Any teenager boys wanting a girlfriend?

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

RainSong
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

20 May 2008, 3:20 pm

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.)

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.


_________________
"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, 4:26 pm

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.



ebec11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,043
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

20 May 2008, 4:40 pm

Ioini wrote:
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.
Cool (PM me)
I hope you don't mind that I'm sixteen



ebec11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,043
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

20 May 2008, 4:40 pm

Danielismyname wrote:
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.
Good advice :D
Thank you Daniel :D



NUTLOG
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 18 Sep 2007
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: UK

20 May 2008, 6:24 pm

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.

ebec11 wrote:
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?


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.



weather1man
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 295
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

20 May 2008, 7:07 pm

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.


_________________
"But in general, at first shy guys may seem interesting and cute, but it DOES get old really quick. Gets too boring."


ebec11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,043
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

20 May 2008, 10:06 pm

NUTLOG wrote:
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.
It's not the worst crime in the world :D



Daewoodrow
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

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

22 May 2008, 11:35 am

RainSong wrote:

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


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.

RainSong wrote:
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.


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 retarded 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.

RainSong wrote:
(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.)

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.

RainSong wrote:
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.

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.

RainSong wrote:
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.

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?

RainSong wrote:
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.

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.

RainSong wrote:
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.

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".

RainSong wrote:
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.

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.


_________________
Umquam sentio nex?


LePetitPrince
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,130

22 May 2008, 11:46 am

Quote:
The way we treat love and define love are sociological. But love never stopped being biological.


Quoted for ultimate truth.



JohnHopkins
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,735

22 May 2008, 1:38 pm

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



RainSong
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

22 May 2008, 8:26 pm

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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 retarded 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.


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
I do not revise my statements. I never need to, and I never will.


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

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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?


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

Daewoodrow wrote:
The way we treat love and define love are sociological. But love never stopped being biological.


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

Daewoodrow wrote:
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".


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.

Daewoodrow wrote:
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.


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.


_________________
"Nothing worth having is easy."

Three years!


Danielismyname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

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

22 May 2008, 8:42 pm

Daewoodrow wrote:
He has not demonstrated any higher abilities necessary to continue debating with me.


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.



WhateverDude
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 21 May 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 58

22 May 2008, 9:30 pm

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..



weather1man
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2005
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 295
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

22 May 2008, 11:51 pm

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.


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.


_________________
"But in general, at first shy guys may seem interesting and cute, but it DOES get old really quick. Gets too boring."


Daewoodrow
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

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

23 May 2008, 11:40 am

RainSong wrote:
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.

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.

RainSong wrote:
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.

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.

RainSong wrote:

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.



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.

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

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.

RainSong wrote:
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.

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.

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

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".

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

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

RainSong wrote:
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.

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.

RainSong wrote:
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.


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.

Danielismyname wrote:
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.

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.


_________________
Umquam sentio nex?