Any teenager boys wanting a girlfriend?

Post Reply New Topic

A relationship? Maybe. A romantic relationship? Certainly not. She's talking about a relationship where the two of you never meet, never touch, never kiss, never have sex, never talk about sex. You will spend your time chatting, and sharing compliments with one another. That is not a healthy aldult relationship, that's a mere shadow of a loving relationship. She wants to feel special with male company, but she's too young and immature to form a real relationship, so she's looking for a male friend who is willing to call himself her boyfriend without ever crossing the line from friendship to love.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but in the real world, the difference between a girlfriend and a friend is only how much sex is involved. Not necessarily intercourse, but sexual attraction. Even the stupid teenage romances where you never have sex but sit around all day "making out", constitutes some form of romantic involvement.

Forgive me for not being entirely polite, but she's only 3 years younger than me, and at that age even I, with Aspergers Syndrome, could tell the difference between a friend and a girlfriend.

Yep, she's married and gay though

Okay I get what you mean, but I think I'm allowed to be childish
I'll reword this. Can I have a male friend that's around my age who I can call a boyfriend so I don't feel so overwhelming lonely?

I'm flexible.

ebec11, I wish I could help you out
but I will be turning 18 in June.

And I live on the West Coast of the US.

I disagree. A romantic relationship doesn't have to have sex in order to bind it. Love is deeper than physical attraction and hormones.

Actually, I think it's immature to assume that sex must be there in order for it to be love. That belief is a stage of growing up as well; I passed that one at around 15. Lust and love are not the same thing at all (even though people seem to think they are); don't confuse the two. Lust is purely shallow and physical, at least at first; it can become something deeper, but not until each knows the other.

I agree that she's not actually looking for a real relationship, but it's not because of her desire to not have/talk about sex.



The real world of barrooms and college campuses, perhaps. The truth of the matter is that the real world is whatever you want to make out of it. If you want to go through life believing that you can't love and be loved unless you're sexually attractive, that's fine for you; just don't impose that on everyone else.

I feel much differently about my friends than I do about the person I care for. And it's not a matter of sex either.



You're still a bit behind; unfortunately, it's not a stage that everyone makes it out of, so you may be there forever. The real difference between a friend and a girlfriend is not sex.

Prostitutes must have a whole heap of boyfriends, and the eunuch will never find love.

Okay...I'm now extremely confused! (I don't know who to believe!)

Why take on the opinion of someone else over something that's as subjective and unique as [romantic] love? People who think there's a set way to and for love, are horribly mistaken.

Daniel says to do what you want to concerning emotions that are personal to you, and don't allow others to force theirs on you. They aren't going to feel what you feel, and if you copy others concerning this, you aren't following your innate emotions, you're just emulating the opinion of someone else.

Believe yourself.

Hey, I live in Ontario. I would love to have a female companion to talk to and I am a nice and caring guy too.

First i'd like to take a moment to recapture myself. Essentially i've just been called developmentally challenged by a 17 year old. Frankly i'm not sure whether to laugh or feel insulted, then laugh.

I'd first like to start by saying that claiming to know more about the nature of love than somebody who is older than you is somewhat inadvisable. Although claiming you have surpassed their emotional development at 17 on a website about Autism is borderline stupidity.

Furthermore, before challenging somebody's opinion, it's always a good idea to make sure you completely understand their opinion.

The concept of sex is not strictly limited to sexual intercourse.
Sex, is a disambiguation of sexual attration, sexual intercourse, physical attraction, lust, poetry, biology and mythology. Therefore, to claim that adult relationships are defined by sex does not imply that one must have sex or be sexually attractive to have an adult relationship. If that is your limit to the definition of sex, then I suggest you reconsider your "stage of emotional development" you have so justifiably obtained. On some level, every adult relationship depends on the concept of sex, NOT LUST AND INTERCOURSE.

Now that i've clarified that, now to move into the realm of my opinion. "Love is deeper than physical attraction and hormones".
I suppose you'll also tell me that love can overcome all, and is a clean and reliable energy source that may one day power great turbines to save us from our energy crisis. Your concept of love is metaphysical, you got it from listening to too many fairy tales and watching romantic comedies. Love is not deeper than hormones.

