# Does Love Exist?



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

I know I may sound insane deranged right now but I got to thinking after seeing something on tv. Does love really even exist or is it made up like santa claus? Essentially a show was on tv about how love/attraction is chemically based. If that's the case how is it any different than drinking, drugs, buying things, eating? Essentially we love the chemicals that are released just like drinking, drugs, eating... 

Maybe we are really that self-centered.


----------



## njodis (Nov 8, 2006)

Yeah, it does. 

At least I think so. :b


----------



## Shauna The Dead (Jun 16, 2005)

I think it's faker than Santa Claus :b


----------



## mserychic (Oct 2, 2004)

All emotions are just chemical reactions.


----------



## Avilos (Jul 7, 2005)

Well "love" is one of those words that has so many different meanings to different people. We would like to think its meaning is universal so that we are all agreeing. Like its a form of "currency". But reality is much more complicated than that. 

No I am not saying feelings don't exist. The problem is when people don't understand what each others own definitions of Love are. But assume that when, for example - A man says he loves a woman, and a women says she loves that man - that they are both meaning the same thing. I am not talking about dishonesty but miscommunication. 

....Oh course this is coming from a guy who has never been in Love....so what do I know.... :cry


----------



## Inturmal (Jan 15, 2006)

mserychic said:


> All emotions are just chemical reactions.


Yep. _Everything_ we experience comes from chemical reactions, but that doesn't make emotions any less real.

Romantic love exists, and it's awesome. :mushy


----------



## VCL XI (Jan 19, 2004)

Not in my world.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

Love exists if you ask me. I have been married for (almost) six years and my husband continues to amaze me with how nice he can be to me. I have been getting up in the middle of the night to do internship and i fell asleep on the couch last night, he woke me and told me to just go to bed and he brings water to my bedside (I like to have a glass of water in reach at night in case I want a sip during the night, silly I know), sets up the coffee pot for me and even set my alarm. Yes, I can and do all of these things but he does it because he loves me, and this is just a small example of how he does lots of "little" things for me... He works hard to provide for us, he listens to me when I need to be heard, we share everything, he encourages me and gives me emotional support...that is love...its not about lust or chemicals or anything...its a strong relationship built over time with someone who is just "right" for you, and doing things for each other as true partners.


----------



## embers (Dec 19, 2006)

I guess its like with the easter bunny and santa klaus, if you believe it, then it exists, and then it makes you feel good, so I like to believe in it I suppose. Love is the easter bunny for grownups :b


----------



## Johnny_Genome (Nov 11, 2003)

It exists as much as happiness or sadness.


----------



## SaPrAmPeBi (Jul 14, 2004)

Some sociologists believe love doesn't exist. We only experience these feelings of euphoria when we realize we have found someone to live our lives with and we no longer have the anxiety of being alone or finding someone anymore. We are socially constructed to believe we must find someone to be monogamous with and socially conform to the preset mold of a 'happy' life. Basically, 'love' is the absence of anxieties about finding a person to conform to society's view of a relationship. 

I'm not saying I agree but it's an interesting concept to think that love doesn't exist, it's all just about chemicals and social construction of reality.

P.S. I hope that made sense. I feel I didn't articulate as well as I would have liked.


----------



## Andrew White (Aug 18, 2007)

Yes. When you find someone that doesn't piss you off and you can also have sex with, that's love


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

Love exists, but only for men. Whatever it is that women feel in return, it's just isn't the same thing.

Trying to pinpoint the differences can be difficult. Man's love is aptly documented by the great body of romantic literature and art produced by male artists throughout the ages. When a man loves a woman, she becomes an object of intense praise, fascination and beauty, almost divine in nature. There isn't a thing a man wouldn't sacrifice for his object of worship, including his life.

Women on the other end just don't seem to see things the same way. It _must_ be a fundamentally different experience due the fact romance has never inspired women to the same degree it does with men.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

...


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

I am ready to give up on this particular forum altogether and just stay in S & C, Gen Discussion, voting booth and such.. :um ..The Relationships forum has become a rehash of the same old subjects with incredibly bitter and jaded viewpoints that are argued to be "fact", and unlike S&C there is no data to back up anything anyone says in here (including me as love is a personal thing that cannot be broken down into science despite futile attempts to do so).......there is very little factual things one can argue about something as complex as love....I only have my life experience to base things on and frankly I am quite glad that I am not sharing the more jaded viewpoints others have....and I find the comments from males whom by their own admission who have little to no relationship experience on what WOMEN (I can only assume that means ALL WOMEN??? :stu Not really sure??) think or feel ridiculous and incredibly far off base...The only thing I can say is that I dont fit the mold that is often presented about women in this forum, that is not my life experience, I am married happily so I dont share in many thoughts that are expressed on this forum and know that is not how the world works, at least from where I am standing. :stu

Sorry dont mean to sound blunt or *****y :sigh but these threads have become the common ones in this forum and rather depressing. :no I am really tired right now also :eyes so I hope I am not sounding mean, angry or anything...i just type and hope for the best and type what i am thinking......

