View Full Version : What is love (baby don't hurt me)?
ADMIN NOTE: this thread was spun off from posts in this general area (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=17648&page=98).
What hypocrisy? And whatever it is, what's the point of posting it three times?
Not to drag back into negativity, but going by the Yoda comment that Sci-Fi Slob posted, I'm assuming that Yoda's standard of 'never experienced' love is having never been married, raised kids, etc.
But there are a couple problems with that. I actually admitted that most of my relationships have been on the shorter side, and I've had more 'encounters' than I have had relationships.
But Yoda seems to immediately assume that this means I 'prefer' sleeping around, which isn't actually the case (I just don't think that monogamy should be socially expected because I think it complicates relationships and encourages formation of continuation of bad ones out of social or religious pressure).
Actually I've had a lot of relationship opportunities which I personally rejected because of reasons, such as that I felt the other person didn't meet my standards (not enough intellectual interests, had children from a previous relationship, etc), or because I had good friendship with them and didn't want to complicate it by going that route. There were also times were I didn't want a relationship because I wanted to do self-improvement and 'be a better man'.
Overall my mentality is that I'd rather take my time, rather than settle for something inadequate. Yoda however seems to think that if a person isn't gung ho about 'rushing into a relationship', that this means they 'don't love' or don't have a desire too, which is presumptuous.
That and he also seems to think that talking about human interactions in relation to biology shows ignorance of the human condition and real interaction. But the truth is these things are widely studied by experts and applicable to real life; even things as "tiny" as how to handshake or who goes in the door first are studied by world leaders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY1K_IefjSA
So if it's a choice between trusting people like Dale Carnegie or Tony Blair versus... Yoda - why should I trust Yoda?
I really think Yoda just objects more to his conclusion about what this means, or a possible dislike of evolution - than to the advice itself; but him disliking it won't change the facts that it's based on, and the fact that it's all very applicable early on when it comes to dating and first impressions in general.
--
Who knows, maybe he's even jealous of the fact that women, including married women found me attractive and worries that this means a guy could "steal his wife" just by using "the right game", but if they can then that's either on him or the woman he's with - not to personally speculate too much, but that's the impression I get seeing as he's resorting to ad hom even when he basically doesn't object to the facts, just the fact that it's being said; likewise the impression I get is that he hasn't had nearly as much experience in dating or approaching women for dates as me, or hung out with many guys who have (keep in mind that "dating" lots of people and individual relationships aren't the same thing anyway, which Yoda seems confused on) That's why he's adverse to the idea that there's any 'technique' behind it as opposed to the more conventional "struck with Cupid's arrow" thing.
Wonder if he feels the same way about dating and sex advice for women using generalities about "what men/women like" (which is prevalent everywhere such as on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazines). I noticed a few women here giving generalized advice about "what women" like (such as suggesting a member not wear sweatpants when approaching women), and Yoda never took issue with that. Interesting.
---
In addition, there are also people, including ones I know personally who've been together or married for years but the actual quality of the relationship is bad, they fight, or are dysfunctional, and don't have much in common with each other - a lot of times they had kids at a young age and ended up marrying out of societal pressure for example.
So Yoda seems to be automatically equating longevity of relationships with "real love" or quality - I disagree, personally I'd think that for example, there's more love in 1 month of quality company than there is in 1 year of dysfunctional relationship, but that's just me.
Heck, I've even had 1 night stands with more "love" than some people's entire marriages, and as sad as it it's, it's not a joke - it's just a testimony to how far from the nice "happily ever after" a lot of relationships actually are, especially when religion or societal convention are more of a motive for the relationship than the relationship itself.
(P.S - A lot of the same is true with friendships too - I've had some friendships for example which I gave up for moral reasons, such as the friends in question being drug users or alcoholics and therefore a bad influence on me - Yoda's assumption however would be this means 'I have no interest in developing friendships').
Pussy Galore
06-01-15, 02:57 AM
So, if I understand correctly, if you haven't experienced what the abstract and subjective notion of love is, then you're not entitled to talk about it? Since there is no clean cut definition of love and that is a notion that depends on everybody someone can think they experienced it according to what they think it is, but someone else who feels the same thing won't identify it as love. Also, speaking from experience is not the only way we can discuss, I never had homosexual relationship (and I don't plan to), it doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion on them that might be relevant.
