I think love is elusive because society is broken

Post Reply New Topic

actually that is not the case. I know old hands to WP will groan as I yet again give the definition of 'limerence' and how it is built right into our systems. "Romantic" love is not some new concept, it is the age old bonding that gives humans the 18 months to 3 years to bond to raise an infant to a child able to locomote on their own. It is called 'romantic' love because it is lifetime pair bonding that is artificially foisted upon humans due to the inheritance that comes with owning property (farming and herding).

As I said before, you can't tame the 'wild thing.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limerence

You mean seperate lust from love?



Find love or find examples of love?

I don't think there's much evidence to conclude your theory...not that you're the only guy here who's said something similar in these terms. Most guys think you can find love on the other side...like women of an exotic country. Trouble is no matter where you go, you carry yourself along with you. It isn't uncommon for people to find themselves dissappointed because they thought somewhere over the rainbow would make them happy.



I'm confused, do extended families equal love or necessity? I happen to live in an extended family. For one, yeah we're close knit but on the other hand, we're not very well off and kind of rely on eachother. Don't get me wrong, we love eachother's company but it can get downright annoying. We have our ups and downs...and love isn't what most of you guys think it's cracked up to be.

For example, I knew a latino girl who lived in a strict catholic home. From what she told me, it wasn't much of loving home....her dad beat her mother and her dad's side of the family took up for him. She didn't trust her son with her uncle's family. I remember her describing it like a gang. Her father was supposedly selling illegal drugs and no one including her mom stood a chance against him because both sides of the families didn't believe in divorces. Anyway, she said she was glad to get away from it and I've heard similar stories of extended families bound by traditions.



And what's wrong with individualism? and what is too much?

If you're marrying someone because it's an arranged marriage...is that necessarily love?

If you're marrying someone for money because you're traditional role is to stay at home...is that love?

If you're marrying someone so your family can have grandchildren...is that love?

If you're marrying someone because they're of the same religion as you...is that love?

If you're marrying someone because they'll do whatever you tell them to...is that love?

If you're marrying someone because they're well educated....is that the feelings you would describe as love?

So many scenarios of what using your own individual heart wants but what the roles in your family or society want. I wouldn't exactly equate culture with love...the instinct or drive that gravitates one to the another isn't necessarily assigned by the traditions. They've been around for thousands of years and love is defined in so many terms including lust. I think much of western society hasn't changed in what the idealic notion of love. A love which has been described by poets since the renaissance era.

In fact, in many unindivulualized cultures people aren't allowed to express what we define as love including lust and feelings of love which are intangible to describe. Basically for fear of ridicule, ostracism and even death by those loving families who want to keep their traditions bounded. Take the story of Romeo and Juliet for instance....

True, there are secondary characteristics associated with tradition such as marriage and other qualities that may make one desirable but they aren't exactly what one would define as the feelings of love.



What do welfare states and economic growth have to do with love???

Welfare didn't come out of nowhere....there's also an ugly side to love and that's poverty. I would actually consider welfare a good thing to those who need it just to survive. I'm a little confused by this statement, not everyone is born into well to do families. This isn't just Germany, Great Britain, Sweden, USA, Australia, and Netherlands. In fact, most countries no matter how great their economy is always going to have poverty. If it doesn't get to death because one mother can't feed her child for lack of services and jobs then there's always prostitution, sweat shops, illegal selling and if she's lucky....immigrating to a country like Sweden and what have you.

These programs aren't always perfect but at least someone put some thought into those who aren't in the best circumstances. Survival is the first instinct that will come to a human before love. As for economic growth....there are ups and downs just as there's ups and downs for countries who aren't doing so well financially because the wealthy are getting wealthier....



Huh?

Where's your stats....and what do you consider love as it's a different feeling and experience for every person?

How do you know some of those people aren't secretly miserable or have a disdain toward eachother?

Since when are humans defined by their feelings as perfect?



I don't think self sufficiency has anything to do with relating to people. Though I've often felt excessive things such as porn, cybering, strip clubs, jobs outside the home, TV, computers, videogames, cell phones, media, and that which seperates humans from interacting from their ancestors on daily basis might trigger some of these things in which you might be talking about?

I would think it would also depend on the person but I remember my grandma telling me how children use to be outside more playing together, people would get together and do social things to fill the void of loneliness because there wasn't the added extra entertainment in our own homes like we have now.

Although, I'm not so sure everyone would agree that they have all these things to keep them entertained or that it resolves their issues in wanting love. I think perhaps for some, it is a little in the way for social interaction.....then again some people swear that if it wasn't for an online dating site of some sort, they wouldn't have found their "true" love.

I'm not exactly entertained in the idea the media displays love and I'm sure I'm not the only one in the U.S. to think that....but since I was raised by television, I certainly haven't felt the need to emulate what the kind of unrealistic lives displayed on screen. I rarely ever watch tv..drives me nuts. As for the internet, it's an aspie's dream come true. I would have no one to really confide to in my life because of my clumsy verbal and social skills. On the internet, I can at least express my feelings to a subject made by someone....even if you aren't reading it....

Oh...and I'm not so sure having your own apartment defines your velocity of love. Even extended families have their fair share of dysfunctional personalities.

PS. I apologize if this sounds a bit verbose.....