Penny Out.


----------



## mserychic (Oct 2, 2004)

Lyric Suite said:


> Love exists, but only for men. Whatever it is that women feel in return, it's just isn't the same thing.
> 
> Trying to pinpoint the differences can be difficult. Man's love is aptly documented by the great body of romantic literature and art produced by male artists throughout the ages. When a man loves a woman, she becomes an object of intense praise, fascination and beauty, almost divine in nature. There isn't a thing a man wouldn't sacrifice for his object of worship, including his life.
> 
> Women on the other end just don't seem to see things the same way. It _must_ be a fundamentally different experience due the fact romance has never inspired women to the same degree it does with men.


 :rofl Thanks I so needed a laugh!


----------



## coeur_brise (Oct 7, 2004)

As a hopeless (or should it be hopeful?) romantic, yes. I think it exists, of course. Hm... interesting take on love being different for a man and a woman. Maybe women can benefit from the man's point of view on love (and vice versa). Women obviously can love a person of the opposite sex, but for some reason, I don't know _how_ they demonstrate it on a big scale (as comparing it to great works of art and literature. I guess it's just very different for both male and female because of their brain and emotional make-up.


----------



## Andrew White (Aug 18, 2007)

Women do make art, write songs, books, whatever about love. Maybe the perception comes from historically thre have been more male artists and writers, that was just because women were discouraged from persuing those types of careers. George Eliot was a woman that took a man's name in order to get published.

If only one person ever said they have been in love, then love exists.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

Lyric Suite said:


> Love exists, but only for men. Whatever it is that women feel in return, it's just isn't the same thing.
> 
> Trying to pinpoint the differences can be difficult. Man's love is aptly documented by the great body of romantic literature and art produced by male artists throughout the ages. When a man loves a woman, she becomes an object of intense praise, fascination and beauty, almost divine in nature. There isn't a thing a man wouldn't sacrifice for his object of worship, including his life.
> 
> Women on the other end just don't seem to see things the same way. It _must_ be a fundamentally different experience due the fact romance has never inspired women to the same degree it does with men.


Have you ever known a woman? Seriously.

Living one's life studying the works of men really gives one a biased view, no?

Besides, lusting after a woman's beauty is far from "love"


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

LostInReverie said:


> Lyric Suite said:
> 
> 
> > Love exists, but only for men. Whatever it is that women feel in return, it's just isn't the same thing.
> ...


 :nw Well put!!!!!!


----------



## embers (Dec 19, 2006)

[/quote] :nw Well put!!!!!![/quote]

:agree


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

LostInReverie said:


> Lyric Suite said:
> 
> 
> > Love exists, but only for men. Whatever it is that women feel in return, it's just isn't the same thing.
> ...


Depends on what you refer to as beauty I would think. If you take everything a woman is, aggregate it; well I think that's a complete picture.


----------



## path0gen (Jun 28, 2006)

> Depends on what you refer to as beauty I would think. If you take everything a woman is, aggregate it; well I think that's a complete picture.


I would like to officially mark this as the point at which the topic has been derailed. Proceed.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

Lyric Suite said:


> Love exists, but only for men. Whatever it is that women feel in return, it's just isn't the same thing.
> 
> Trying to pinpoint the differences can be difficult. Man's love is aptly documented by the great body of romantic literature and art produced by male artists throughout the ages. When a man loves a woman, she becomes an object of intense praise, fascination and beauty, almost divine in nature. There isn't a thing a man wouldn't sacrifice for his object of worship, including his life.
> 
> Women on the other end just don't seem to see things the same way. It _must_ be a fundamentally different experience due the fact romance has never inspired women to the same degree it does with men.


I have to disagree, Pathogen...the above post is the point where the thread was derailed.......


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

What were we talking about again?


----------



## nubly (Nov 2, 2006)

Johnny_Genome said:


> It exists as much as happiness or sadness.


or- it exists with happiness and sadness


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

Everything is chemically based. Every last ****ing action we take starts with a chemical reaction. Its the "man behind the curtain", and like he said, we best not pay too much attention to him.