Derek Vinyard
06-01-15, 03:07 AM
So, if I understand correctly, if you haven't experienced what the abstract and subjective notion of love is, then you're not entitled to talk about it? Since there is no clean cut definition of love and that is a notion that depends on everybody someone can think they experienced it according to what they think it is, but someone else who feels the same thing won't identify it as love. Also, speaking from experience is not the only way we can discuss, I never had homosexual relationship (and I don't plan to), it doesn't mean that I don't have an opinion on them that might be relevant.
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/400x/54519957.jpg
Sexy Celebrity
06-01-15, 03:08 AM
Speaking of love, I loved that animated Edward Norton avatar you had, Derek, and now you've gone and changed it! For something that sucks!
Derek Vinyard
06-01-15, 03:29 AM
Speaking of love, I loved that animated Edward Norton avatar you had, Derek, and now you've gone and changed it! For something that sucks!
I gonna replace it maybe tomorrow for tonight Dean Ambrose is my pick because he is sick
Great doumentary on the subject, The Psychology of Love by Dr Frank Conner- illustrates what I was trying to say about the different types of love.
IMO, when people think of ideal or true love (either in friendships or romantic relationships) they're thinking of intimacy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOHdZKDldIg
You're misinterpreting me, the experience I'm talking about aren't necessarily events, they could just be conversations and understanding of the other's personality traits like you're describing.
I don't know if I'm misinterpreting what you meant, but I'm fairly certain I'm not misinterpreting what you said, which was merely "Love has got to be mutual." I think we've clearly established that this is not literally true, even though it may be once we accept the post hoc explanation about whatever tailored definition you apparently had in mind for the word "love."
Whether this is backpedaling or a genuine misunderstanding, I don't know, but even if it's the latter, we have ourselves yet another argument that would've been avoided if your meaning was made plain, rather than stated in overly broad ways that seem designed to maximize the possibility of argument and minimize the possibility of actual communication.
And if I'm being honest, my more cynical side can't help but wonder if that isn't the point.
Not to drag back into negativity, but going by the Yoda comment that Sci-Fi Slob posted, I'm assuming that Yoda's standard of 'never experienced' love is having never been married, raised kids, etc.
Didn't say that, don't think it.
But Yoda seems to immediately assume that this means I 'prefer' sleeping around
Didn't say that, don't think it.
Seriously, I've said this like half a dozen times, but apparently not often enough: stop writing multi-paragraph arguments about things nobody has actually said. You seem to wrote arguments on spec, after guessing what people mean, but you've guessed wrong almost every time. Presumably because you keep shoving what people say into a tragically limited set of ideological archetypes for which you have (seemingly) prepackaged responses.
I just don't think that monogamy should be socially expected because I think it complicates relationships and encourages formation of continuation of bad ones out of social or religious pressure.
And disparaging monogamy discourages the formation of long-term healthy relationships, too. No matter what society's goals, there will be ways in which they are misunderstood and abused, so I don't find this to be a compelling argument.
Actually I've had a lot of relationship opportunities which I personally rejected because of reasons, such as that I felt the other person didn't meet my standards (not enough intellectual interests, had children from a previous relationship, etc), or because I had good friendship with them and didn't want to complicate it by going that route. There were also times were I didn't want a relationship because I wanted to do self-improvement and 'be a better man'.
I have no way of knowing how true this is (people rationalize a lot with relationships), but if it is true, great. More power to you.
Yoda however seems to think that if a person isn't gung ho about 'rushing into a relationship', that this means they 'don't love' or don't have a desire too, which is presumptuous.
Oh my. A paragraph where you call something presumptuous...but that something is an argument you presume I'm making? I'm amazed your keyboard didn't implode out of sheer irony.
Say it with me class: didn't say that, don't think it.
That and he also seems to think that talking about human interactions in relation to biology shows ignorance of the human condition and real interaction.
Nope. I think trying to boil human interaction down to biology does. Not "talking" about biology, or citing it as an influence.
