U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 05-16-2016, 05:29 AM
 
297 posts, read 207,437 times
Reputation: 290

Advertisements

Romantic love is stupid and pointless. Why? Because unlike platonic relationships, romantic love depends on attraction to attributes our DNA decides for us to be attracted to, which are often, if not always, superficial and fleeting. Men love women for physical beauty and women love men for social status. Looks always fade and social status often does too, and so explains why romantic relationships seldom last past a few years for love (when they do last, it's for religion, reputation, finances, children, etc).

In our society, mostly due to our biology, we put romantic love on a pedestal - as if finding one's romantic "soulmate" is the ultimate goal of one's life (particularly true of the female gender, while for men, it is yet an even more superficial and exploitative goal : a chase for an astronomical "count" of sexual partners), and after which one would live "happily ever after". But this is the most paradoxical use of a word and concept because romantic love is simply, by definition, addiction to another's reproductive value (physical looks, resources, fertility, etc). It is not love at all (unlike maternal love or friendship love as we tend to think of when we think of the powerful word of "love"). As such, romantic love, by nature, is always for oneself by asking (although often subconsciously): "what's the reproductive value in him/her for me? How will their genes benefit propagation of my own DNA?". To add insult to injury, studies have found that just merely seeing photos of more valuable mates (beautiful,young females or socially dominant males) cause subjects to report that they felt less in love with their partners. So not only is romantic love ignited by very superficial attributes, but also quickly extinguished by the mere presence of more valuable mates that have more desirable versions of these very superficial attributes.

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). Indeed, science has found that being in romantic love clouds the brain from thinking logically. Being in romantic love disrupts one from their otherwise clear thinking and goals, making them spiral down into a chemical-high-induced crazy dream, only to wake up a few years later to find that their lover has left as soon as their looks/resources/etc. have.

Falling in romantic love is as mindless and as instinctive as pooping and peeing, and as the most intelligent beings on this planet (and most likely in this galaxy and/or universe), we should abstain from such instinctive needs that serve no other propose than to compel us to procreate, and that which often leaves us utterly helpless and empty in the end. Mind over body, matter, and genitals. I admit that our biology wants most for us to procreate and thus to engage in romance and sex, leaving us with a deep void when we refuse to do so. To overcome this, i suggest that we fill this void with science and philosophy (we are lucky enough to exist in this current era to do so).

Comments? What do you think of what i have just wrote?

Last edited by JustCuriouss; 05-16-2016 at 06:26 AM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2016, 08:35 AM
 
Location: Not.here
2,828 posts, read 3,589,771 times
Reputation: 2354
After reading your epistle, I'm a little confused by it. Are you advocating celibacy for one and all? Do you think priests and nuns have it right from that standpoint (the religious stuff aside)? Just wondering.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2016, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Ohio
5,626 posts, read 5,030,224 times
Reputation: 6765
I guess youve never been in love
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2016, 08:56 AM
 
297 posts, read 207,437 times
Reputation: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohky0815 View Post
I guess youve never been in love
i have already addressed the chemical-high-driven crazy dream in the OP. Just because something feels good doesn't make it rational to do so. Of course i am aware that love feels good, as i have mentioned that it is the thing that our biology most wants us to do. If it didn't feel good, i wouldn't have to make the post in the first place because it wouldn't be counter-intuitive.

Whether or not i have been in love is completely irrelevant - you must logically attack my argument
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2016, 08:59 AM
 
297 posts, read 207,437 times
Reputation: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by nezlie View Post
After reading your epistle, I'm a little confused by it. Are you advocating celibacy for one and all? Do you think priests and nuns have it right from that standpoint (the religious stuff aside)? Just wondering.
The religious often do so (as least in buddhism) to separate the bodily desires from disrupting the mind, so yes i would say the monks have it right from that standpoint.

Yeah i am advocating celibacy for all - perhaps have sex once or twice to quench your curiosity, but that's about it, for is not romantic love driven by the things i have listed? If so, what real value does it have? it's an illusion of "love" when it's really just a chemical-driven addiction over very superficial and fleeting things
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2016, 09:47 AM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,083,823 times
Reputation: 3033
Let us also have no music, dancing, good food, and poetry. Sounds like the worlds in either The Giver or 1984.

Love, or romantic love is distinctly human.

"Before" romantic love we tried (and some cultures still do), arranged marriages and practical arrangements for the families benefit, usually patriarchal in nature.

Romantic love also symbolizes freedom and choice. The ability to choose a partner or to fall in love; to have another reciprocate that love is...in short...amazing. To deny what is human would be truly horrendous.

