What do romantic relationships entail?

Post Reply New Topic

I suppose that could work for somebody that bonds with sex, but it won't work for somebody that is asexual.

Not necessarily, obviously. But plenty are.

Oh, I remember you! This whole 'there is no true love!' drama. Still pushing that, eh?



Hang on - you think women don't have muscles? Forgive me if I take any further statements referring to 'nature' or biology with a hefty dose of salt.



Ooh, my mouth's all dry now.



Man reads, rolls eyes, sighs, goes to respond, sighs again at the futility of it all.gif

Anyway, I am loved despite my merit (if I even have any, being as I am not physically impressive, nor well off). Boom! Your theory just done got falsified.

Further, neither sex nor loving particular things about an individual sully love.



The human condition is something that exceeds any biological imperitive to reproduce.



Yes, yes, only such a combination of cynicism and idealism as yours can see the 'secret' that eludes the rest of us shmoes. It would no doubt upset you to come to a perspective that, actually, the world's not too bad.

There is no such thing as an 'eternal' love. This is an abstraction from our experience of love-as-is. There is love between ourselves as the humans we find ourselves to be, in all our finitude and with all our flaws. We are physical beings. As such, we express affection physically. It is not the only way to do so, but it is a way. Sex, of course - though this need not be an expression of such - as well as holding and hugging and reassuring touches and holding hands and so on.

All this is similar to the fallacy that, because no-one can act intentionally except from some interest they have, then no-one can act intentionally except from self-interest.

This fantasy of yours is not in any born out by - indeed, is quickly falsified by - a cursory glance at the world around us. You are projecting, from a position of something like a narcisistic self-loathing with a twist of some 'it's a fallen world' religious perspective and a pinch of biological reductionism/essentialism, your inner turmoil/conflict onto the world we live in.



As things stand, you will go on being miserable and insisting others' happiness is 'false'. All the while, others will enjoy their happiness as best they can. Here's hoping you enjoy your misery. I enjoy mine - there is, after all, a certain pleasure in such a thing, like pushing at a sore tooth - only I don't confuse my feelings about the world for the state of the world at large.

This topic is the focus of an upcoming PBS film (Jan. 11, 2016) which is being discussed on WrongPlanet.net ( viewtopic.php?t=303194 ).

You say men can love women without merit, but a woman can not love a man the same way.
This seems to say a mans love for a woman is more pure or true.
While I don't much care as to the truth of the opinion, you claim that all love is in the metaphysical world, and can not be experienced on our mortal plane.
With your theory men too would be unable to love women without merit.
Your two opinions do not support each other.

Women do NOT want to take care of another child, women are NOT attracted to the children inside of men. Much of becoming a man in society means disspelling childish notions aside in order to grow up and 'become a man' whichi turns the male into provider/protector, if a man remains in a child-like state, he's not going to attract women because women are not attracted to the children inside of men, they want providers/protectors.

You often see women rebuking men with terms such as 'manchildren', expressing their disdain for childish men who can neither provide nor protect.

What does ND mean?

Anyways
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_diffe ... physiology There is huge dimorphism between the sexes, meaning women overwhelmingly selected for certain traits. Meaning their were conditions imposed upon their 'love' though you can't really call it that.

Asexual men prove that men don't need sex in order to love women (which is the woman's primary mode of acquring males). This love isn't fulfilled in this world because it's not reciprocated, at the end of their lives men need to learn how to let go of women.

What adult would want their romantic partner to behave like a child? I mean, it takes all sorts and all, but no.



I'd guess Neurodiverse.



Yes. Every single woman in the world right now only wants to procreate with a rich, muscular, handsome hunk. It's not like I could take a walk into town tomorrow and see any number of non-wealthy, average looking beanpole men with their wives and their bairns, doing the best they can to cary their relationship forward and to support and care for each other. OH HANG ON. That's only something that I will see EVERYWHERE I go!

I'm sorry for shouting, but really, this is some tiresome BS.



How do they prove that?



Ah, there we are. You think you'll never get a girlfriend, so all men need need to let go of women because... why?

Come to think of it, I now remember you too. Actually, I just woke up today and sensed that you were somewhere out there being unopposed... so I've risen from hell in order to exact my revenge!

Or, I was simply bored and came to these forums... or something...

Yes, I actually believe that women have no muscles! Not a single one!