As for love, silly us, we consider those chemical reactions and the feelings they produce and we give them meaning. 

Finally, and I mean finally, will someone please give LS the BJ he so fervently desires. 

I apologize in advance for the above remark.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

Haha. You crack me up, Atticus.


----------



## WineKitty (Nov 26, 2004)

nubly said:


> Johnny_Genome said:
> 
> 
> > It exists as much as happiness or sadness.
> ...


 :lol


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

Andrew White said:


> Maybe the perception comes from historically thre have been more male artists and writers, that was just because women were discouraged from persuing those types of careers.


Much like all the best cooks and fashion designers are men, even though women _were_ encouraged to pursue those activities. Ho wait, that makes no sense.

Believe what you will, but i think of women as _unfeeling_ in so much as you define 'emotion' not in a purely biological sense but in that higher, spiritual form which is at the summit of man's capacity for abstraction, the latter being the most defining difference between the male and female intellect.

In a way, i've always been aware of this particular truth (and so do most males), but i received final confirmation when i first read The Manipulated Man, by Esther Vilar. As a woman, the author was able to offer a more in depth perspective into the matter and her argument is devastating.

Focusing on how women were able to manipulate men for their own personal gain and sustenance (making short order of the idea females have ever been 'oppressed', which she out right calls a lie), she offers one of the most profound perspective on the way each gender thinks or feels.

Men, she argues, have an innate capability for abstraction, which combined with their objectivity and sense of logic puts them in a position of constant fear and anxiety. Because they can see the truth of things and because they can calculate so far ahead of them, they are forced to 'surrender' themselves to particular 'ideals', finding comfort and bliss into slavery to special realities of their own making. Those ideals can take many forms, be it art, observation and discovery (science), religion or, and most importantly, love.

Women however, while essentially on equal terms from a general intellectual point of view are deficient in their ability to think in abstraction and objective terms. Because of this, they do not fear reality (and by extension freedom) as they are oblivious to it. They live in a world of sheer materialism, life being defined by personal comfort and the pursue of 'entertainment'. Everything women do has to be 'fun' and 'fulfilling' and that is their only prospect. Because they are just as able as men in most things, they can be coached and trained to fulfill higher roles but the results are never genuine. Indeed, they are incapable of real artistic expression or scientific creativity and they can only succeed in those fields by parroting the achievements of men.

The focal point of Vilar's argument is that, in order to lead a life of comfort and self gratification women require a second party to support and protect them, and this role inevitably falls on the shoulders of men. Hence, love, idealized by men, exploited by women, becomes the principal tool for all social progress, with men at the helm of all creativity and productivity (and the work the goes behind them), just for the sake of women.

This is probably why most Muslim societies are usually doomed to stagnation and lack of progress. Under the yoke of Islam, the need for men to surrender to a higher ideal is fulfilled by their religion, while the need for female intimacy is secured through the forceful subjugation of women.

The west of course is now pushing towards the other extreme (particularly in America) where men have to work harder then ever and compete fiercely with each other just to secure female companionship, and barely at that (consider the high divorce rate), while society becomes more frivolous, materialistic and choke filled with luxuries (90% of which are useless to men) which serve no other purpose then entertain an ever demanding female consumer base.

I suggest every man of this board to secure a copy of the book and then make their own judgment on matters of love and female companionship and perhaps finally understand why it's always 'jerks' that win at the end.


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

Atticus said:


> Finally, and I mean finally, will someone please give LS the BJ he so fervently desires.


I don't think at this point i'd even care anymore. All my ability to feel joy or physical pleasure has been reduced to a mere shadow. My very soul (once a radiant beacon of constant wonder and fascination) is all but a corpse, why should i care? I have nothing to live for anymore, be it love, art or anything else, which means i have nothing to lose. I can stare at reality straight in the eyes without fear or remorse.


----------



## Mayflower 2000 (Nov 11, 2003)

scairy said:


> If that's the case how is it any different than drinking, drugs, buying things, eating?


Drinking, drug use, purchasing, eating... these are all things that are very real, that give very real feelings. Don't downplay them just because they're wrongly stereotyped as lacking depth or even being "not real".


----------



## Classified (Dec 7, 2004)

Lyric Suite said:


> The west of course is now pushing towards the other extreme (particularly in America) where men have to work harder then ever and compete fiercely with each other just to secure female companionship, and barely at that (consider the high divorce rate), while society becomes more frivolous, materialistic and choke filled with luxuries (90% of which are useless to men) which serve no other purpose then entertain an ever demanding female consumer base.


