasons, society and anything else influencing my feelings, but I do know that she is the only one for me. I'm human anyway, and for sure I'll have no reason for this stuff. And the good thing is, everything else follows, with no reason at all.
Without any doubt in my mind whatsoever, "Love" is the word in our day-to-day lives that is thrown around the most loosely; kind of like the Internet and the infamous "lol".
Love can cover a range of topics, and the bond between you and your family members should the first experience as you grow older. You're taught to be a "loving" and "caring" person for the people and community that you live in.
And so on, until you finally come to terms with what it takes to commit "love" to another person and everything about them, so that you can continue the relationship to a time where it is your turn to pass that knowledge of life on to your young ones.
You can love the fact your partner sits down on the toilet to pee, or love how she makes you those syrup pancakes; love is just in the atmosphere surrounding the likes and dislikes of a couple who are openly and blatently "in love".
We all need that TLC!
Love can cover a range of topics, and the bond between you and your family members should the first experience as you grow older. You're taught to be a "loving" and "caring" person for the people and community that you live in.
And so on, until you finally come to terms with what it takes to commit "love" to another person and everything about them, so that you can continue the relationship to a time where it is your turn to pass that knowledge of life on to your young ones.
You can love the fact your partner sits down on the toilet to pee, or love how she makes you those syrup pancakes; love is just in the atmosphere surrounding the likes and dislikes of a couple who are openly and blatently "in love".
We all need that TLC!
Vein, you're a good man with a good head on your shoulders. :)
You see these hands you hold, will always hold you up
And what tomorrow brings, only time will tell
But I will stand by you
And what tomorrow brings, only time will tell
But I will stand by you
I tend to agree with just about all the posts on this page (especially Chou's) except one of MrImdigo's statements.
It's probably the idealist in me, but I'm still firm in my belief that everybody has somebody. You just sometimes don't realize when you meet the right one until awhile after the fact. It might be a childhood friend, or an old ex you never really stopped caring about.
As for the rest of the paragraph, if you feel compatible with many different people the way you should with just one person, it's still love, but not the same kind of love. (And yes, there are different kinds of love.) There's parental/filial love (basically the love a parent feels for their child; it should go without dating that this kind of love is not ideal in this situation), platonic love (caring about someone without feeling any romantic desire for them; similar to being "like brother and sister"), and romantic love, which has ben the focus up until this point.
Simply put, the way I see it, if you feel romantic love for multiple people at once, there's a problem, since you can't marry more than one person at a time (unless you're a Mormon, that is). I think you should feel platonic love for many people, save the one you are romantically in love with.
And as far as the title question goes, there is someone, but I'm not sure how to ask her out. Time will tell, I suppose.
It's probably the idealist in me, but I'm still firm in my belief that everybody has somebody. You just sometimes don't realize when you meet the right one until awhile after the fact. It might be a childhood friend, or an old ex you never really stopped caring about.
As for the rest of the paragraph, if you feel compatible with many different people the way you should with just one person, it's still love, but not the same kind of love. (And yes, there are different kinds of love.) There's parental/filial love (basically the love a parent feels for their child; it should go without dating that this kind of love is not ideal in this situation), platonic love (caring about someone without feeling any romantic desire for them; similar to being "like brother and sister"), and romantic love, which has ben the focus up until this point.
Simply put, the way I see it, if you feel romantic love for multiple people at once, there's a problem, since you can't marry more than one person at a time (unless you're a Mormon, that is). I think you should feel platonic love for many people, save the one you are romantically in love with.
And as far as the title question goes, there is someone, but I'm not sure how to ask her out. Time will tell, I suppose.
the only things stopping you from marrying multiple people are law and religion. if you don't care about either of those, then marry as many people as you're in love with.
in particular, i've always wondered why so many gay people choose to live as couples when they could just as easily live in groups of three or four. maybe it's the slut living inside me, but i don't understand what is so magical about the number 2.
in particular, i've always wondered why so many gay people choose to live as couples when they could just as easily live in groups of three or four. maybe it's the slut living inside me, but i don't understand what is so magical about the number 2.
I'm prepared to believe that everybody has somebody just by force of numbers. My point is only that for most people, there will be more than just one somebody.
That is, there are a set of possible optimal partners in the world for every given person. If you meet any one of your possible optimums, then you win and have a great relationship (possibly/probably to the exclusion of your other possible optimums, but you won't care about that because you already have the one optimum).
At the risk of turning this thread into a "Dating Advice" thread, the best relationship commencement strategy is not to get heavily invested prior to the start, because it means rejection is going to be more painful.
