| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:06:02 PM | oh! you mean the cards, flowers, valentine's day and all the trappings.
i do think that people felt love for one another somewhere before the early-mid 1800s | |
|
| |
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:11:07 PM | | I believe those of a "higher" level of consciousness have already forged that trail and are in a happier path of less resistance. It's finding that understanding or better yet discovering it with someone. Love is under no obligation to conform to our mortal restrictions. | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:32:54 PM | but that love itself is "programmed'?!?!? Sorry you lost me there!!!
Everything is programmed with the exception of fear and lust, the two animal instincts humans have. Fear comes into play through the fight or flight reaction. Lust comes into play through the urge to populate the species. Love, in the romantic sense, is learned. Even protecting our young is learned through the actions of our parents. If you grow up in a household where parents are not supportve or loving to their children, chances are you will be the same way. The concept of romantic love was invented, as you conceded. Therefore, it is a learned behavior, not one that is inate.  | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:46:12 PM | All emotions that people are capable of feeling are innate...Love being one of them. If you talk of the demonstration of that love in the context of a relationship, then yes, I can see your point...
And actually I believe the two most prevalent human drives are actually fight or flight, to be found in that "reptilian" part of our brains...Emotions are not the same as survival mechanisms...
If you believe that "lust" is one of those and motivates the urge to procreate, then how is it possible to be indifferent to the offspring that produces? Doesn't that defeat the purpose? Especially in a species that relies normally on single births? CR | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 2:56:55 PM | CR,
Is love an emotion or a learned behavior? See, I disagree with you on this point. There is nothing innate in humans for man and woman to bond long term. In other words, by nature, we're not a monogamous species. Most animals are not. We do come together out of lust and the urge to procreate. IMO, we stay together out of fear ("I don't want to die alone"). Again, you're debating a topic with someone who soundly has no reason to believe that the concept of romantic love is nothing more than just that - a concept. Do you think Homo Sapien cared much about who he/she was doing the nasty with? Hell no! He had an urge to procreate, dropped his seed and moved on. That's our ancestry. | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 3:06:30 PM | And again i say the evidence AGAINST that is quite clear...The species would not have survived if that was the case as pregnant females and children would have had no way to fend for themselves...
Even animals can feel attachment and "love" if you will...
This is not about personal beliefs...merely facts. CR | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 3:12:32 PM | I think labels screw the whole thing up.
Some NEED to have the label attached to their "thing"...some NEED to NOT have the label attached to their "thing"...and both...are really...only words.
It is what it is regardless of the label sewn on.
The actions and.or inactions define it all for me. | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 4:15:11 PM | It is all about commitment and an "invisible contract" or "bond" between the partners.
Personally, I have always contended that to me two people in the middle of a field confessing their commitment to one another in the presence of no one but themselves and the universe and whatever Gods/Powers they believe in is sufficient.
Truly, without honour, we have nothing anyway. | |
|
| |
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:13:13 PM | | Well, you can have some kind of discussion I guess about how limited you want things to be. Let them know honestly if you can make that kind of arrangement. I seriously doubt many women would want any relationship without some sort of future beyond the friendship aspect of it. It seems to be the nature of the beast. But yes, I think one can have a great friendship without having to bring total committment and love into it. It requires a depth of understanding between the two partners that love is limited even in marriage. So don't make it such a big deal that it consumes the need of one for the other like an ownership declaration. Still, if you decide you want multiple relationships, I think that is definitely a move toward failure. | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:35:16 PM | | Seems the good Doc has started YET ANOTHER thread about the evils of `females`...Doc`s idea of a `female` is a feminist...However `women` he likes...They must be more submissive, or something...Read all this threads and you will see the common theme that runs through all of them...My guess....Doc was married for quite a few years to a woman he held under his thumb. She got smart and left his sorry ass.....That makes her a `feminist` is his eyes....Seriously folks...check out all his threads and see if you don`t come to that same conclusion....He hates `females` because his woman got very smart!!!!! Pretty sad, actually.... | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:36:47 PM |
The species would not have survived if that was the case as pregnant females and children would have had no way to fend for themselves...
Ah, but this statement is evidence of your ignorance to the facts. Peasant farmers in China - the women - work in the field with their children beside them, any young ones in a sling, and while pregnant. Quite often, they will have the child while working in the field. Ever read "The Good Earth" by Pearl Buckman? I suggest you do. What I am stating is not a matter of opinion - though some of it is - most of it is supported by fact. You say you studied anthropology, but I am beginning to doubt your claim.
By the way, the scientific community is in agreement that animals do not feel love. This is its assertion even considering dogs. You're way off base with your argument. | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 6:43:00 PM | I think it is Obvious, from your unprovoked remarks, that I Would consider YOU a Female and let all others take it from there... | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 7:31:31 PM | | Doc...I don`t really care what you consider......As if anyone on here listens to you...All they have to do is check out all your other threads....You know they will Doc!!!! Then what...Deny, Deny, Deny????? LOL.... Have a great night......alone again...Go figure... | |
|
| |
| |
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 8:13:42 PM | <---------------------------------I'm living proof..that animals ..LOVE!!!!!
