Any teenager boys wanting a girlfriend?

Post Reply New Topic

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.

Daewoodrow,

You neglected the point where I said science doesn't have a single answer over such. Science states that the psychological and biological are both a part of love, not just the all-encompassing hormones (biological).

I have an example, how is it that an Autistic individual can't feel [romantic] love even though on imaging studies, and blood work, they're effectively "normal" (one can substitute love for fear, or any other emotion)? If they have the required hormones, how is it possible for them to lack this emotion? Unless, of course, other parts of the brain are affected, and effect emotions. There's many things that keep you alive, your heart, your brain; each tiny piece of these--take away one, and you die. As far as I know, the uptake of chemicals isn't the cause of Autism.

Cool (PM me)
I hope you don't mind that I'm sixteen

Good advice
Thank you Daniel

Wow, does Daewoodrow have monopoly on arrogance? Hey dude, save some for the rest of us, you're upsetting the natural balance of things here. At this rate I'm gonna be meeker than a lamb if you don't stop stealing my share.

Sounds good to me. But you don't wanna choose me unless you're comfortable conversing with the kind of person who eats their boogers and is proud of it. My being four years older might put you off too, but as demonstrated, my mental maturity remains lower than any scale is fit to measure. So I dunno, maybe you wanna consider babysitting me instead.

Sure, I'll chat with you. I'm a guy and I'm 18, so yea I'm pretty close to your age. Feel free to PM me or whatever. Like others have said the internet is not a great place to find romance, esp from a site like this. Non the less, I have made some close friendships online even though I doubt I'll ever meet them. So yes, I'd be happy to talk to you.

It's not the worst crime in the world

I'll have you know that on the majority of occasions, i'm capable of a calm and intelligent argument. This, however, has pushed my intelligent reason to its capacity. I'm being given lessons on emotional development by a 17 year old, and being lectured on the nature of love by a walking poetry spouting cliche.



It's probably redundant at this point, but your lessons are unnecessary. I am perfectly aware of the details of emotional development. Of course, to assume someone of my abilities would not know the emotional development stages would be moronic. So i'm assuming you threw this in to bruise my ego and further anger me, thus verifying yout theory of my emotional development. Now, i have a lesson for you. did you know, that a person of healthy emotional development can get angry? it's true. So, to claim that losing my temper is absolute proof that i'm acting developmentally challenged is ridiculous.

And Romantic love does not require abstract thinking. Even those who are legally ret*d have at one point or another claimed to be in love, so I think what you mean to say is, the ability to take an abstract concept such as hormonal control and describe it as a poetic metaphysical concept without a university level knowledge of biochemistry requires abstract thought.


If you look back, I never made an assumption as to Daniel's age. And I don't care. He has not demonstrated any higher abilities necessary to continue debating with me, which even you have demonstrated. He is less intelligent than you, and is more of an annoyance.


I do not revise my statements. I never need to, and I never will. You missed out a valuable part of my quotation,
"you say you want a boyfriend, without meeting up and without "dirty stuff"? That's not a boyfriend. That's a friend"
I made an inference. An inference which in this case is true. She has no intention of meeting the guy, and no intention of exploring any physical aspect of the relationship in the verbal sense, which she worded as "dirty stuff". My mind struggles to picture the thought of an adult relationship taking place through msn messenger where the two parties merely chat about stuff and share compliments. That is a friendship. It has no potential to expand beyond friendship.


Fair enough. When somebody tells me that love is something which acts independantly of biochemical reactions, I automatically assume they are a victim of the commercialised mass delusion. Can you blame me? Honestly?


Adrenaline is not necessary after a certain point either. it might save you from a mugging, for example, but emptying your bowels so you can run faster is somewhat unnecessary in this day and age. As humans, we can distort the original function of our chemicals and organs to suit the designs of our sentient mind. the features of our love hormones continue to exist after they are needed because humans were never intended to form long term relationships. We were designed to "fall in love", have sex, and then if the child, mother and father survived, the father would eventually seek another mate whilst the mothers cared for the young as a group. Obviously I don't believe fathers should be polygamous in our day and age, but like it or not, that was our distant past. The hormones just haven't evolved to keep up with our new mentality.
The way we treat love and define love are sociological. But love never stopped being biological.