I have nothing more to declare except that fatalism is fatal and therefore I completely renounce my views on this topic.

If this was true, then humanity would stay monogamous. The current trends do not reflect this however. And also children from polygamous relationships are surviving until adult hood while they wouldn't have in less prosperous past times. All of use have ideas of quality of living; however, the laws of nature disregard this only survival is important. Do rats need a luxury house, car do they need culture, science and the arts? all they need roof over their head and food and drink.

Rest assured love is still alive and well in the U.S., as is the family for most of us. People still fall in love, get married, have kids, and raise them in a nuclear household. I see it happen every day

survival for human and rats is not the same
at least not in this stage of the evolution
in an evolved society children can have roof,food and even success in life independently of their parents or families because as we evolve the interconnection,interactions and the networking of our social structure are becoming much more supportive, tolerant and creative
u mistakenly identify the lawa of nature with the most elementary needs but our history of social and technlogical development also reflects fundemental laws of nature
our quest for freedom,self expression,equality and so so also reflects laws that goes deeper than our need for food or roof
culture is an integral part of nature
and the process of freeing our love and from the materialistic or the more basic needs to higher form of existence is getting us close to true monogamy
the so called collapsing of the old value is just a sign that people are becoming less likely to compromise their higher inspirations and feelings for fear of loosing a roof or a food
we damand more from love now days because we can give more
monogamy is strongly linked to creativity,tolerance and equality because a true monogamy,not the fake one that most of the world is practicing,is an expression of the integration between the body and the soul,the passion and love which allows u to see and become aware to what was hidden and dark
u can see the process i describe quite clearly in the history that tells a story of us becoming more creative and more free in each generation
we are not in the stone age any more,we are ib the information age and been through many stages and revolutions as a race
and i believe that history points to on goal which is achieving true monogamy,
the full heart dedication of one life to another person which is the source of the ultimate creativity and goodness,
but you really do not have to worry because we are still very very far from it as we most of humanity as of now is basically a bunch of whores and pimps
hence the big car and big house u r so cite about
everyone is selling and every on is buying
emotions become hot commodity as the craze for fame become social disease

BTW
in the warm Mediterranean countries with their so called warm and friendly people the situation is the worst
i know
i was born in such country


















is not the

I understand the sexual attraction and bonding, PEA, limerance, chemical reward pathway, I guess I mean more the Cary Grant thing - I'd always heard that the broader societal phenomenon and worship of Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, etc. type things was more the invention of the last couple hundred years where, while I'd have to imagine that there was at least some of it on the micro level between people but I don't know that people focused as much on the idealist perspective or held it up as any sort of standard.

lol how romantic.

A few thoughts on this.... 60% of marriages in the world are arranged.
Most Aspies are males.
Males are still expected to make the first move.
This would not be a problem for them if they did not live in modern Western society. In other (asian) societies, the "nerdy techie" types are already married, valued and leading the world's technological revolution....
Since women were "liberated" to work (arbeit mach frei, eh, sisters?) it has been difficult to afford accomodation in the west if you are a single male, because the economy is "geared" to people living in couples with two wages.
In my fathers' and grandfathers' generations, any male, of any class, was more desirable, (a) because they were periodically "thinned out" by wars, and (b) earned much higher wages than women, so women needed a man to get by.
Now that men aren't really desired as providers (boriiing!) it's mainly the irresponsible "caveman" types who get to be fathers at all.
I think I heard of a survey recently that suggested that traditional marriage, though rare in practice, was still what most people ideally wanted....

Holy frustration, Batman!! !
...and, according to some, I "owe it to my ancestors" to have kids...
And I dont attract love because I'm "selfish"
And I can scarecely afford to live because I haven't "attracted love" and I'm not part of a couple earning two wages... until they split up.
And people of my own ancestry are fast being outbred and replaced by people whose cultures never had any truck with "women's lib"!
Forgive me, ancestors, but I did try...

This is not a joke you can randomly use in Germany.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeit_macht_frei

I agree about the double income couple causing the explosion in real estate prices. I've never been double income so I struggled to afford housing. I'm a woman though so perhaps you need to drop 'male' from the sentence thus: Since women were "liberated" to work (arbeit mach frei, eh, sisters?) it has been difficult to afford accomodation in the west if you are a single

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

People used to marry in their late teens or early 20's. Now people marry in their late 30's after having had god knows many sexual partners.
People are selfish. They say "what is in it for me" rather than "how can I support my partner"

Love is hard. Love means doing your part and supporting your partner. Love means "for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part.

I kinda agree with parts of every post here, but Aspie Chav brought up the most intreguing(sp) theory. I think women no longer "need" a man like in times past, so what's happening is women are choosing mates solely based on biological imperative (aka Instinct), and women instinctivley are drawn to "Alpha Males". Men not in this category are rapidly falling off most women's sexual and social radar. What will happen is we'll have a society of "Alpha People", which might sound good, but I think the native Americans put it best:

Too many Chiefs, Too few Indians

Expect alot more d-bags in the future.

Hmmm....I wonder how single women or widows got along in the past if they needed men so bad...

There's the (grand)parents, if the husband had social recognition before his death (such as being a great warrior/hunter who fed others), the community would support the widow for some time.

How do you know they did? Alot of people didn't survive back then.