Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well you haven't made a clear argument. Ukrkoz is correct, I think you're misunderstanding romantic love from just sex or passion or desire. Hence the disconnect.
If you think of romance as a spark that leads to human connection and eventual spiritual and mental connection to another, then you'll see that it is ridiculous that is should be outlawed because it is a conduit. So no, romantic love isn't based on the superficiality of desire; just natural desire. It can be abused, but it isn't the cause.
Some men leave women for superficial reasons; some people get with other people for superficial reasons, however this isn't the fault of "romance," it's the fault of being superficial.
----
Humans are given choices to follow their base desires or they can follow a more spiritual righteous path...or any path for that matter. Outlawing things removes that choice and removes any moral weight from the decision to make the "correct" choice. Does that make sense?
Should we all use our brains more, yeah probably. Should we all stop having sex? Absolutely not.
you say humans are given choices to follow their base desires or to follow a more spiritual righteous path.... but romantic love is completely based on base desires (it is completely an instinct).
How is it not the fault of romance, if the basis of romance is superficial (do you not read or watch how in love poems and chickflicks it is a woman's physical beauty that a man most wants? Even in the best rated chick flick "The Notebook", Gosling was attracted to McAdams because of her physical beauty, so much as to risk his life hanging on a ferris wheel just at the mere sight of her physical beauty. He was not one bit repulsed by the ruthless, cruel, and immature way she humiliated and endangered him (by pulling down his pants while he was hanging off the ferris wheel)! Nope, that she was beautiful is enough for him to overlook that! Reality reflects this: when talking or asked about what they want in their wives, girlfriends, etc. they want a Victoria's secret model.... winning nobel prizes or starting charities aren't gonna pop boners in the male gender any time soon (unless we genetically engineer the next generation).
Sexual desire is not equivalent to romantic love any more than a pile of bolts is equivalent to an airplane. Sexual desire is just one component out of many that make up a romantic relationship. Basically, it is the added ingredient that elevates platonic love to romantic love.
Most people would find life lonely and self-indulgent without a partner to share it with.
Sexual desire is not equivalent to romantic love any more than a pile of bolts is equivalent to an airplane. Sexual desire is just one component out of many that make up a romantic relationship. Basically, it is the added ingredient that elevates platonic love to romantic love.
Most people would find life lonely and self-indulgent without a partner to share it with.
You're EXACTLY right: sexual desire is the added ingredient that elevates platonic love to romantic love. So what happens when a woman's looks fade or a man loses his social dominance (wealth, physical strength, job, etc)? Suddenly sexual desire disappears and as you have said, the needed ingreident that gaps platonic love and romantic love is now gone.
Romantic love has many moments of rejection (hence lonliness and then some other negative feelings) and the nature of romance is self-indulgences (i have addressed that the subconcious brain is always asking about a potential mate : "what's in it for me?") People will date the most valuable mates they can find (in terms of dating market value), and would often find that their attraction fades at the mere presence of a more valuable mate (as i have said in OP). This is self-indulgence and a a bit more chilly: abandoning someone merely for self-indulgence. Another thing is note is that DNA dictates what we are sexually/romantically attracted to, so men CANNOT HELP but feel less in love ( as they have reported in studies) to their partners at the mere sight of another beautiful woman.
you say humans are given choices to follow their base desires or to follow a more spiritual righteous path.... but romantic love is completely based on base desires (it is completely an instinct).
How is it not the fault of romance, if the basis of romance is superficial (do you not read or watch how in love poems and chickflicks it is a woman's physical beauty that a man most wants? Even in the best rated chick flick "The Notebook", Gosling was attracted to McAdams because of her physical beauty, so much as to risk his life hanging on a ferris wheel just at the mere sight of her physical beauty. He was not one bit repulsed by how ruthless, cruel, and immature way she humiliated and endangered him (by pulling down his pants while he was hanging off the ferris wheel)! Nope, that she was beautiful is enough for him to overlook that! Reality reflects this: when talking or asked about what they want in their wives, girlfriends, etc. they want a Victoria's secret model.... winning nobel prizes or starting charities aren't gonna pop boners in the male gender any time soon (unless we genetically engineer the next generation).
Given the fact that all of your examples are of movies and generalities makes me think that, those generalities are your only experiences with romantic love.
One of the main reasons why men and women date and eventually marry someone is to find a mate that they can be compatible with.
Romance is used to "woo" a partner. After a partner is "wooed," that's when a couple can get to know each other better.
This is where most movies stop. And this is one of the reasons why I believe your experience and (possibly age) comes into question.
Believe it or not some men and women don't fall into neat roles. A lot of men like strong women, and some women like passive men.
------------
Now there are subconscious biological roles that have little or nothing to do with romance that we all have inside us that directs our decisions on love, however ironically I'd argue that romance (in it's proper usage) can be used to find mates that align with our interests and not necessarily what society or biology dictates.