Disagree with me all you like, but challenge my intelligence to topple my argument, and I get pissed off. If you wanted my response to be intelligent and calm, you shouldn't have started your rebuttle with "you're developmentally challenged".


A one night stand, or a prostitute? I'm a virgin. I have no shame in that fact, and in fact I have no intention of changing it. Not until I find a stable relationship with a woman who is my equal in every way. Have I ever been in love? Yes. When I was younger and naive, I "fell in love" with women who had a fraction of my intelligence and ultimately every time I fall in love my heart is broken. It isn't getting easier, because every time I fall I love and then fail, my intelligence attacks itself until my mind is reduced to nothing, and i'm forced to rebuild myself. I've never walked away from a broken heart as the same man I was before. So now, when I start having strong feelings towards a woman I place myself in isolation, and rationalise them until the feelings are gone. Accuse me of lacking social development, i'm AS, i'm happy with that. But never try and tell me I don't understand love.

Quoted for ultimate truth.

You sound like my kind of people, I'll be your friend.

I have doubts about that. Your emotional development has nothing to do with your age, once again. You might know the logical reasons behind love, but you know nothing about it other than that; that's obvious.



You haven't proved that to me; in fact, your understanding of emotioanl development seems to be lacking. You're still harping on the age difference, but you claim to understand the rate of development? I'm not trying to bruise your ego; you seem to be doing a good job of that yourself. Actually, I'd prefer you not to be angry, because trying to have a conversation with an irritated person is rather difficult and quite annoying. Emotional development also includes being able to control your temper; you're not doing such very well. Did one of your comments in part of your post annoy me quite a bit? Yes. Am I freaking out about it? Nope; being pissy on the internet ultimately doesn't accomplish much.

To feel something and to realize what it means are two entirely different things.



So it's ok if you play the age card with me because I'm younger, but it no longer applies if you're the younger one? Interesting.

Actually, I'd be very willing to bet that you're less intelligent than him. I know him well enough to be able to tell that.



Arrogance. Everyone makes mistakes eventually. Assuming you're human, you're not immune to this.



You separated the meeting up and the "dirty stuff." It seemed fairly safe for me to assume that you considered them different categories. Then, you listed examples about teenagers making out to prove that they were romantically involved.

I all ready said that I didn't think she was looking for a real relationship either. There's no reason to argue that.



I never said they were entirely indepedent of biochemical reactions. I said that there was more to love than just hormones.



I didn't disagree with the last part. I said there was more to it than chemicals.



I wasn't challenging your intelligence; I was challenging your emotional development. I wouldn't have said that if you hadn't said that I was originally calling you developmentally challenged; you offered me a set of words, so I took them. And gladly.



There is no shame in being a virgin.
You don't understand love entirely, no; I will try and tell you that, even though I have no doubt that you won't listen. You can't rationalize the deepest kind away. Love isn't about intelligence level, and it isn't about being absolute equals in every way. You put your love in quotations; you're indicating that you don't truly believe it.

Again, you neglect my words: you state that love is a hormone due to science (it's many chemicals in reality, not just a single type of); science also states that it's psychology. Your fact is wrong.

The first is supported by physiological evidence, the latter is too.

Not meaning to be rude..

But this topic..this drama..ALL of it, is EXACTLY why people like me are still alone.

Descent people give up trying to find other descent people and resort to things like online dating..

If you never meet someone in real life, you are not going to have the same connection. While words help begin a relationship, physical contact and really knowing the person are key.

I've been completely aware of the fact that you are continuously repeating this statement. "Emotional development has nothing to do with age". I've been ignoring it. It's a ridiculous statement. Whilst it's possible for emotional development to take place at different rates between individuals, emotional development is, by definition, your level of emotional and cognitive reasoning in direct comparison to your physiological development. At various ages and stages of development, an individual is required to have attained a level of emotional reasoning consistent with their peers to be considered "emotionally normal".
You clearly cannot, or will not win this argument using your intelligence, so you're attacking my emotional stability. A sad and disappointing outcome, I must say. Even if I had the emotional age of a 3 year old, it's entirely irrelevant. You can understand love entirely at a biological level. As it happens, my emotional age tested at 24 when I was 14. I haven't been tested since.