I don't watch this show, but I remember this part from a different topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61yyHv0Kji4#

"All civilization was just an effort to impress the opposite sex."

Your post reminded me of it.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

Lyric Suite said:


> I can stare at reality straight in the eyes without fear or remorse.


Then I suggest you attempt it. Not only are your sexist views immoral, they are irrational. Your arrogance is only based in complete ignorance of the female gender. Continue to worship your men if you will, it doesn't change reality.

Son, one day you'll be a man and men can do terrible things, yes they can.


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

Atticus said:


> Lyric Suite said:
> 
> 
> > You don't think truth matters?
> ...


Truth should be sacred, it shouldn't be influenced by our own personal preferences. That would be dishonest, weak and shockingly naive. How can a society run on feel-good make believes and flat out lies?



Atticus said:


> And as for your truth, how can men, with their intellectual and emotional depth, be so manipulated by "mere" women?


Because nature has decreed that it should be so. Women are given plenty of tools and weapons to achieve their aims, and they are extremely effective. Remember that intelligence is a rare commodity therefore it's easy to dude and be duped when most people are average or below the curve.

In her book, Vilar argues that one of the principal tools for control is social conditioning. Male children are trained by their mothers early on to accept their role of servitude towards women. They are raised to be honorable, faithful and courageous, as well as industrious, ambitious and willing to sacrifice their life (get a good job, be a doctor ect.) for his wife and children. Now, The Emancipated Man was written around the 70s, which means Vilar bases her examples on the 'older' values then still in vogue, but her logic is still highly revealing.

Everything males do, their creativity, hard work and industry but also their violence, greed and antagonism is to earn or buy the favor of women. Without women, there would be no need for all this. Most men don't care about luxuries, comfort or nice houses to live in. Why would any sane individual slave away at an ungrateful job or risk his life in a battlefield without female companionship as reward? 
It's the carrot on a stick principle.

A good example. During WWI, the English government used a lot of propaganda to encourage young males to join the war, including posters such as this:










Now make no mistake, women were perfectly fine with this. Indeed, if a young man was found to be unwilling to join the fray, it was customary for women to send them a 'white feather' as a symbol of their cowardice, upon which most males would shelve their fears and pick up a rifle, ready to kill other men for the sake of their spouses.

The biggest mistake men make in regard to women and the reason why they are so easily manipulated is their belief of the equality (sameness in this case) of the female sex. An individual can only judge others from what he knows, which in most cases is himself. A perfect example of this is the conception of women as homemakers. For a man, accustomed to spending his free time in stimulating and imaginative activities, the very idea of waisting a lifetime baking cakes and spending hours before deciding which color of tapestry would go well in the living room is simply horrifying, worst then life in prison. When feminist decried that the traditional female role was imposed by an oppressive male elite who refused women access to other activities it was easy for men to believe this. Not having any other standard of comparison but themselves it was logical to assume that what was horrifying for them was horrifying for women as well. Of course, nobody told them that women actually _enjoyed_ doing those things, and that most of them would have rather gone shopping then study science, discuss politics or improvise music. Fast forward 100 years and they still enjoy those things more then ever, except now they get to impose their lifestyle to their miserable husbands, forced to help women in their housekeeping chores (and scolded for their recalcitrance on top of it) in the name of 'equality'. Yet, men slave on, because if there is one thing they just cannot do is live without females.

One thing worth noting is that there are actually several variants of males, mostly based on testosterone levels. Indeed, an high amount of testosterone was correlated to physical strength (muscle tone in particular), 'masculine' traits (square cut jaw, broad shoulders ect.) and a lot of risk taking, confidence and competitiveness. They also have an extremely high sex drive. The downside of this is low intelligence and ability for abstract thought. (Here's an article that links testosterone to intelligence, where too much or too little is considered harmful to the brain:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entre ... stractPlus)

This type (those are the ones called 'man of action' by Dostoevsky) is usually referred to as 'alpha males' (or 'jerks' for the rest of us), due the fact their physical strength (which in reproductive terms means: good genes) and extreme confidence (which in primitive conditions means: protection) makes them highly attractive to females.

Then come the so called 'beta males', or 'providers'. Characterized by a balanced amount of testosterone, this type represent the building block of civilization as we know it. Highly intelligent, creative and with vast capability for abstract and spatial thinking, they earn their reproductive right by supporting the needs of females. Those are also the ones most easily lured by the ideal of 'love', btw (as opposed to alpha males, who only see sex).

