Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I don't know about Yoda and being a coward. But there are people who renounce all worldly pleasures (including love) and embark into a spiritual life of learning. Such people are what we call "monks". Just because you give up love and dedicate your life to a spiritual journey doesn't make you any less than a person fallen in love.
but just because they don't seek love, doesn't mean they don't love. There will always be a some form or shape of love playing in a life of peace and harmony. But when you decide to live a life of peace and harmony out of fear of pain, then there is no love, and merely fear. And when one allows fear to overcome them then they die a thousand and one times...
We learn what we will and will not tolerate in relationships. We learn what our limits are, and learn about our capacity to love. We learn what we want and don' t want in a partner, the traits we find attractive and those that we can do without.
By trial and error, we learn what we really want in our love life and that makes it all worth the pain.
true love is about the only thing is the world which can truly never be subjected to the laws of logic and basic human instinct{hey even bertrand russel agreed}. it trancends logic and reason. true love is COMPLETELY unselfish. you do not exist and the object of affection is everything. whether it mean eternal suffering or torment, it doesnt matter, because loving isnt about taking, its about giving{although being loved isnt bad at all, its just not an end of loving sum1}. thats probably why the majority of love is one sided and ends up never being reciprocated. {sadly}
and well, truly, life has no value without love. that is why the question of why wud u suffer is unimportant. being alive in itself is suffering, does that imply that we shud kill ourselves?
on the other hand, we also have to live in this imperfect physical world with the limitation of mind and body. and it can be downright suicidal to be in love at times and suffer{the greater the love, the greater the suffering}. that is why people going through continued disappointments harden up and seal their ability to feal such things.
pretty cruel yeah.
No one has looked at love from a genetic perspective yet. The philosophical and/or emotional realities of it are one aspect of the entity we call "love" but it's really only looking at half the picture.
We're genetically pre-disposed to want to breed, and this presents itself as a series of chemical reactions that stimulate us physically and cognitively. The lust/love we speak of.
And it follows that we'll try again and again, because our ancestors that were willing to try again and again were the most successful and passed those genes to us.
The other stuff, from pain/pleasure analyses to the mystical bonds we attempt to create between "soul mates" and every emotional evaluation of love in general, is just our advanced intelligence and culture ascribing "extras" on to the biological fact that is the desire to procreate.
That's not to say that emotional fulfillment doesn't happen (it certainly does), and meaningful friendships/relationships/etc. can obviously be fostered and can be wonderful things. But all these trivialities of relationships are founded on the base that is our genetic predisposition.
Every generalization from cheating husbands to nuturing mothers is in some way rationalized via gene tendencies. For the latter: the mother, in any animal species, can be 100% sure that a child is her's, as opposed to less than certainty with the father. This produces more nuturing genes in the mother, less so in the father, because it is in his genetic interests to be more wary. For the former: male species in general came about as a way to exploit the "female" (in the earliest stages of it, male/female wouldn't have been appropriate, because we're talking about single-celled organisms). The female would incubate the egg and reproduce using it..."males" came about as a rogue type of cell that could penetrate the egg, insert genetic material, and not have to expend energy on the birthing process, thus allowing them to reproduce more. Certainly, men aren't entirely exploitive anymore, nor are most permiscuous (most aren't) but there's solid gentic factors that contribute to why men seem to cheat more than women.
...
So to answer the question, it's more than worth the pain. I could care less about the survival of my genes, even if I happen to think they are good ones (I suppose some are). But it's fun. Sex is cool, friendships are great to have, and an emotional partner is a wonderful thing to have as well. And if I don't end up with anyone, no big loss. I won't lie, I'd like to end up married and such...but I'm also cognizant enough of my ability to enjoy/hate my life regardless of the circumstances, so I'll make the best of it either way.
...and solicit many hookers.
😐
Re: What is the Point of Love if it is going to Hurt you?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No one likes to be hurt. Physically nor mentality. And you know relationships don't last. Why struggle to find love and happiness with another person? When there is a high chance that person might hurt your feelings in the future? Do we really have sadistic desires? Are we really beings that enjoy pain? Is that why we fall in love?Come on you Romantics come here and correct me. 😉
1) The only person who can make you happy is yourself. No one else is holding your happiness in their hand.