And that's what actually happens: you never say reasonable, measured things like "body language plays a role." You suggest it's dispositive, or trumps other considerations, or that you can issue broadly applicable advice based on it, etc. That's the objectionable part.
What's basically happening is that you're saying X tells you everything to need, I'm saying it doesn't, and then you're saying "oh, so we can't even talk about X?" Or "oh, so you don't think X is real?" It's a positively silly argument that you're too smart to be making.
So if it's a choice between trusting people like Dale Carnegie or Tony Blair versus... Yoda - why should I trust Yoda?
I really think Yoda just objects more to his conclusion about what this means, or a possible dislike of evolution - than to the advice itself; but him disliking it won't change the facts that it's based on, and the fact that it's all very applicable early on when it comes to dating and first impressions in general.
This is where you go off the rails, right here: what do Dale Carnegie and Tony Blair actually say? Did they tell you that body language is the dispositive factor in how we form lasting relationships? I'll bet they didn't. I'll bet they don't say anything like that. I'll bet, instead, they say something very general about body language, which you've then run wild with and formed all sorts of sketchy conclusions that far outstrip the source.
So this isn't me vs. Dale Carnegie it's me vs. your huuuuuuge extrapolations as to where and when body language principles are applicable, and how much.
Who knows, maybe he's even jealous of the fact that women, including married women found me attractive and worries that this means a guy could "steal his wife" just by using "the right game", but if they can then that's either on him or the woman he's with - not to personally speculate too much, but that's the impression I get seeing as he's resorting to ad hom even when he basically doesn't object to the facts, just the fact that it's being said; likewise the impression I get is that he hasn't had nearly as much experience in dating or approaching women for dates as me, or hung out with many guys who have (keep in mind that "dating" lots of people and individual relationships aren't the same thing anyway, which Yoda seems confused on) That's why he's adverse to the idea that there's any 'technique' behind it as opposed to the more conventional "struck with Cupid's arrow" thing.
This is hilariously insecure. Yes, I'm terrified you're going to steal my wife with your seductive body language and collection of Axe body sprays. Just neg her a few times and the clothes fall right off.
Wonder if he feels the same way about dating and sex advice for women using generalities about "what men/women like" (which is prevalent everywhere such as on the cover of Cosmopolitan magazines). I noticed a few women here giving generalized advice about "what women" like (such as suggesting a member not wear sweatpants when approaching women), and Yoda never took issue with that. Interesting.
If you find the fact that I haven't read most of this thread interesting, I guess.
So Yoda seems to be automatically equating longevity of relationships with "real love" or quality
Didn't say that, don't think it. Enough with this craziness.
So, if I understand correctly, if you haven't experienced what the abstract and subjective notion of love is, then you're not entitled to talk about it?
I'm afraid you do not understand correctly; nobody said they couldn't talk about it. What they can't do is try to tell other people what it's like.
Also, speaking from experience is not the only way we can discuss
It is if the topic is what love is and what it's like being in love.
There are plenty of things we can talk about without having personal experience. Sometimes it's even an asset: a sober person understands drunkenness better than a drunk person. And people outside of a relationship are often good judges of whether or not it's a healthy one (lots of people can't see their bad relationships clearly until they'reo ver).
But that's not the question. This isn't about whether or not people who haven't been in love have anything to contribute, or are "entitled to talk about it." It's about whether or not people who have never been in love should be arguing with people (nay, correcting people) about what it's like.
I'm afraid you do not understand correctly; nobody said they couldn't talk about it. What they can't do is try to tell other people what it's like.
I guarantee just based on your posts I've had more experience in meeting and dating numbers of women than you - so whether I've been married or had a family is beside the point of my arguments.
Just like having experience doing large inside sales at a high-end jewelry store isn't the same as having experience in telemarketing or door-to-door sales.
It is if the topic is what love is and what it's like being in love.
And you equivocated between different definitions of "love" just to argue. When I first brought up love talking specifically about intimacy, you argued that there are multiple definitions of love.
Then you postulate that someone hasn't experienced intimacy - and claim this means that they don't have experience with love, contradicting what you said earlier about love having multiple definitions, so which is it?
