Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
13 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

Everybody nods their head, but system glitch, the message got sent to the wrong head.

That sails under "the tricks of nature".

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, swissie said:

I got dumped and I dumped. Like most of us. = The "love roller coaster"

And still not vaccinated against it by "natural brain-way" ?? 

Edited by david555
Posted (edited)

LOve is for kids and people who's IQ is under 100! Different is how you "love" your own kids, that is real love!

Edited by 2 is 1
  • Like 1
Posted
52 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

Everybody nods their head, but system glitch, the message got sent to the wrong head.

As many people have told me, "There's a fine line between love and lust."

 

  • Like 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, 2 is 1 said:

LOve is for kids and people who's IQ is under 100! Different is how you "love" your own kids, that is real love!

You mean after DNA test or before?

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

The basis for love was pair bonding. Because romantic love could only be invented and thrive on the basis of pair bonding.

 

In terms of time pair bonding longe preceded love. At the very start human society was highly promiscuous, both male and female, and males had to engage in physical combat to ensure sexual access to females. This is seen in many primate societies like Bonobos, Chimpanzees. However, in those primate societies we also see that the non-dominant males resorted to a trick to gain sexual access to females, they offered them food in return for sex. The same happened in human society. However, when another male swooped in and "stole" a pregnancy, obviously the provisioning was a lost investment. Thus human beta males developed the concept of fidelity and pair bonding was born.

 

This not only reduced the injuries by males, time invested in male competition, but also allowed those males to be sure of their offspring and to invest more time in their rearing. Thus the family was born.

 

We should always remember that primates are naturally promiscuous and that love is an artificial construct, as is pair bonding, which was invented by males who were defeated in male on male competition.

 

There is very little reason today, apart from culture, religion, media and convention, for women to adhere to the fidelity principle implicit in pair bonding, because provisioning is done by employers and the state for females now.

 

Indeed with divorce, breaking the fidelity principle is economically rewarded for females. This will no doubt further erode the fidelity principle in modern times.

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/109/25/9923

Edited by Tanomazu
  • Like 2
Posted

No such thing ! Its a vicious rumor.

 

Its lust, initially, followed by nothing but a bad habit bordering on addiction. ????

 

  • Haha 1
Posted
14 minutes ago, Tanomazu said:

The basis for love was pair bonding. Because romantic love could only be invented and thrive on the basis of pair bonding.

 

In terms of time pair bonding longe preceded love. At the very start human society was highly promiscuous, both male and female, and males had to engage in physical combat to ensure sexual access to females. This is seen in many primate societies like Bonobos, Chimpanzees. However, in those primate societies we also see that the non-dominant males resorted to a trick to gain sexual access to females, they offered them food in return for sex. The same happened in human society. However, when another male swooped in and "stole" a pregnancy, obviously the provisioning was a lost investment. Thus human beta males developed the concept of fidelity and pair bonding was born.

 

This not only reduced the injuries by males, time invested in male competition, but also allowed those males to be sure of their offspring and to invest more time in their rearing. Thus the family was born.

 

We should always remember that primates are naturally promiscuous and that love is an artificial construct, as is pair bonding, which was invented by males who were defeated in male on male competition.

 

There is very little reason today, apart from culture, religion, media and convention, for women to adhere to the fidelity principle implicit in pair bonding, because provisioning is done by employers and the state for females now.

 

Indeed with divorce, breaking the fidelity principle is economically rewarded for females. This will no doubt further erode the fidelity principle in modern times.

 

https://www.pnas.org/content/109/25/9923

Not bonobos, according to the last documentary trailer that I watched

  • Like 1
Posted
41 minutes ago, bobandyson said:

As many people have told me, "There's a fine line between love and lust."

The way I heard it is that there is a fine line between a numerator and denominator... 

  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, swissie said:

I got dumped and I dumped. Like most of us. = The "love roller coaster"

Indeed. I agree with your OP, but we all think ( at some stage of our life ) that we NEED "love". I think Prince Charles said it best in relation to Diana  when he said "Whatever 'in love' means."

 

We all hate being dumped, and IMO the worst part is that we often don't know WHY? Sometimes we work it out years later.

I'm sorry to say that I too have been a dumper, and didn't tell them why either, but that was long ago when I didn't know much of anything, if that is an excuse.

Sometimes perhaps, the truth would be even more hurtful than not knowing. I told my ex partner that I was leaving her because of her children, but would she have preferred being told I was dumping her because she had become an intolerant, using, nasty, monstrous <deleted> and losing everything to be rid of her was "worth it" to not have to be around her anymore?

Edited by thaibeachlovers
  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, 2 is 1 said:

So you mean people cant love kids and call them own whitout biology bond? You know people even  adopt kids and i think love them also!

"Love" can mean many different things given the context. The love for an adopted child is obviously different to that for a blood child, but both sorts are describes as "love".

  • Like 2
Posted
7 hours ago, 473geo said:

There are people who don't enjoy the roller coaster?

Essential part of the fun of life ????

 

I absolutely didn't enjoy the low parts of the ride, but I'm not a masochist.

Posted
10 hours ago, Tanomazu said:

We should always remember that primates are naturally promiscuous and that love is an artificial construct, as is pair bonding, which was invented by males who were defeated in male on male competition.

How did they "invent" the physiological reaction that comes with pair bonding?  Releases of endorphins, imprinting and literal phycological attachment, etc?  Did they force the human body to change?

  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...