I agree with DragonN.............animals are full of Love ...How can anyone say that they are not!!!!
In any relationship...One way or another Love,has to be there for it To Live | |
|
| |
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/4/2005 9:55:40 PM | | If you people really want to get to KNOW Doc....Check out page 18 in Relationships...Thread title `Women control all Social Interaction and Complain`....That is for starters...You will get to know him well....Then I will name another threads for you to read...I have a huge list of them and their page numbers so you can see whom you are replying .... | |
|
| |
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/5/2005 9:10:37 AM | Love is love is love...Romantic love is merely meant to be an "offshoot" of lust for a friend...and seems to have gotten lost in the "translation" over the years...
As for the women in China giving birth in the fields and then going back to work...How many of those women live alone? Raising families on their own without a male presence in the household...That is also a modern society that relies on cultivation rather than hunting for sustenance, that is being used as an example.
Earlier societies or groups of homo Sapiens were hunter/gatherers, NOT farmers...Check your facts.
And as I understand the discussion we were talking about Homo sapiens in your words, "not caring who he was doing the nasty with"? Yes, before structured society was developed, there was a lot of indiscriminate mating, certainly...But those groups of humans lived as communities where things like the gathering of food and the raising of children were communal activities.
Women in China in this (or last millenium), are NOT the same as females in the original nomadic societies of Homo Sapiens...
Pair bonding , if you will, was something that was done for the survival of the species as well as for the greater good of the society once the understanding of conception and parental contribution was introduced...And the idea of lineage, and trade became more predominant. This was the precursor to the nuclear family as we know it today,.
More formal unions, as somebody else said, were then introduced when the concept of property became more relevant. And yes, they were introduced by men as a means of attaining property, cementing familial allegiances, etc...Kind of ironic in light of all of the talk of "marriage strikes" by men in today's society...when the "payoff" for marriage is far less than the potential "cost".
Wouldn't it be nice if we could all take responsibility for our own actions, and just act upon what we ourselves want by finding like-minded peopl? Instead of desperately trying to live up to an "ideal" that was never meant to be anything more than an amusing diversion?
Here's a thought...Maybe the problem is that we don't understand that a "good relationship" is really just the same thing as having a best friend that you can also have sex with!! So let's all hear it for "sexy friends"!!! CR | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/5/2005 11:25:32 AM | CR,
Well reasoned. A couple fo things, though. My point about the Chinese women - and "The Good Earth" - was to show that even after humans evolved from homo sapien to homo sapien-sapien and into an agrarian culture, women did indeed fend for themselves and protect their children even when pregnant. Please, read the book, or at least the Cliff's Notes.
Kind of ironic in light of all of the talk of "marriage strikes" by men in today's society...when the "payoff" for marriage is far less than the potential "cost".
I disagree. Today's man stands to lose much more than he could ever gain through marriage. When you consider that the marriage is more likely to fail, the woman is more than two times as likely to file for the divorce and he is going to be nailed for an average of 40% of his paycheck in support payments, the risk far outweighs the potential rewards. | |
|
| Is a Relationship better than In Love?
Posted: 8/5/2005 1:20:55 PM | Hmmm....I think that's what I said Yamihere...read it again....  As for Chinese women protecting themselves and their children, well, that's a far too culture-specific example, outside of the time frame that I'm discussing here...
The behavior of the women in one culture is not illustrative of all women's behavior, nor is it a generalized enough example of early societies' motivating factors for more permanent pair-bonding. There are women throughout time who have shown remarkable powers of survival, and have fiercely protected and guarded "their own" from potential harm...
My point is that a single-parent family has proven to be inadequate (more often than not, unfortunately)in raising well-balanced children, time and again, and in the early day's of human beings, survival was the goal, of the individual and it's progeny, which, as societies evolved, went from being a communal activity, to one largely undertaken by a "nuclear unit", often still found within a larger community.
The reason was simple...Having a man around when you were pregnant and about to give birth, who could hunt for the food that you needed to survive, was quite useful. For men, the trade-off was more immediate...Companionship as they willed, without the need to constantly compete, ( and possibly lose!), sexual release, and a division of labor designed to free him up for his "purpose" as provider....
As we moved towards the agrarian society, it became more a matter of property=power and control, and if women no longer needed men to hunt, and could sustain themselves and their offspring with what was gathered instead, then men would soon lose what power they did have, to women who began to cultivate crops.
It was women, by the way, who were the first "farmers"!! So it was around about then, that marriage came into being,...It gave men back a measure of control that they were slowly losing, and it gave women a greater sense of security, in the way of division of labor.
I'm sure that Ms. Buck has written an enlightening book, and I will look into it, if only due to your enthusiastic endorsement! Thank you! CR | |
|
| |
Home
login 