Alpha males, being closest to females from an intellectual point of view are usually the ones to offer a more open attitude towards women (paradoxically). The best example of this is Sparta. As we all know, the Spartans were a society of warriors, who prized valor in combat and physical fitness above all else. What not many people know, is that the reason for their obsession for strength and fighting prowess was due the fact their society was based on the exploitation of slaves, who outnumbered the Spartans 10 to 1. To maintain order, Spartan 'citizens' were forced to retain superior strength in order to discourage rebellion. This meant that alpha males survived, while the rest perished. In this climate of extreme masculinity, women enjoyed a great deal of freedom. Not only did they inherit many of the same rights offered to men, but they also engaged in the same activities, for Spartans believed strong women produced strong children. This liberal attitude towards females was a recurrent joke among Athenians who made fun of the warrior city-state by arguing the Spartans were ruled by their wives.

Then we have Athens, a society which prized logic, mental acuity and idealism over everything else. They also had a stricter view of women (providers don't like to have females mingle with their activities because if the letter earn the right to produce for themselves, then beta males lose all their reproductive rights). Athens is also where the true legacy of ancient Greece was born. Without that legacy, we might still be living in the middle ages.

Now, here's an interesting fact which puts all this into relevance. Before the invention of contraceptive methods, women were forced to rely on the 'provider' type for sustenance. Unable to provide for themselves or exert any form of reproductive freedom, they had no choice but give themselves up to 'second choice' males. This is the reason why until recently, western civilization was at the helm for productivity as well as creativity.

The invention of the pill pretty much changed this, allowing women to breed at their convenience. The industrial liberation of women also allowed them to provide for themselves (at least superficially), allowing them to pursue alpha males, their favored choice. This is why society is becoming so hedonistic and 'sexed up' (for it's easier for women to control men with sex rather then 'love') while our arts and creativity suffer. Of course, beta males still have to provide (alpha males being the dimwitted brutes that they are), this time for little reward which makes them for all intended purposes slaves. Anybody foreseeing a new Sparta on the horizon?

Here's a site explain this in greater detail:

http://www.hookupculture.com/


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

LostInReverie said:


> Your arrogance is only based in complete ignorance of the female gender.


Funny, considering my 'arrogance' is not mine, since for the most part i'm merely presenting the ideas a woman wrote in a book. Speaking of 'arrogance', Esther Vilar received constant attacks and even death threats for her views. So much for the 'fair sex'.



LostInReverie said:


> Continue to worship your men if you will, it doesn't change reality.


Who else am i going to worship? Where is the female equivalent of Bach, Goethe or Rembrandt?. Where is the alternative to Aristotle, St. Augustine or Newton?


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

I have absolutely no idea why men are so caught up in their pissing contests. While women search for actual meaning, purpose, spirituality, etc. and are content to stay in the background in what men consider "lesser" pursuits such as I dunno, actually nurturing relationships with other people, instead of being consumed with works and merit.

It seems as though you have packed away everyone into boxes and placed them on shelves with cute little labels. Wisdom comes from realizing that the world is not black and white, nor able to be categorized.


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

LostInReverie said:


> I have absolutely no idea why men are so caught up in their pissing contests. While women search for actual meaning, purpose, spirituality, etc. and are content to stay in the background in what men consider "lesser" pursuits such as I dunno, actually nurturing relationships with other people, instead of being consumed with works and merit.
> 
> It seems as though you have packed away everyone into boxes and placed them on shelves with cute little labels. Wisdome comes from realizing that the world is not black and white, nor able to be categorized.


Because meaning, purpose and spirituality means nothing to us and avail to squad in the long run. It's like arguing why eating candies is less important then inventing a jet engine.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

Yes, I see how one would think that if they believe the sole purpose of life is to improve the way of life for mankind. It is just as important to affect one person's life as it is to affect the lives of many.


----------



## Perfectly~Flawed (Jun 13, 2005)

.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

oh shut it.


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

LostInReverie said:


> Yes, I see how one would think that if they believe the sole purpose of life is to improve the way of life for mankind. It is just as important to affect one person's life as it is to affect the lives of many.


And i would rather spend my life inventing something or creating a work of art that could save or inspire millions then focus on the selfish needs of one individual. Where would 'mankind' be if everybody reasoned as you do?