The first (few) date(s) doesn't entail a lifelong commitment - it's a trial run. So if there's someone you quite like, think is attractive, might be interested in, etc. you ask them to something social. Ideally, it's something that can be construed as either a date or just two friends hanging out after the fact.
That way, what you're offering is lower key and lower commitment, so it's easier for them to say yes. For instance, you bring up in conversation "I think I might go see Tintin/Sherlock/MovieOfChoice this weekend. Want to come?"
If it goes well, you can repeat the process the next time. If it doesn't, you don't need to go any further with it.
Note that this strategy is not the same as "looking for a fling/something short-term" or "playing the field", which puts a lot of potential users off. You're looking for a LTR, but you're playing the demo version before you commit to buying the full.
I don't believe that there is one "destined person" out there for everyone, like some divine pairing between people (In Japan, the "red thread" tied between two people is a popular image). That's just unreasonable, and very unscientific...
People aren't made for each other. People make each other work.
Actually, it's the type of naive-sweet idealistic bullshit that is at the very root of high divorce rates in western societies like the US. Everyone is looking for love, because they've idealized it, and they're looking for something that doesn't exist-- at least, it doesn't fall into your lap. Love isn't something you find, it's something you make.
At its very root, love and romance is--as suggested multiple times in this thread--simply the opening act for reproduction. What's really important is the children, the family, and that's what most people lose sight of. These days, people's "love" is so selfish it's pitiful--all the star gazers wanting nothing but passion, roses, and to be swept away on some sugar-coated joyride.
Love isn't about just simple pleasures like that. It's about the children, it's about answering that driving demand of your genes to be passed on--and in order to achieve that goal, it's about making things work with your partner. You're a team, first and foremost, with the goal of setting up a strong household. Living with any person for 20, 30, 40 years isn't going to be all daisies and butterflies--it's because you have a bigger common goal that you can endure each other, forgive each other, and ultimately work together to achieve that goal.
It's natural survival instinct to protect numero uno, but that's for the purpose of reproducing. Unlike other animals where you can mate and reproduce each season, the vast amounts of resources it takes to successfully raise children puts a real time-line on how often we can birth and raise children. We birth so few, but each has a much higher chance of survival. That's why for humans, when we look at our children, for the first time, it's possible to meet someone inherently more importantly more important to us than ourselves.
When lovers die for each other, we write it as tragedy. When parents die for children, it's almost common sense.
If you can die for a child, why can't you work things out with another person? Why can't you put aside your individual pet-peaves, annoyances, or boredom? For the sake of the goal with which you made the bond in the first place. Of course there are partnerships (involving violence especially) that one should definitely break off, but the degree of betrayal and division exhibited amongst modern couples for the most superficial reasons is truly tragic.
A truly good relationship isn't 50/50, it's 100/100-- and you don't have to be perfectly compatible or "destined" to be together to make it work.
All you need, is 1 man, and 1 woman, dedicated to the family, and the children.
And maybe some grandparents/aunties/uncles to help out when need be, and somemexicans house cleaners to fall back on when you're both out there with your careers.
If you want to find love, all you need to do is take your head out of your ass, and maybe take an attitude that's a bit more traditional. I've done a lot of criticizing in this post, but against my criticism, there are many many good families in the world, and a great bulk (maybe even a majority?) of people who do find love, and find happiness in their children and families. It isn't the stuff of novels, but its simple happiness-- the kind that should be "of course." I can't say it too well in English but, 当たり前な、ラブストーリー
People aren't made for each other. People make each other work.
Actually, it's the type of naive-sweet idealistic bullshit that is at the very root of high divorce rates in western societies like the US. Everyone is looking for love, because they've idealized it, and they're looking for something that doesn't exist-- at least, it doesn't fall into your lap. Love isn't something you find, it's something you make.
At its very root, love and romance is--as suggested multiple times in this thread--simply the opening act for reproduction. What's really important is the children, the family, and that's what most people lose sight of. These days, people's "love" is so selfish it's pitiful--all the star gazers wanting nothing but passion, roses, and to be swept away on some sugar-coated joyride.
Love isn't about just simple pleasures like that. It's about the children, it's about answering that driving demand of your genes to be passed on--and in order to achieve that goal, it's about making things work with your partner. You're a team, first and foremost, with the goal of setting up a strong household. Living with any person for 20, 30, 40 years isn't going to be all daisies and butterflies--it's because you have a bigger common goal that you can endure each other, forgive each other, and ultimately work together to achieve that goal.