LOVE IS A HORMONE. It was designed to drive humans to select a genetically compatible mate, so that we may pass on our genetic code. The idea of "falling in love" is a biological response, designed by evolution as a failsafe. As creatures who evolved higher brain functions, it was designed to ensure our logical reasoning does not surpass our desire to continue our genetic line. It's a self preservation. Without hormonal control, humanity may one day become so sentient that we are capable of questioning our purpose and desire to procreate. That's dangerous, because we have no purpose other than to continue living at all costs.

This is without a doubt the most sorry excuse for an argument i've ever had. Frankly I deserve better than to sit around debating the link between physiology and philosophy with a a group of children.

It is? A single hormone? What about ten? Fifty? If love is a hormone that induces one's need to pass on their genetic material, for genetic superiority, and survival of the species, how is it possible for someone to [romantically] love another without partaking in such? If the hormones were all encompassing and controlling of one's inhibitions and actions, one wouldn't be given the choice between procreating and not. You'd say that one's desire to find an adequate mate is defined by one's hormones, but you're given a choice to choose whoever you so wish to give your love to, logically; you can give your romantic love to another male, by your choosing. Is homosexuality a failing of one's hormones? There's plenty of evidence that contraindicates the all-encompassing "love" hormone; it's just from a perspective that not everyone can feel for we all feel differently.

We each have an individual choice, and if love to you is the desire to procreate, then how can you possibly see love as anything else if you're so bound to your own hormones?

Certain parts of humanity are already intelligent enough to question the need for procreation, and to control and question their hormones.

Yes. "Love" is more than one hormone, if you insist on that level of detail.
Your question. By my logic, how is it possible for people to love one another without passing on their genetic code?
Is that a joke? Are you asking me if hormones are capable of controlling your every action and entirely removing free will? I'd ask if I explained myself badly, but that would be irrelevant. You would only require a GCSE level of biology to know how hormones work. So i'm assuming you're attempting some sort of humour.

I would now like to quote myself, rather than repeat myself.
"[love] was designed to drive humans to select a genetically compatible mate"
I'll now quote you, for effect.
"if love to you is the desire to procreate"

I sense a breakdown in communication here.

"There's plenty of evidence that contraindicates the all-encompassing "love" hormone"
Is there really? Funny, in all my years of devotion to the field of Biology i've never encountered such evidence.

"Is homosexuality a failing of one's hormones?"
Yes. Any other stupid questions you'd like me to take time from from my end of year university exam studies to answer for you? Really, that's why i'm here. To answer secondary school level science questions.

"Certain parts of humanity are already intelligent enough to question the need for procreation, and to control and question their hormones."
And that changes my point how? Anybody intelligent enough to question the need for existence and procreation will die, and their genetic code will die with them. I don't see how that really reinforces your theory that Love isn't a mixture of hormones.

If you insist on replying, please take the time to make a valid point, or I simply wont respond next time. I'm very busy.

There's no point in using appeal to authority fallacies, i.e., I'm educated!

The point is simple: if love is a hormone that defines your ability to love, how is it that you can choose to give your love to no one? This point shows that said hormones aren't all that defines love, intelligence defines love just as much as a neurotransmitter. This is the evidence you need, one's choice to renounce your definition of love and love whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish; tell me, how is it that your hormones control how I feel love? How I give such? You can't, for the answer isn't there; the only answer is certain levels of hormones may increase when someone is in love, which may be due to another reason, the happiness of love.

I'll give you a better answer of what love is, and one that is right: love is all of you, not just a few hormones; it's your intelligence, your logic, your emotions, your experiences, and even your feelings. Hormones are a part of it, but they don't make the whole; your eyesight is just as important to love as serotonin; your hearing, your mental disorder, etcetera.

Everything you know is going to die, everything in existence will cease to exist; if one feels that they accomplish something by passing on their genetic code, they are sadly mistaken.

There's no set definition of love, science doesn't even say there is; it only points out certain reactions that happen when one is in love (there's biology and psychology).

Better. I'll sift through the poetic flotsam and extract the four points which are actually new.