I seem to be doing a good job at bruising my own ego? Did you think of that one yourself? If I were as narcisistic and egotistical as you are trying to portray me, my ego would be my temple. I would not be capable of bruising my own ego, but I would lash out at anyone who attempts to do so. I am certainly no egotist, but I know very well when somebody is attempting to subdue me on an emotional level. It's a sign of weakness, when an opponent is faced with an intellectual battle they cannot win, they instead attack the opponent directly.
Controlling anger is NOT a sign of emotional stability. It's a sign of emotional strength. Anger is a human emotion just like love, and it's my prerogative to indulge my illogical emotions too. And don't you dare attempt to place yourself in a "holier than thou" stance. You knew full well when you first replied to me that you were speaking to me in a derogatory tone, in the belief that you were addressing a less intelligent individual. You've stuck by that stance throughout, despite the fact that you've consistently offered no substantial argument.



I never suggested you were less intelligent than me because of your age. I said, quite clearly, that being lectured by somebody younger than me on emotional development is absurd. I am not lecturing Daniel on emotional development.
I'm not going to comment on the intelligence thing. It's another feeble attack on my ego. To provoke me into making a generalised statement, which would be easier to find flaw in than my logic.


You're damn right i'm arrogant, when addressing you and Daniel. I know exactly what i'm capable of, and I always admit when i've been bested intellectually. It actually happens frequently. Just not with you, not today.
And to say I do not revise statements does not imply I never make mistakes. I merely know not to speak when I am not sure of what i'm saying, and so I either admit i'm wrong, elaborate, or rejoice at being right. I never change what I said.


The "making out" example was crude. It was not intended to be the basis of my entire argument, and it is not the very minimum example of a romantic relationship. I was giving an example of a superficial relationship which also constituted as romantic, in comparison to a superficial relationship which does not.


Don't back pedal. You said love was "deeper" than hormones. "Deeper" is a cliche word frequently used to describe a level of emotion beyond the understanding of the individual. It frequently used in the commercialised and poetic description of love. It was perfectly reasonable to assume you were being poetic when you said "love is deeper than hormones".


Biology is chemicals. To agree that love is biological and to say there is more to it than chemicals is a contradiction.


emotional development is a form of intelligence. And I don't deal in euphemisms. To say I am less emotionally developed than you is no more polite than calling me developmentally challenged in my eyes. Just because somebody sugar coats an insult, don't expect me to reciprocate in kind.



No, you're wrong. I believe in my love, because it is chemical based and real. Chemicals can be rationalised, and should be. I don't see why I should indulge a feeling which brings me nothing but ultimate suffering. I can love a woman who isn't my equal, but I know that in the end I will get hurt. Therefore, I will not allow myself to fall in love again until I meet my equal. A woman who is truly my equal would not break my heart intentionally, because I would never break someone's heart intentionally. And of all your attacks, this has got to be the lowest. You have no right to say someone does not understand or feel love because they can rationalise it. You are a hypocrite. You accuse me of being too rational with love, and rebuke me for imposing it on others, and then try and tell me when I can and can't feel it.


Psychology isn't a science. It is an ugly and superficial area where people preach at others things that they do not fully understand. The studies are flawed and frequently inhumane, and modern psychology students are merely required to memorise the disturbingly unscientific studies of other individuals to pass. and we've already been over the "multiple chemicals" thing. When I declared "LOVE IS A HORMONE" I was being dramatic. love is multiple hormones.

Daewoodrow -

Although I'm sure you'll take this as yet another sign of your "superiority" (it's not, but you may amuse yourself as you choose), I'm not going to bother to responding further to you. It's obvious that you've blinded yourself too much to have a rational conversation, and quite frankly, it gets boring listening to you. The last time I made the mistake of debating with someone who had his head that far up his ass, it never really ended; I have better things to do with my time than try to reason with you. You've contradicted yourself multiple times as it is; you can argue with yourself if you wish.