2) Just because relationships don't last doesn't make them any less valid. We all die sooner or later. Does that mean nothing is worth doing ?
3) If you see the other person as your source of refuge, comfort, love, and pleasure, chances are you become dependent on them. That's unfair. They are not responsible for you.
Both partners should love the other, without need for returns.
Don't think about what your partner can give to you. Think about what you can give to him/her. If both partners do this, both will be happy, and last a long time.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
We're genetically pre-disposed to want to breed, and this presents itself as a series of chemical reactions that stimulate us physically and cognitively. The lust/love we speak of.
Bullshit 👇
Not all of us want to breed. Many heterosexual couples do not want children, and Gays and Lesbians do not pair up for the sake of pro-creation.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Bullshit 👇Not [b]all of us
want to breed. Many heterosexual couples do not want children, and Gays and Lesbians do not pair up for the sake of pro-creation. [/B]
Did I say everyone was? Variation is the earmark of evolution. And I also said that it is our choice, as conscious individuals, to override those tendencies. Thus the examples you mentioned.
But if we weren't genetically predisposed to it (the vast, vast majority of us), chances are we wouldn't even be here talking about it.
As for the sexual preference distinctions you mentioned, there's about 125 known genes that control aspects of sexuality, from physical and mental arousal based on certain characteristics (why we like blondes over brunettes, for example) to our sexual preference. Some of these genes might make their host lean more toward homosexuality, some hetero. Some could be turned off until puberty, or until a certain stimulus appears. Some switch as they intereact with other genes. And at any one time, it is unlikely that all of these genes are either one way or the other. In homosexuals, it's likely that the majority will be triggered toward that side. The same holds true for heterosexuals, and this is obviously what the majority is.
But (and here's the important part) if the majority of the population's genes weren't hetero, and weren't predisposed toward procreating, the species would have been in trouble thousands of years ago. That in no way invalidates homosexuality. It's merely a natural variation, and also a personal choice. But I'm talking primarily about the detached genetic factors of all this, not necessarily the personal chocie level (which is also very present in any equation).
As for the verification of all this, I'm speaking primarily to the research of geneticist Alfred Kinsey. Any of his works on gender and sexuality will extrapolate on these things.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Did I say everyone was? Variation is the earmark of evolution. And I also said that it is our choice, as conscious individuals, to override those tendencies. Thus the examples you mentioned.
Please excuse my opening statement. I was not attacking you, I was just in humorous mood.
However, not all of us have these tendencies. Not all people are parent material. Would you agree or disagree ?
Some people naturally, on thier own, don't want kids, nor care for them. Why do you think there are so many horrible parents, and cases of child abuse and neglect ?
Maternal and Paternal urges are only strong in some people, dare I say non-existant in some.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But if we weren't genetically predisposed to it (the vast, vast majority of us), chances are we wouldn't even be here talking about it.
Even if we were not genetically pre-disposed to want to pro-create, we would still be horny. There is more to sex than procreation, even though evolution tends to lead us to that direction.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for the sexual preference distinctions you mentioned, there's about 125 known genes that control aspects of sexuality, from physical and mental arousal based on certain characteristics (why we like blondes over brunettes, for example) to our sexual preference. Some of these genes might make their host lean more toward homosexuality, some hetero. Some could be turned off until puberty, or until a certain stimulus appears. Some switch as they intereact with other genes. And at any one time, it is unlikely that all of these genes are either one way or the other. In homosexuals, it's likely that the majority will be triggered toward that side. The same holds true for heterosexuals, and this is obviously what the majority is.
Very Interesting 👆
Sexuality, to me, is far more complicated than just "gay or straight"
I know quite a few guys who identity as straight, but have had sexual interaction with other guys, or atleast fantasized about it. Yet they still feel they are straight. Ask Alliance for example. He will tell you, he is a straight guy, but he has thought about experiences with other men with pleasure, not disgust.
I consider myself Gay, but I have had sex with girls in the past, and I have had huge crushes on girls as well, still do today. I simply prefer men.