You know what I meant, no need to be coy.



Just because you don't see your merit doesn't mean it's not there, plenty of people in decadence wish to believe that all that they've acquired came to them freely and without cost, but that's because the cognitive dissonance is so great that it would immediately sap all value and meaning from their lives should they see the truth, the truth that we're just simple animals with only a bit of self-awareness, but animals nonetheless.


Yet they're all obsessed with being paired? If it wasn't true that humans aren't completely manipulated via sex, then you would see more people content with being alone, but VERY -VERY- few are.

People want to be paired because they want sex, if that wasn't the case any small friendship would be enough fulfillment, but there's too much sadness in this world for this to be the case.



Love is eternal, for if it becomes temporal then it becomes lust, and a slave to the whims of the body which will eventually slay it. If the only thing you can love about a person is their body/merit, then that love is destined to die, rendering the love empty and pointless.

This temporal love strikes me as an oxymoron, otherwise it's not really love, but something that is based on the body, which turns love into lust and then dies. A short orgasm followed by a malaise, does that not sound like sex to you? Love has been reduced to sex and when this happens, existence becomes meaningless.

Love cannot be based upon the body, the body dies, love does not. Love is spiritual, lust, physical.

As per that quote, you CAN enjoy the illusion of love, but this all falls under the existential story of Sissyphus, who has to roll and enormous boulder up a hill only to see it roll back down again, which in matters of love, represents the body dying and mankind departing just as he came, soiling himself in rags and poverty just as he did as a babe.

The bible explains, "Anyone who loves their life will lose it, while anyone who hates their life in this world will keep it for eternal life" -- John 12:25. Upon seeing the one holy thing that isn't in this world, your soul gravitates towards the place wherein it lies -- beyond this life -- being in eternity; the spirit world.

"It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for this is the end of all mankind, and the living will lay it to heart." Ecclesiastes 7:2

"The heart of the wise is in a house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in a house of pleasure." Ecclesiastes 7:4

Meaning that the wiser your love becomes, the more miserable it weighs on your heart. For "Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain." Ecclesiastes 1:18, thus when you become aware of what love is, you understand that humans have lost it. Which is a terrible thing to behold, but something that humans need to face at one point or another. Because if they truly want love, then they have to be prepared to let go of the body, either the body is going to kill the soul, and with it eternal love, or the soul is going to kill the body, and with it, this world.

ND = neurodiverse
NT = neurotypical

What you write above about protection has some relevance for NT women, but not for ND women, where this is reversed. Also, the selection of men that shows no childish traits probably only applies to NTs as well, but it's not something I've checked. At least, I know a few ND women that like men with child-like traits.



But asexuality is twice as high in ND women as in ND men. That would mean a lot of ND women do not participate in the game you describe.

If they don't know anything about you background, but still likes you, then there can be no usual merit. Guess what, that happens.



I'm content with only a crush, and I don't need any sex. At least a few women are too.

So chill down and enjoy the wonders of a crush.

Men are more spiritual because without any merit, a man has nothing but the spirit. Which is why all the great philosophers have been men, and often time VERY poor men such as Diogenes (who lived in a tub)

Women have innate value of reproduction; they can never be severed from this, and for this they don't really need to emphasize the spirit for comfort, they already have the comfort of the body, whereas men can only rely on the soul for guidance in the absence of merit.

But the love is not fulfilled, while a man might love a woman, this love is going to die because it's based upon the body, meaning that it remains imperfect and unreciprocated. it's the price women pay for ensnaring a man through sex, and the price a man pays for believing the sex to be the fulfillment of love -- all of these things occuring because of our blind reliance on the body, which must die in the end.

I think the reverse is true. Women are more spiritual in the sense of believing in supernatural things at least.

Ok, if you need the illusory spiritual stuff to give your existence some meaning.

I think the reverse is true. Women are more spiritual in the sense of believing in supernatural things at least.[/quotNeith

Neither are more spiritual.

My grandma loved that my granpa had his inner child. He was fun to be around and was good with kids.

Why do you have to let go of your inner kid, because your parents who were forced to try to force you and their parents and so on and so on.

Why's life got to be super serious a,l the time why do you live your life because others tell you to because that how they did. Your the adult now, you are the one who can define what being ab adult means not them.

Good perspective Sly.

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16366898