It's natural survival instinct to protect numero uno, but that's for the purpose of reproducing. Unlike other animals where you can mate and reproduce each season, the vast amounts of resources it takes to successfully raise children puts a real time-line on how often we can birth and raise children. We birth so few, but each has a much higher chance of survival. That's why for humans, when we look at our children, for the first time, it's possible to meet someone inherently more importantly more important to us than ourselves.
When lovers die for each other, we write it as tragedy. When parents die for children, it's almost common sense.
If you can die for a child, why can't you work things out with another person? Why can't you put aside your individual pet-peaves, annoyances, or boredom? For the sake of the goal with which you made the bond in the first place. Of course there are partnerships (involving violence especially) that one should definitely break off, but the degree of betrayal and division exhibited amongst modern couples for the most superficial reasons is truly tragic.
A truly good relationship isn't 50/50, it's 100/100-- and you don't have to be perfectly compatible or "destined" to be together to make it work.
All you need, is 1 man, and 1 woman, dedicated to the family, and the children.
And maybe some grandparents/aunties/uncles to help out when need be, and some
If you want to find love, all you need to do is take your head out of your ass, and maybe take an attitude that's a bit more traditional. I've done a lot of criticizing in this post, but against my criticism, there are many many good families in the world, and a great bulk (maybe even a majority?) of people who do find love, and find happiness in their children and families. It isn't the stuff of novels, but its simple happiness-- the kind that should be "of course." I can't say it too well in English but, 当たり前な、ラブストーリー
This among others is a huge thing to be aware of. Personally its something I've had large difficulties with in the past and although I am training myself to improve on that it has led to some major hurts being received when what was perceived as something special due to too much emotional attachment was broken off.
Thanks for reading. I expect a lot of people to disagree with me but I wanted to share my thoughts with you anyway. I'm looking forward to read your opinions. What is your experience? Have you ever been broken hearted? Have you ever grown tired of your girlfriend/boyfriend? Did they get tired of you? Do you know any successful couple that has lasted forever?
So many questions. If you want to fall in love it will happen if you want be with someone forever it can happen. But each indviduals notion of love is different.
My notion of love is that you love your partner(s)* good qualites and faults, ofcourse that doesn't mean you enjoy their faults but you accept them as a whole indivdual. Also that you crave to be with them, and share their emotions. (Their happyness makes you happy, when they hurt you hurt) Not always but a majority of the time.
*Ones enough for me but, err... ya...
-Iv'e been broken hearted,
-My ex got tired of me,
-I quickly grew tired of an ex,
- My parents have been married for almost 48 years
Current experience:
It is easy to fall in love, but to keep a realtionship strong takes work. on both ends. I always respect my partner as well as love him. So I don't plan to be single tommorrow but if some reason that would change I wouldn't give up on love ;)..
"love is like oxygen all you need is love":naughty:
So many questions. If you want to fall in love it will happen if you want be with someone forever it can happen. But each indviduals notion of love is different.
My notion of love is that you love your partner(s)* good qualites and faults, ofcourse that doesn't mean you enjoy their faults but you accept them as a whole indivdual. Also that you crave to be with them, and share their emotions. (Their happyness makes you happy, when they hurt you hurt) Not always but a majority of the time.
*Ones enough for me but, err... ya...
-Iv'e been broken hearted,
-My ex got tired of me,
-I quickly grew tired of an ex,
- My parents have been married for almost 48 years
Current experience:
It is easy to fall in love, but to keep a realtionship strong takes work. on both ends. I always respect my partner as well as love him. So I don't plan to be single tommorrow but if some reason that would change I wouldn't give up on love ;)..
"love is like oxygen all you need is love":naughty:
Because living with one other person means you're their center of attention. If 3-4 people were to constantly swing with each other, it'd be more akin to a group of friends, not lovers.
Love is more than sex. At the very least, one must admit it is also connected to emotion and security.
One important thing to distinguish is love coming from lust and love coming from emotion. It's real easy to confuse the two, and love someone for all the wrong reasons.
@MikeDec--lol what?
@Temperantina--no, there's nothing inherently stopping a group of individuals from loving each other-- and someone, somewhere, is actually making that pattern work, and loving each other. Believe it. It's difficult to set up (humans are such jealous creatures) and highly unlikely--but it's not impossible.
@Temperantina--no, there's nothing inherently stopping a group of individuals from loving each other-- and someone, somewhere, is actually making that pattern work, and loving each other. Believe it. It's difficult to set up (humans are such jealous creatures) and highly unlikely--but it's not impossible.