The inability to regulate pleasure as it results into hedonism is and can be a problem, but to deny it would be to deny choice and our innate freedom to love experience desire and be fully human.

I could go point by point and argue that there are a lot of happily married couples that loved each other that are buried next to each other and will be for thousands of years.

----------------

Ultimately the position is just flawed. Romantic love isn't necessary, but a lot of things we humans do aren't. Romantic love does aide in reproduction, though having a relationship with another human romantically, while at the same time having a mentally stimulating one is the best of both worlds. It isn't an either or type thing.

Should we all be more mindful and aware of our vices and our abilities to fall in to the trap of hedonism, absolutely. But we shouldn't all turn celibate as a response.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2016, 09:58 AM
 
297 posts, read 207,437 times
Reputation: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by harhar View Post
Let us also have no music, dancing, good food, and poetry. Sounds like the worlds in either The Giver or 1984.

Love, or romantic love is distinctly human.

"Before" romantic love we tried (and some cultures still do), arranged marriages and practical arrangements for the families benefit, usually patriarchal in nature.

Romantic love also symbolizes freedom and choice. The ability to choose a partner or to fall in love; to have another reciprocate that love is...in short...amazing. To deny what is human would be truly horrendous.

The inability to regulate pleasure as it results into hedonism is and can be a problem, but to deny it would be to deny choice and our innate freedom to love experience desire and be fully human.

I could go point by point and argue that there are a lot of happily married couples that loved each other that are buried next to each other and will be for thousands of years.

----------------
Ultimately the position is just flawed. Romantic love isn't necessary, but a lot of things we humans do aren't. Romantic love does aide in reproduction, though having a relationship with another human romantically, while at the same time having a mentally stimulating one is the best of both worlds. It isn't an either or type thing.

Should we all be more mindful and aware of our vices and our abilities to fall in to the trap of hedonism, absolutely. But we shouldn't all turn celibate as a response.
yeah to reciprocate that "love" of your butt, ****, etc, etc. before they want to love a better set of **** ,etc.

unlike other legal sources of pleasure (music, good food, etc). romantic love always leads to wasted time AND heartbreak and clouding of logic (in attempt to please her boyfriend/husband, women often choose to forego her career, only to find him leave her for another woman when her **** sag five years later.

What is that men love about women? Their physical beauty. So what would be left when her physical beauty goes? And how many countless women have that trait that draw him to her? Very easily and quickly, she would be replaced.

Men get replaced and abused in this brutal arena of romantic love too,but as a man's "love" for a woman is primarily on physical beauty, his "love" for her is much more fickle.

And yeah i would argue to spend less time of our finite lives on meaningless hedonistic things too. It's just that when in a relationship, you can't "choose" to spend less time on it as you would with other hedonistic activities.

Anyways, you haven't attacked my original argument. Is romantic love built upon the things i have described and therefore fickle and pointless? What would stop a man from leaving for another woman when his wife/girlfriend's looks have faded? And is romantic love not ignited by such superficial attributes?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2016, 11:43 AM
 
10,452 posts, read 15,438,866 times
Reputation: 11708
OP, you sure you using the right term? Last time I checked romantic love was nothing like what you describe. It was all about passion and feelings, not about coitus.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2016, 12:08 PM
 
297 posts, read 207,437 times
Reputation: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz View Post
OP, you sure you using the right term? Last time I checked romantic love was nothing like what you describe. It was all about passion and feelings, not about coitus.
the two are interrelated. Can a man fall in romantic love with women he is not sexually attracted to? Can a women fall in love she doesn't think is socially dominant ( be that aspect of social dominance intelligence, wealth, physical strength, work ethic, etc?) Without the sexual attraction, a romantic relationship would just be reduced to platonic friendship or family love.

"It was all about passion and feelings" .. ha! passionate about what? Gazing into each other eyes is perhaps the hallmark sign of passion, and yet one must be sexually attracted to those eyes (find them physically attractive), no? Feelings? What kind of feelings... most likely these feelings combine horniess along with rush of chemicals that compel one to obsess about their lovers they find physically attractive so that they could mate and rear children, which would require coitus.

please, please, please: i really want to hear opinions about this, but since i have put a lot of careful thought and observation into the OP, please make sure your comments are well thought too before you type them out!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-16-2016, 12:14 PM
 
Location: Whittier
3,007 posts, read 5,083,823 times
Reputation: 3033
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCuriouss View Post

Anyways, you haven't attacked my original argument. Is romantic love built upon the things i have described and therefore fickle and pointless? What would stop a man from leaving for another woman when his wife/girlfriend's looks have faded? And is romantic love not ignited by such superficial attributes?
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.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Philosophy
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top