My freind MJ considers herself straight, but she has had sexual experiences with other girls, but she does NOT consider herself "bisexual" by any means.
I even hooked up with a "homo-thug". A guy who has a girlfreind, a macho persona, and considers himself straight, but he takes pleasure in sexually dominating other guys. He will never say he is "Gay" though. He's "straight", according to his own standards.
And then, there are even gay men, who do not like women, who marry women, who have never had a sexual encounter with another men, but still have sexual desire for other men.
And so on and so on.
We polarize sexuality, but to me it's a spectrum, not a checker board.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But (and here's the important part) if the majority of the population's genes weren't hetero, and weren't predisposed toward procreating, the species would have been in trouble thousands of years ago. That in no way invalidates homosexuality. It's merely a natural variation, and also a personal choice. But I'm talking primarily about the detached genetic factors of all this, not necessarily the personal chocie level (which is also very present in any equation).
The only reason that confuses me is because there are homosexuals who want children- thier own biological children.
Even though sex is the key to procreation, I don't feel that's the goal of sex. Sex also promotes unity, and rank.
Did you know that in wolf packs, only the Alpha Male and Alpha Female are allowed to have sex ?
The other wolves stay virgin thier entire life. Look it up, if you don't beleive me.
Sex is a phenomena far more complicated than just a tool of procreation.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
As for the verification of all this, I'm speaking primarily to the research of geneticist Alfred Kinsey. Any of his works on gender and sexuality will extrapolate on these things.
I will look him up, this sounds interesting, but I do not think he sees the whole picture.
Human Sexuality is highly complicated, but if you look at Animal Sexuality, it's not so simple either.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Please excuse my opening statement. I was not attacking you, I was just in humorous mood.
👆
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
However, not all of us have these tendencies. [b]Not all people are parent material. Would you agree or disagree ? [/B]
Agree absolutely. But most are, or would like to be.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Even if we were not genetically pre-disposed to want to pro-create, we would still be horny. There is more to sex than procreation, even though evolution tends to lead us to that direction.
But what is being horny except the urge to engage in sexual acts? It's one of the chemical by-products I was talking about, and specifically is the genetic predisposition toward procreation. If it's with a person of the same gender, I discussed those variables earlier. But "horny-ness" is one of the factors, without a doubt. If we never got horny, would we want to have kids as much? Not likely.
You're talking about the choice to procreate, which is different than our genetics.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Sexuality, to me, is far more complicated than just "gay or straight"....
And so on and so on.
We polarize sexuality, but to me it's a spectrum, not a checker board.
Actually, this was one of the biggest implications of Kinsey's work, and you're absolutely right to label it a spectrum.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The only reason that confuses me is because there [b]are homosexuals who want children- thier own biological children. [/B]
But sexual preference and the desire to have biological children aren't tied together gentically. So this is an example of people whose genes are contradicting, but it is simply another spot on the spectrum, metaphorically speaking.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Even though sex is the key to procreation, I don't feel that's the goal of sex. Sex also promotes unity, and rank.Did you know that in wolf packs, only the Alpha Male and Alpha Female are allowed to have sex ?
This isn't the only species like that. Elephants are another notable example of very few males mating with numerous females, as well as various African jungle cats and many tribes of apes. In most ant and bee species, the entire group comes from a single mother. It actually still stems back to genetic properties. Dawkins' The Selfish Gene actually discusses animals just like this and explains how it comes to be like this, and how genetic factors play a role in the dominance of certain animals, as well as how evolution fostered mutual altruism and trust between mates....the pre-cursors to what we call Love in today's culture.
As always, there is a social and cognitive aspect to love, mating, etc. that goes beyond genes. But far more than most realize has been determined for us by the eons of evolution that preceded us, and most of our societal conventions about love are set upon this base.
What is the Point of Love if it is going to Hurt you?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No one likes to be hurt. Physically nor mentality. And you know relationships don't last. Why struggle to find love and happiness with another person? When there is a high chance that person might hurt your feelings in the future? Do we really have sadistic desires? Are we really beings that enjoy pain? Is that why we fall in love?
People do a lot of things that are hurtful, and all for the same reason: the positive > negative. Besides, in the long term, not falling in love hurts worse.