There are plenty of things we can talk about without having personal experience. Sometimes it's even an asset: a sober person understands drunkenness better than a drunk person. And people outside of a relationship are often good judges of whether or not it's a healthy one (lots of people can't see their bad relationships clearly until they'reo ver).
Claiming unilaterally that you have more experience, based just on the longevity of your marriage doesn't make it so. Doesn't make it false but doesn't make it so.
Just like an employee boasting that he's worked 20 years for his company doesn't automatically mean he's stellar at his job.
There's no reason here for anyone to think you have a "wonderful intimate relationship" - just as there's no reason here to assume you don't - that's between you and your spouce (and God) - but hey on the flip side there's as much reason for you to assume "I have never experienced love" as there is for me to assume you've spent your entire time in a loveless marriage possibly for religious reasons, and don't have enough actual dating experience to know what love is anymore than I or anyone else does.
But that's not the question. This isn't about whether or not people who haven't been in love have anything to contribute, or are "entitled to talk about it." It's about whether or not people who have never been in love should be arguing with people (nay, correcting people) about what it's like.
Nah, what it's really about is you just disliking love explained in relation to biology or psychology, because it either goes against a religious view, or a romanticized view of your own relationship, and having to resort to ad homs and wordplay to just to beat around the bush and obscure the arguments.
But all that really results in is you thinking you know more in your individual experience than everyone from professional psychologists and biologists, to advisers on body language to US Presidents, who affirm the claims I've made - even if not necessarily all of the conclusions (none of which are very far off from the claims anyway - other than maybe your own misinterpretations of what they infer).
And that's what actually happens: you never say reasonable, measured things like "body language plays a role." You suggest it's dispositive, or trumps other considerations, or that you can issue broadly applicable advice based on it, etc. That's the objectionable part.
Here's the major strawman which seems to form the basis for all of your objections.
I never said that body language is the overriding factor in relationships - I simply said that it is the primary factor in instant attraction (ex. physical attraction alone; seeing a person's face or posture and finding it attractive). You derailed the conversation from dating as in meeting women and getting dates, to "relationships", not me.
It's definitely not the primary factor in actual relationships, since actual relationships are not just about sex, they're about other factors like personality, common interests, past experiences, etc - and I've said that a lot of times.
But since my advice centered on going out and finding dates, and approaching women you don't know - I believe it's one of the most important factors at generating attraction and meeting potential dating partners outside of an established social circle, because it's the biological basis of raw physical attraction.
You took what I said to mean it was the primary factor in relationships as a whole, which if so would be stupid, since it would be implying that humans are no different than animals and have no cognitive ability beyond animalistic impulses, but of course it wasn't - you just assumed that.
You also implied that only someone "who's never experienced love" would be interested in relation between body language and mating behavior, but again body language is studied and practiced by professionals such as politicians, Hollywood actors, etc - so the assertion is silly.
This is hilariously insecure. Yes, I'm terrified you're going to steal my wife with your seductive body language and collection of Axe body sprays. Just neg her a few times and the clothes fall right off.
Not me, but you're likely afraid that if my assertions were true that "some guy" could steal your wife if he had "better body language", or better looks, etc since it would conclude that human love is absolutely no different than animal mating (which again it wasn't, it was talking only about a very specific facet).
Though the fact that you're comparing body language (something which has been around since the dawn of man and is near universal in all cultures) to "Axe body spray" just makes me wonder why you think you're qualified to talk about the subject.
I guarantee just based on your posts I've had more experience in meeting and dating numbers of women than you - so whether I've been married or had a family is beside the point of my arguments.
The arguments are about love, remember? So no, meeting and dating is not really particularly relevant experience, and long-term relationships clearly are.
Just like having experience doing large inside sales at a high-end jewelry store isn't the same as having experience in telemarketing or door-to-door sales.
I was going to criticize this bizarre analogy, but at least you didn't find some way to analogize it to Saudi Arabia or racial segregation, so I'm gonna call this progress. :up:
And you equivocated between different definitions of "love" just to argue. When I first brought up love talking specifically about intimacy, you argued that there are multiple definitions of love.
