Any teenager boys wanting a girlfriend?

Page 2 of 4 [ 51 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Daewoodrow
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 187
Location: Canterbury, England

19 May 2008, 1:23 pm

Wilco wrote:
I'm 15, and live pretty far away, we can chat though and see where it goes from there :P. and @ Daewoodrow, there is logic in what you say BUT a relationship is a special bond between two people. if it's with or without naughty stuf doesn't matter. If two certain people decide they have a relationship, even though they never see each other then they have a relationship. Can't say it would be my kind of thing but you get the point ;)


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.


_________________
Umquam sentio nex?


ebec11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,043
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

19 May 2008, 6:28 pm

LePetitPrince wrote:
Do you have an older sister?
Yep, she's married and gay though :P



ebec11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,043
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

19 May 2008, 6:30 pm

Daewoodrow wrote:
Obviously it's your choice, but I really don't think this is the best way to find yourself a boyfriend.

Furthermore, you say you want a boyfriend, without meeting up and without "dirty stuff"? That's not a boyfriend. That's a friend. You want a friend who happens to be male.

As you get older and more mature, you'll uderstand what I mean. The relationship you're looking for is just a little childish.
Okay :D 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?



Thomas1138
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 5 Apr 2008
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 488

19 May 2008, 6:31 pm

ebec11 wrote:
LePetitPrince wrote:
Do you have an older sister?
Yep, she's married and gay though :P


I'm flexible.



AnonymousAnonymous
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 53,970
Location: Portland, Oregon

19 May 2008, 6:59 pm

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.


_________________
Silly NTs, I have Aspergers, and having Aspergers is gr-r-reat!


RainSong
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 May 2006
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,879
Location: Ohio

19 May 2008, 8:01 pm

Daewoodrow wrote:
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 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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.


_________________
"Nothing worth having is easy."

Three years!


Danielismyname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,599

20 May 2008, 12:47 am

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



ebec11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 27
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,043
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

20 May 2008, 5:32 am

RainSong wrote:
Daewoodrow wrote:
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 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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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



Danielismyname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,599

20 May 2008, 7:10 am

ebec11 wrote:
(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.



Ioini
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 113
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 May 2008, 8:34 am

ebec11 wrote:
windscar15 wrote:
does being eighteen help?

I don't know if you live locally. Most of the girls on this site live nowhere near where I live.
Probably not. I live in Ontario (though I refuse to go into more detail then that)


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.



Daewoodrow
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 187
Location: Canterbury, England

20 May 2008, 8:48 am

RainSong wrote:
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.


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.


_________________
Umquam sentio nex?


Danielismyname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,599

20 May 2008, 9:57 am

Daewoodrow wrote:
LOVE IS A HORMONE.


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.



Daewoodrow
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 187
Location: Canterbury, England

20 May 2008, 10:31 am

Danielismyname wrote:
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.


_________________
Umquam sentio nex?


Danielismyname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Apr 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,599

20 May 2008, 11:02 am

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).



Daewoodrow
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2008
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 187
Location: Canterbury, England

20 May 2008, 11:41 am

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

Danielismyname wrote:
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.

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.
Danielismyname wrote:
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.

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.
Danielismyname wrote:
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.

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

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.


_________________
Umquam sentio nex?