Love is so irrational...

[Sir. Helpmann]

and yet it is not trival; it is a natural part of existence... a mere biological function to propogate the species, and therefore understandable that it causes us such grief and torment since it is so important to our self preservation.

[JCC]

Love is antithetical to our species' preservation. A function favourable to that end would be the lack of all emotional links between a male and a female partner so that they can fuck, create a baby and that's that, he moves on to the next. Love slows the process considerably, especially if it's a same-sex relationship.

[Eclipsing the Son]

You're 14.

[Sanguine Mind]

Love Will Tear us apart.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

You're 14.

You keep saying that as though it has any bearing on the validity of his posts

[Eclipsing the Son]

I began writing about how immature and naive his response was then caught myself. I'm doing that from now on when I respond to him. It's practical and fair.

[Steppenwolf]

Originally Posted by Sanguine Mind

Love Will Tear us apart.

again?
..............

Love/sex shakes the brain in a way which is closer of hate than simpathy . There's a huge difference between the "being fresh in love" or "feeling love towards someone you know since a decade" . I find the last one closer to friendship as "love" as we know it .

[Eclipsing the Son]

Yes, but only when the routine bites hard and ambitions are low and the resentment rides high but emotions wont grow and were changing our ways, taking different roads can we be completely certain that it will.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

I began writing about how immature and naive his response was then caught myself.

Nah, go ahead, you'll be wrong again, it'll be funny.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Again?

Well okay. Basically you're outlook is naive because by eliminating love from the equation you assume that people will just get straight to fucking. This is illogical because though to a youth such as yourself it would seem that people only have sex for fun, the truth is the emotional gain of sex comes to fulfillment in the caring for your partner and judging your ability to please based off of the partner's own fulfillment. Otherwise you would merely be viewing the exchange as masturbation using another human being as an object, which to any adult is obviously much less fulfilling. The emotional level of sex is an extreme motivator and if you remove it most people would much rather not get near eachother.

If your earlier negative statement was meant in jest than I guess it is pretty amusing but then I remember that you're 14 and probably have no clue when it comes to the experience of emotions and sexual experience. That's okay though. Till you do; enjoy your youth.

[Solumina]

What does fulfillment have to do with making as many offspring as possible?

[Eclipsing the Son]

Why would you otherwise want to create them?

[Sanguine Mind]

Eclipse, Don't feed the trolls.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

Why would you otherwise want to create them?

That was your amazing rebuke?

Really?

Shit, I didn't know you'd miss the mark quite so catastrophically. Did you ever wonder why premature ejaculation was a sign of dominance in Neanderthal times? Voluminous reproduction. As far as natural selection goes, it is necessary for animals to have sex and create as many offspring as possible to keep the species alive. My comment wasn't regarding the futility of love, it was about how Helpmann claimed that it was somehow intrinsic to the human condition; in actuality it should really be quite the opposite, as we, as animals, would be far better off from an evolutionary standpoint to have no emotional connection.

Try again next time, bro.

[Eclipsing the Son]

That sure was an awful lot of words with absolutely no substance. You're right. This was funny.

There's the horrible contradiction in your logic that you will not want to procreate if you have no affinity with your own race. If you think animals have no emotions than you're dead wrong.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

Why would you otherwise want to create them?

Because fucking is fun. Story: Mom and dad fuck. Dad moves on. Mom raises child in its youth, until at a young age it joins the pack. It soon moves on to fuck multiple women (and some men, possibly) like good 'ol dad.

[Steppenwolf]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

people will just get straight to fucking.

Everyone does that at the beginning . It's called sexual attraction and you can't help it .
You'll feel that for strangers , for your girlfriend's friends , for members of your family , for everyone your brain and your nose likes enough .

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

The emotional level of sex is an extreme motivator and if you remove it most people would much rather not get near eachother.

But it's not about love , it can be everything : What about some extramarital relationships , where the sex is great but there is no real love there?

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

you're 14 and probably have no clue when it comes to the experience of emotions and sexual experience.

Not everyone is the same at 14 . Me , for example , was a lot more romantic than now . That doesn't mean Im childish .

[Saya]

JCC, cite if it was Neanderthals who did that or if it was humans who did that. Neanderthals are extinct after all

But the point of love from a biological standpoint is when a couple has children, the father sticks around and assists in raising the children, ensuring that more of them will survive to adulthood. Hard for a single mum to raise eleven kids on her own, you know? Likewise, because of love partners would protect each other, and go though great lengths to protect their offspring as well.

[Eclipsing the Son]

This is really a stupid discussion because nobody in this forum can claim to know what life is like without emotion.

I concur with helpmann's original statement and take my leave.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

This is really a stupid discussion because nobody in this forum can claim to know what life is like without emotion.

What does emotion have to do with biological success? Genghis Khan is said to be the most biologically successful person ever, it isn't because he was in love, it is because he ***** a lot of women.

[Sanguine Mind]

Men exchange Love for sex, and Women exchange sex for love.
I know there are exceptions but thats generally how it works.

[Albert Mond]

Originally Posted by Eclipsing the Son

This is really a stupid discussion because nobody in this forum can claim to know what life is like without emotion.

I concur with helpmann's original statement and take my leave.

"Love" isn't every emotion.

[Eclipsing the Son]

Originally Posted by Solumina

What does emotion have to do with biological success? Genghis Khan is said to be the most biologically successful person ever, it isn't because he was in love, it is because he ***** a lot of women.

You really think that just because he was a ruthless warrior and conquerer with multiple partners that he did not feel love his wives?

[††BlackRose††]

I agree, some people gain wisdom faster than others as well.
But yeah I must say, love is something interesting. All the things it makes you do... it's crazy. Yet its wonderful at the same time. Another example of the balance of life. Nothing comes without its opposite and for this example, love and pain. I don't know if that's just me, but that's what I notice a lot.

[dead_dreams]

Originally Posted by Sir. Helpmann

and yet it is not trival; it is a natural part of existence... a mere biological function to propogate the species, and therefore understandable that it causes us such grief and torment since it is so important to our self preservation.

I'm really starting to hate you.