First, equivocate means to hide one's intentions--I assume you mean that I suggested they were equal. Second, it was you that asked me what "kind" of love I meant, and I enumerated different kinds only to say that it didn't matter, so what you're saying is almost the exact opposite of what took place. And third, you didn't say intimacy. You said love. Only later did you graciously share what you apparently meant by it.
Then you postulate that someone hasn't experienced intimacy - and claim this means that they don't have experience with love, contradicting what you said earlier about love having multiple definitions, so which is it?
Love meaning romantic love, which is clear from pretty much all context clues. When any other kind of love was being discussed, it was explicitly stated as such.
Claiming unilaterally that you have more experience, based just on the longevity of your marriage doesn't make it so. Doesn't make it false but doesn't make it so.
I didn't based it on the longevity of my marriage. I based it on the fact that you've all but said you've never been in love. If you have, by all means, enlighten me.
Just like an employee boasting that he's worked 20 years for his company doesn't automatically mean he's stellar at his job.
Indeed; I could be a terrible husband! Who knows. But even that wouldn't actually mean I don't know what it's like to be in love, anyway.
You use a lot of analogies, but I'd say a very small minority of them are actually applicable to the thing being discussed.
Nah, what it's really about is you just disliking love explained in relation to biology or psychology, because it either goes against a religious view, or a romanticized view of your own relationship, and having to resort to ad homs and wordplay to just to beat around the bush and obscure the arguments.
Once again, this is a totally inversion of reality. First, because I haven't resorted to ad hominems or worldplay (seriously, show me where), and second, because you've literally been doing both. Wordplay because you used broad terms and then only specified what they meant later, once corrected, and ad homs with your comically defensive insinuations about how intimidated I must be by your alleged sexual prowess.
The arguments are about love, remember? So no, meeting and dating is not really particularly relevant experience, and long-term relationships clearly are.
Meeting and dating was totally relevant to my claims about body language playing the main role in attraction, since that is exclusively what my claims about body language were applied to, not to actual relationships.
My claim about what it means to be in love didn't mention body language at all.
Love meaning romantic love, which is clear from pretty much all context clues. When any other kind of love was being discussed, it was explicitly stated as such.
Here's where you're being vague again. How long does a relationship have to last to be "romantic love" versus just "sex" according to you? Or how what level of intimacy and trust has to exist for it to be a loving relationship?
Plus how would you verify that your relationship has the level of actual intimacy to qualify as "romantic love", versus a relationship just based on sex, or convenience, etc?
I didn't based it on the longevity of my marriage. I based it on the fact that you've all but said you've never been in love. If you have, by all means, enlighten me.
I have never experienced the level of intimacy I want in any of my relationships, which is why I've been careful avoided rushing into a long term relationship too soon - so my personal view is that I've never felt intimate enough with any woman to feel that I'm in love...
...however on the same note I've known people who thought they "were in love", and even been together for a long time, who had I believe had way less love in their relationships than I had - so I'm at a loss here considering how easily a lot of people claim "they're in love" even when there's not a lot of love.
Indeed; I could be a terrible husband! Who knows. But even that wouldn't actually mean I don't know what it's like to be in love, anyway.
You use a lot of analogies, but I'd say a very small minority of them are actually applicable to the thing being discussed.
Well my personal experience is that people who are overly resistant to talk about love in any type of scientific context usually don't have a great understanding of love since they insist only on the "fairy tale" view of it...
So based on this inductive reasoning, I could just as well claim that about you and dismiss your credibility on the subject
Once again, this is a totally inversion of reality. First, because I haven't resorted to ad hominems or worldplay (seriously, show me where), and second, because you've literally been doing both. Wordplay because you used broad terms and then only specified what they meant later, once corrected, and ad homs with your comically defensive insinuations about how intimidated I must be by your alleged sexual prowess.
Redirecting the argument to your allegation that I've "never been in love" is just ad hom to discredit the argument.
Again I think you objected to it since you incorrectly believe my claim about body language extended to entire relationships (not just meeting and attraction), which if true would imply that your wife would have no reason to stay with you if some objectively "evolutionary better mate came along".