What I think about what you wrote is that you don't know what you're talking about. You use the word we as if you have been appointed to speak for many, when you are simply writing about your opinion and no one elses. You make statements as if they are set in stone when they are not.
You write as if you are an expert on the subject and you are not. You don't have the credentials to be an expert. You sound like an immature person who knows very little about life and living.
What I think about what you wrote is that you don't know what you're talking about. You use the word we as if you have been appointed to speak for many, when you are simply writing about your opinion and no one elses. You make statements as if they are set in stone when they are not.
You write as if you are an expert on the subject and you are not. You don't have the credentials to be an expert. You sound like an immature person who knows very little about life and living.
well then use logic and facts to refute my arguments then. I have written plenty on logic and facts to prove my point. You have not at all. Debunk my argument that romantic love = platonic love + sexual attraction, and that sexual attraction inevitably fades, and so does romantic love. Also debunk that romantic love is built upon very superficial attributes, and that people feel less in love with their partner at the presence of more valuable mates (value determined by dating market value). Debunk that romantic love is simply a mechanism for procreation, and hence people are always constantly shopping for the most valuable mate, so as to optimize their reproductive success. All the theories i have presented are well developed and accepted in mainstream evolutionary psychology and neuroscience
Given the fact that all of your examples are of movies and generalities makes me think that, those generalities are your only experiences with romantic love.
One of the main reasons why men and women date and eventually marry someone is to find a mate that they can be compatible with.
Romance is used to "woo" a partner. After a partner is "wooed," that's when a couple can get to know each other better.
This is where most movies stop. And this is one of the reasons why I believe your experience and (possibly age) comes into question.
Believe it or not some men and women don't fall into neat roles. A lot of men like strong women, and some women like passive men.
------------
Now there are subconscious biological roles that have little or nothing to do with romance that we all have inside us that directs our decisions on love, however ironically I'd argue that romance (in it's proper usage) can be used to find mates that align with our interests and not necessarily what society or biology dictates.
1. my post refers not to "romance", but "romantic love". Very different things. Romantic love must be present in a romantic relationship. Otherwise it is a platonic relationship or a completely sexual relationship.
Again, the equation is romantic love = sexual attraction + platonic love. Sexual attraction is fickle and inevitably fades. It is also easily replaced by other mates on the market who have higher sexual attractiveness.
2. your last chunk of words in that post makes absolutely no sense at all. Subconscious biological roles have 100% to do with our decisions on love, since romantic love is mechanism designed for procreation. The mere biological reactions that come with romantic love are involuntary, indicating that they are SUBCONSCIOUS. Also, like i said, romantic love and sexual attraction are 100% instinctive, which by definition means it is subconscious.
3. even if some women like pretty men, and some men like socially dominant females, would things be different huh, in that romantic love would still be based upon very superficial and fickle attributes? And no, differences are very slight since biological roles are identical: females give birth so males have evolved to want young and beautiful women since that is the trait that would most enhance successful child birth and lack of serious genetic mutations. And since eggs and pregnancy are so expensive, women have evolved to want quality men who have the resources to provide for that baby that she has invested so much into. Sperm is very cheap so a man wants to spread his seeds wide and far by having sex with as many beautiful women as possible (hence, they "pump and dump"). There are individual differences, but they are all within the realm of an universal human nature
OP, you say that romantic love is platonic love + sexual desire. Then, you go on to bash it as nothing but superficial, animalistic instinct, describing only the most superficial sexual "love", completely leaving out anything platonic about it. You're contradicting yourself.
Ideally, romantic love is a combination of the physical/sensual and the cerebral; of reproductive desire and a deep, social/quasi-familial bonding. Here's the problem, and part of why it's so idealized: it's rare to get the right balance, and too often we see what you describe, people ignoring the real person that is their partner, or with the "desire" side being overemphasized (looking at you, movies).
Platonic love will endure even if sexual attraction fades; with the model we traditionally have of romance, though, there usually isn't enough of it, or it isn't strong enough because the partners didn't care, or were never compatible in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCuriouss
The love that comes with platonic relationships for example, does not rely on such superficial attributes, selfishness, or lack of intellect. The only criteria we have of friendship is that we enjoy a person's company and admire their character, instead of admiration of their superficial attributes that we are instinctively and mindlessly attracted to even when we intellectually know do not deserve respect (since these superficial attributes are often genetically given and/or very vain).
Bull. Every relationship has a selfish element to it, and people are often just as elitist regarding their friends as they are picky regarding their lovers.
Also, whether traits like beauty or status deserve respect is totally a matter of opinion and temperament. Some would argue that these things actually can be pretty good indicators of platonic compatibility, if they denote similarities in personality or lifestyle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But if it happens again, I'm jumping right in. 