The fact of the matter is that you seem to be taking society for granted. Civilization is an infinitely complex mechanism which is based on the industry and creativity of all parties involved, without which the entire machine would collapse. What place is there for 'meaning and purpose' in the engineering required to maintain our technology? How is 'empathy' going to help in developing new medical treatment that could potentially save thousands? Is 'understanding' going to lead to new breakthroughs in the development of nuclear physics, which could lift mankind from the yoke of the constant harvesting of natural fuels?

You have to understand the civilization which produces all the luxuries and sustenance you've been enjoying since inception and which has granted you the freedom to engage in your 'fulfilling' activities is run on _male_ values and labor. In an truly natural state there would no time to ponder about 'spirituality' because you would be too busy simply _not dying_.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

Or something not so deeply personal.

Men may have produced some good and beautiful things, but they are also the source of unspeakable evil. Never will I praise the works of men for it does not compensate for their downfalls.


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

LostInReverie said:


> You're right. Males are superior. I'm done here.


Yes, males are superior at being males. Shocking, isn't it?


----------



## Mayflower 2000 (Nov 11, 2003)

LostInReverie said:


> Yes, I see how one would think that if they believe the sole purpose of life is to improve the way of life for mankind. It is just as important to affect one person's life as it is to affect the lives of many.


Sometimes it's extremely underrated.
For instance when talking about female roles in past and present. And aspects of social life with family and friends. Their actions benefit society on a massive, sometimes incomprehensible scale. It's real. It's human. And with regards to for instance... technology... tech doesn't necessarily mean anything. I'd much rather have people to care for and who care for me, than have the ability to fly in a jet airplane for instance ya know?


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

Mayflower 2000 said:


> LostInReverie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I see how one would think that if they believe the sole purpose of life is to improve the way of life for mankind. It is just as important to affect one person's life as it is to affect the lives of many.
> ...


Yes science and technology have done wonderful things like cure diseases and track hurricanes. But there are less productive pursuits like slightly faster sports cars and bigger T.Vs. Yes these luxuries are nice but not actually necessary. You'd think somewhere inbetween all this advancment and resources a nation like the USA could provide the basic needs of emotional, mental, and social well-being of the roughly 5% of people who suffer from SAD. Or the roughly %10 of people who are clinically depressed. But no, the T.V just tells us to consume more products.


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

That is the nature of our economy. You cannot take a being that is selfish in nature and expect it to act for the good of others without putting in place some sort of moral guidelines which are reinforced in some way. Such a thing was initially in place, nestled in the very heart of our constitution, yet as we continue to separate morality from law we lose control to subjectivity in which anything is possible given the interpreter.


----------



## Mayflower 2000 (Nov 11, 2003)

Qolselanu said:


> Yes science and technology have done wonderful things like cure diseases and track hurricanes. But there are less productive pursuits like slightly faster sports cars and bigger T.Vs. Yes these luxuries are nice but not actually necessary. You'd think somewhere inbetween all this advancment and resources a nation like the USA could provide the basic needs of emotional, mental, and social well-being of the roughly 5% of people who suffer from SAD. Or the roughly %10 of people who are clinically depressed. But no, the T.V just tells us to consume more products.


It's about what people want, what they ask for. There's no cultural/moral guideline to carry a significant influence away from conspicuous consumption. A lot of the USA's wealth could be used for advances in medical technology and things like that - improving the health and quality of life of its citizens at a far greater level than conspicuous consumption does - but people don't want it that way. At least in a tragedy-of-the-commons sense, if they want it, they can't change it alone.


----------



## B-Dog (Dec 19, 2003)

opcorn


----------



## Nutnutnut (Jun 2, 2007)

Everyone feels love differently, and there is countless sorts of love. Would you say your parents dont love you because that doesn't exist?


----------



## Razorblade Kiss (Oct 29, 2006)

I would like true love from the opposite sex, someone who will love me for me...seems like an impossibility.


----------



## Cerberus (Feb 13, 2005)

Love is provided by chickens, chickens that must lay eggs -- and those eggs better be painted. Anyway, after that chicken lays eggs, you gotta paint them and then throw them at a girl. That's love, my friend. Ah, yes, I remember my first chicken. Why she laid whole lot of eggs. Unfortunately I kept missing the girls I targeted. I have bad aim, you see, and I damaged my throwing arm in a chicken accident. Now, you may be wondering what chicken accidents are........


----------



## Razorblade Kiss (Oct 29, 2006)

Actually, I'm wondering what you're smoking.  

Hook me up.