Problem is your imagination came to the conclusion that that is what I was saying about body language - seeing as the only times I mentioned it being the deciding factor were in scenarios such as meeting a person and being instantly attracted, or looking at a centerfold picture of an actor or model and thinking they're attractive, etc
I never said that body language is the overriding factor in relationships - I simply said that it is the primary factor in instant attraction (ex. physical attraction alone).
1. Where is the evidence that it's even the primary factor in that? The actual evidence usually just suggests that body language can matter, but what's at issue is the layer of commentary and interpretation you add to it. Which is fine to do, in theory; these things require interpretation. But you need to recognize it as interpretation, rather than obtusely pretending that anyone who challenges your interpretation is challenging the entire concept.
2. Indeed, you said it was the primary factor in instant attraction, not relationships...but then you also say that all romantic relationships are based on sexual attraction.
It's definitely not the primary factor in actual relationships, since actual relationships are not just about sex, they're about other factors like personality, common interests, past experiences, etc- and I've said that a lot of times.
You've also suggested that these things boil down to biology/sex, yes?
But since my advice centered on going out and finding dates, and approaching women you don't know - I believe it's one of the most important factors at generating attraction and meeting potential dating partners outside of an established social circle, because it's the biological basis of raw physical attraction.
Okay, great, but I wasn't engaging in a full scale criticism of all your advice. I agree with some of it (your detached posture towards relationships is probably extremely useful for someone going through a breakup, for example). I was simply saying you're wrong about how love works--it doesn't have to be mutual. We've established that now, right?
Not me, but you're likely afraid that if my assertions were true that "some guy" could steal your wife if he had "better body language", or better looks, etc since it would conclude that human love is absolutely no different than animal mating (which again it wasn't, it was talking only about a very specific facet).
I probably would be afraid of that, if nearly all of my personal experience didn't already tell me human relationships don't work that way. But since it doesn't, I'm not worried.
Though the fact that you're comparing body language (something which has been around since the dawn of man and is near universal in all cultures) to "Axe body spray" just makes me wonder why you think you're qualified to talk about the subject.
I can't believe I need to explain this, but okay: I didn't suggest that body language was like Axe body spray. I suggested that relying on body language to attract women was like relying on Axe body spray to do so. It's a statement about the kinds of people people who try to leverage them, not the things themselves.
1. Where is the evidence that it's even the primary factor in that? The actual evidence usually just suggests that body language can matter, but what's at issue is the layer of commentary and interpretation you add to it. Which is fine to do, in theory; these things require interpretation. But you need to recognize it as interpretation, rather than obtusely pretending that anyone who challenges your interpretation is challenging the entire concept.
That would be hard to prove - however my conclusion on that is because it's shown that when men actually approach women (or vice versa), the body language plays a role in this more often than just looks alone.
EX. A unfrendly, good looking woman is less likely to be approached than a charming, average looking woman.
2. Indeed, you said it was the primary factor in instant attraction, not relationships...but then you also say that all romantic relationships are based on sexual attraction.
If not then what is it based on - the sexual attraction is what makes it a "romantic" relationship versus just an intimate platonic relationship.
This is why loving your grandpa and having a close relationship doesn't mean that you want to sleep with him.
Maybe you just don't like the word "sexual" since it implies a relationship based on just "sex", but it's a technically correct term.
Romantic relationship = intimacy + sexual attraction
Friendship = intimacy alone
One night stand = sexual attraction alone
You've also suggested that these things boil down to biology/sex, yes?
Body language does, yes because it's sensory not cognitive; just like sugar doesn't taste good because "people came to the intellectual conclusion that it does. When you see an angry face, you sense the anger - you don't do some equation in your head and come to the intellectual conclusion that the person is angry - this is what I mean.
Actual relationships? Absolutely not because they are mainly cognitive (sure technically the brain is "biological" but that's not the same as biological instincts).
Okay, great, but I wasn't engaging in a full scale criticism of all your advice. I agree with some of it (your detached posture towards relationships is probably extremely useful for someone going through a breakup, for example). I was simply saying you're wrong about how love works--it doesn't have to be mutual. We've established that now, right?
Thanks for that - sure love in general doesn't have to be mutual. I just assumed that when people think of an ideal love or relationship, they presume there's intimacy there.