You don't understand how hormones work.
They affect certain areas of the brain, the area affected varies depending on which hormone is released. A hormone can't make you do something. We are not puppets to our chemicals. They steer you, override logic to achieve an effect.
Case in point. When under the effects of Adrenaline and testosterone, you would be far more likely to punch a man who is twice your size than when relaxed. Logically, punching a man twice your size is suicidal. Adrenaline overrides that logic and makes you see the rational side of it to achieve an effect. Makes you favor aggression over calm persuasion.
Love is a mixture of many such hormones. Leading that charge is a hormone called Oxytocin, which makes you feel like socialising. Injecting oxytocin into people has been proven to make them more likely to fall in love with a person, or become friends with another person.
Testosterone and Oestrogen make you want to have sex with them. Adrenaline makes you take risks to be with them, like leaving home to run away with a lover. there are many, many more chemicals which are triggered as such. They are not triggered after you fall in love, or before. They are triggered when you fall in love, because all together they make up the metaphysical concept that people like you call love.

Fantastic. So love is your liver, kidneys, skin, bones, appendix, colon, lungs, eyeballs, eardrums. Need I continue? love is a mixture of hormones. Intelligence isn't a part of love, intelligence gave a definition to love in an attempt to explain something which makes no sense. memories and experiences do not make up love, you remember being in love and you experience love. Love is a mixture of hormones.

I don't believe passing on my genetic code is the only thing I can accomplish before I die. I'm getting tired of your asinine oversimplifications. I don't need you to reinterpret what I say, I already said it as it was intended. Your ultimate purpose as a living organism, is to live. Your DNA is not conscious, but it has evolved to fulfill the purpose of preserving itself at any cost. but your DNA places priority over itself, rather than the organism that houses it. A human faced with death will feel like having sex, because your priority is you < your DNA. As a sentient being however, i'm motivated by my own purposes. My natural instincts and my intentions are not one and the same.

Let me put this simply. Your arguments are a waste of my time. You use pseudoscience and philosophy to justify an argument of physiology against my advanced Biology, advanced Biochemistry, intelligence and intellect. I don't care if you have a degree, or if you're another teenage boy who fancies himself as a philosopher. Unless you actually use scientific points to back up your arguments, your "points" mean nothing to me.

Essentially, you're acting developmentally challenged. To not be able to handle an argument calmly is telling.



Age doesn't play all that big of a role in it. There's a difference between physical age and maturity levels; anyone with the slightest knowledge of psychology and sociology realizes that. Of course, there are certain standards that most people fall into, but not all do. A good amount of people never develop to Piaget's fourth stage anyway, which allows abstract thinking. Romantic love requires abstract thinking, because it's not always about the concept of sex.

My emotional maturity is quite high, thank you. My social maturity is not, of course.

(If you continue to insist on playing the age card, do realize that Daniel is quite a bit older than you are. Thus, all of your arguments against him would be illogical, if that's how you wish to judge.)



Be as that may, you implied that ebec11 was not looking for a relationship because she was looking for a relationship, and I quote, "without "dirty stuff"? That's not a boyfriend." Your revised definition of sex doesn't fit "dirty stuff", and thus doesn't fit your original statement.



Absolutely, I'm that clueless.

Of course, that's a ridiculous view, but seeing your reaction to it might be fun.

I've actually never seen a romantic comedy, nor do I plan to; fairytales are nonsensical, devoid of meaning, and quite frankly, the writing in them tends to suck. The sappy commercialized brand of "love" is not real, because the people writing the commercials are just trying to convince you that buying your girlfriend a diamond will make her love you forever. Love will not stop you from dying, it won't replace a failing organ, it won't do a ton and a half of stuff. To assume that it can be made into an energy form is obviously stupid.



There are more feelings that come along with love than just those that would inspire us to reproduce. The care, dedication, and loyalty that it produces are not necessary after a certain point in child bearing, but it continues to exist throughout.

Love is by and large a cultural emotion. The idea of a suitable mate, how the relationship should work, and the responsibilities of both are born from lifetimes of sociological views that are different in various communities.



Mainly because you're the one freaking out, I suppose. I'm not at all bothered by this. If anyone has been acting childish, it's been you in your overreaction to a disagreement.

Have you ever even been in a romantic relationship? Not a one night stand or a drive with a prostitute, but someone you actually loved.