----------



## Airick10 (May 10, 2007)

Cerberus said:


> Love is provided by chickens, chickens that must lay eggs -- and those eggs better be painted. Anyway, after that chicken lays eggs, you gotta paint them and then throw them at a girl. That's love, my friend. Ah, yes, I remember my first chicken. Why she laid whole lot of eggs. Unfortunately I kept missing the girls I targeted. I have bad aim, you see, and I damaged my throwing arm in a chicken accident. Now, you may be wondering what chicken accidents are........


I couldn't have said it better myself


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

> Focusing on how women were able to manipulate men for their own personal gain and sustenance (making short order of the idea females have ever been 'oppressed', which she out right calls a lie), she offers one of the most profound perspective on the way each gender thinks or feels.


Some of what you say is interesting. Rather than creating a huge debate because two perspectives can be argued I won't because I don't want to get way off topic.

Those that say this is all a chemical reaction that gives a feeling of love... Well I'm sure due to mental issues some of us do not get the proper chemical release that most people get. So does that mean love doesn't exist for those people? Perhaps it exists but some will never experience it?

We should also clarify. There isn't just one kind of love correct? Although the English language seems to think so.


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

Strange Religion said:


> I would like true love from the opposite sex, someone who will love me for me...seems like an impossibility.


But at some point you thought you had true love correct? If so this supports the idea that love is nothing more than a chemical reaction. And why do we mistake true love? Most people don't mistake poison for food. Or food for clothing.


----------



## Razorblade Kiss (Oct 29, 2006)

What? My brain hurts...love exists and all that nonsense.


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

Strange Religion said:


> What? My brain hurts...love exists and all that nonsense.


You didn't specify which type of true love :lol

Perhaps there is a need to define true love in a relationship. True love can't be a relationship that only lasts for 1-5 years. True love would mean you would remain together until death. How can you hate something that you once had true love for? You could argue that each person changed. But if you truly loved each other and it felt so great then why would you change only to have true love end?

Or it could be argued that true love is nothing more than a sexual experience that overtime we get less of a chemical high from so we move onto another partner. We love the chemical high and not the person. We are simply using that person to accomplish this high.


----------



## Atticus (Nov 10, 2003)

Back to the chickens, I read and re-read and I still don't see who paints the eggs? That seems really important. If I'm supposed to paint them, then I'm screwed (or not) because I'm a really bad painter. Can I use a Cyrano?


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

This is getting a bit indecent.


----------



## Volume (Apr 8, 2007)

Strange Religion said:


> I would like true love from the opposite sex, someone who will love me for me...seems like an impossibility.


I'm in love with you, baby. Guess that proves you wrong.


----------



## Razorblade Kiss (Oct 29, 2006)

Quite a charmer, aren't you? :b


----------



## EnigmaM (Aug 12, 2007)

look out he's a Victorian! and I saw her first!


----------



## coeur_brise (Oct 7, 2004)

Lyric Suite said:


> LostInReverie said:
> 
> 
> > Your arrogance is only based in complete ignorance of the female gender.
> ...


In my opinion, women may not have made it to the ranks of highly intelligent artists and musicians, but that doesn't mean that there are not some out there who exist or that they can leave nothing to their name or existence. Granted, women today are represented as sex symbols and as things to be chased after so it only seems like all they want is money and clothes and all they can offer are their looks... who else would be willing to cook, clean, care for children, TEACH, and not gripe about it or actually feel good about what they do. I suppose the same could be said of men as both sexes work hard to live their way of life. But, what really gets to me is when you said in another post about where is empathy and understanding taking us? Not every male can contribute to society to the level of Bach and Goethe (even though they happened to BE male). You said that women are now free and able to be pickier in their choice of males and because of this they automatically go for the "alpha male" BUT, on the other hand, because of society in general, we tend to romanticize the alpha male and the female roles so it's unfair to say that women just go to the alpha males even if it's what we're attracted to. It just happens to be that it's so romanticised and hyped up in our culture. Sorry for the long rant.


----------



## Lyric Suite (Mar 16, 2006)

binh_nuoc said:


> Granted, women today are represented as sex symbols


Correction: women today represent themselves as sex symbols. The 'sexual' revolution was a feminist idea, remember? Before that women were represented as symbols of _love_. Just watch a romantic movie from the 50s, or read any of the literature written on the subject since the middle ages. Even nudity in art was portrayed with an eye for beauty and dignity.

However, the moment women became 'liberated' everything has to revolve around sex, sex and more sex. Clothes become more revealing with each generation, all movies have to include a 'sex scene' or face feminist retribution, and 'sex ed' is now considered to be a 'proper' and 'healthy' educational program for our schools.

Of course, men are more then ready to take advantage of all this for their personal gain, their wives demand it of them.



binh_nuoc said:


> You said that women are now free and able to be pickier in their choice of males and because of this they automatically go for the "alpha male" BUT, on the other hand, because of society in general, we tend to romanticize the alpha male and the female roles so it's unfair to say that women just go to the alpha males even if it's what we're attracted to.


What you call 'society' is just the collective will of men trying to bend over backward to meet the challenge posed by women. If 'alpha-males' are 'glorified' in modern society is because men sense that this is what women want, so they try their best to accommodate for it. All guys will strive to act tough and wear the trendier of clothes because this is the only way to get women today. A century ago, responsibly, hard study and work were among the prized qualities of a man, because female expectation was then different.

Intelligent and creative males are now in low request, which is why they receive very little female attention. They become the 'nerds' and 'geeks' of our society and lead a life of constant persecution and malevolence because of their inability to conquer women.

Take a look at this guy. A man with an alleged IQ of 170+ unable to cope with the fact he was never able to be the alpha male of his school:






Grotesque enough?


----------



## Qolselanu (Feb 15, 2006)

Lyric Suite said:


> Intelligent and creative males are now in low request, which is why they receive very little female attention. They become the 'nerds' and 'geeks' of our society and lead a life of constant persecution and malevolence because of their inability to conquer women.
> 
> Take a look at this guy. A man with an alleged IQ of 170+ unable to cope with the fact he was never able to be the alpha male of his school:
> 
> ...


Wrong. Confident males are and always have been in request. A women would melt over an intelligent, creative, and confident man. But confidence is practically the first thing women look for in a man. How much confidence does a guy show when he's too ***** to show off his intelligence, or can't stand up to an ******* landlord, or even ask a girl out?

Of course all of this stems from when humans lived in a tribal society. Part of survival depended upon strong confident men who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty to bring home food and protect the tribe from outsiders. Naturally women who wanted to survive would want to be around these strong, confident men. Of course nowadays a man doesn't necessarily need to be able to hunt wild animals to survive. You could use intelligence as an engineer to bring home the bread. But that instinct in women to find a tough/confident guy that isn't going to fold to a raging bear or arguing with ******* neighbors is still there.


----------



## scairy (Sep 18, 2005)

Lyric Suite interesting view point. But if you take a current women studies class they blame this sexuality on the anglosaxon male. Although some may argue that rap seems to promote it, the anglosaxon was the one that brainwashed everyone into it. The current movement speaks out against women being viewed as nothing more than a sex toy. But perhaps there is a separation here being free to wear what you want while not being viewed in narrow sexually based way. I personally hate the view of women being strictly a sexual object because I want so much more than that.

I actually read in a magazine written by women for women that the whole idea that women think about sex very little is not true at all. In fact they think about it just as much as a male and based on how many times sex, sexy and other sexually based words appear on the cover I'd have to agree :b . The only difference was they didn't have the freedom to express their sexuality and desire for sex in the past. It's funny there is quite a shift going on as the article went on to explain that men are now being intimidated by women because women have so much sexual experience that the men feel like they will underperform. Nerves in turn get involved and sure enough the guy doesn't do well. There are actually cultures where the woman is the aggressor doing things like rubbing her chest, I believe in the face, of a man she desires. Perhaps our culture is shifting to where the woman initiates and is the aggressor in seeking a man. 



But we are way off topic, lol as I personally don't believe sex=love. Obviously sex can exist without love as people get raped and I wouldn't consider rape love.


----------



## Mr. SandMan (Aug 24, 2007)

i hate the word love...but i still think that it is out there....cause ive had some crazy feelings about a paticular girl in my life time.....but shes gone, no surprise huh?....so the search will continue......


----------



## LostinReverie (Mar 18, 2007)

I really don't think about sex a lot personally. I do think about love a lot, daydreaming about some guy sweeping me off my feet, but not about having sex with him. Maybe it's because I was never a fan of romance novels. Regardless, it's all cultural. Of course women think more about sex nowadays. In this society, who doesn't? It's everywhere you turn and quite frankly, I'm sick of it. As for women being responsible, that is bull****. It has everything to do with the fact that sex sells. Of course a woman is going to take advantage of the fact that her body gets her money, just as men take advantage of it by selling it that way. Man or woman, our culture is above all selfish and greedy.


----------