I probably would be afraid of that, if nearly all of my personal experience didn't already tell me human relationships don't work that way. But since it doesn't, I'm not worried.
I can't believe I need to explain this, but okay: I didn't suggest that body language was like Axe body spray. I suggested that relying on body language to attract women was like relying on Axe body spray to do so. It's a statement about the kinds of people people who try to leverage them, not the things themselves.
Problem is it's not, seeing as Presidents, company executives, etc study and rely on body language to help carry their speeches and public appearances - they don't really care about "Axe Body Spray" on the other hand.
Meeting and dating was totally relevant to my claims about body language playing the main role in attraction, since that is exclusively what my claims about body language were applied to, not to actual relationships.
My claim about what it means to be in love didn't mention body language at all.
Nor did my response. I mentioned it only as an example of the divide between what experts actually say, and the conclusions you draw on top of it, since that particular issue seems to come up a lot.
Here's where you're being vague again. How long does a relationship have to last to be "romantic love" versus just "sex" according to you? Or how what level of intimacy and trust has to exist for it to be a loving relationship?
Plus how would you verify that your relationship has the level of actual intimacy to qualify as "romantic love", versus a relationship just based on sex, or convenience, etc?
C'mon; this is an inherent limitation in all language and definitions, not something specific to what I said. The fact that love isn't really quantifiable, or that we can't easily produce a grand unified theory of it that applies in all circumstances, doesn't make any reference to it "vague," especially in a definitional sense.
I have never experienced the level of intimacy I want in any of my relationships, which is why I've been careful avoided rushing into a long term relationship too soon - so my personal view is that I've never felt intimate enough with any woman to feel that I'm in love...
Understood. And that's fine. I want to be clear that I'm not saying this is a negative thing. To the contrary, if you haven't been in love for all the reasons you say, then it's a good thing. But the necessary implication is that it precludes you from knowing what love is actually like. And I think it pretty clearly makes it harder to know how love is really formed, though I'll gladly admit that it doesn't automatically preclude that.
I think what we have here is the equivalent of a soldier in the trenches talking about what war feels like, and a Colonel responding by talking about high-level supply line disruption strategies. It's not that it's wrong, it's just that those observations, even if they were right, are just about a different side of the thing.
Regardless, the point of the question was to demonstrate that I hadn't made any unfair assumptions. You strongly implied in another thread that you hadn't been in love, and that was the extent of my assuming.
...however on the same note I've known people who thought they "were in love", and even been together for a long time, who had I believe had way less love in their relationships than I had - so I'm at a loss here considering how easily a lot of people claim "they're in love" even when there's not a lot of love.
Sure, this is a perfectly fair thing to point out: people are not always in love when they say they are. It's technically possible that I could be deluding myself.
I think the objective parts of my relationship point pretty heavily towards it being the real thing, especially given the paucity of people outside warning me about anything related to it (that, and the concordant rationalizations, seem like a pretty good indicator), but hey, others can form their own opinions about it.
Well my personal experience is that people who are overly resistant to talk about love in any type of scientific context usually don't have a great understanding of love since they insist only on the "fairy tale" view of it...
Well, my personal experience is that people who are overly eager to talk about the science of love also don't understand it, since they insist on taking a largely impersonal view of it.
So based on this inductive reasoning, I could just as well claim that about you and dismiss your credibility on the subject
If I'd given you any reason to think I took a "fairy tale" view of love, maybe. Pretty sure I haven't, though. We agree on this particular point: I don't believe we have one prefabricated soulmate, or that love is always enough to make a relationship work. I think love is a choice and relationships are work that have to be built day by day.
Redirecting the argument to your allegation that I've "never been in love" is just ad hom to discredit the argument.
Ad hominem arguments are ones that attack someone personally rather than attack their argument. But in this case, those two things are not distinct: the argument is about personal experiences and what we can or can't know from them.
Anyway, it shouldn't be received as an "allegation." It's just a relevant fact. Any critical undertone is unintentional.
christine
06-01-15, 12:11 PM
Heck, I've even had 1 night stands with more "love" than some people's entire marriages.
I've always wanted to use the word hubris and now I can! :D
That would be hard to prove - however my conclusion on that is because it's shown that when men actually approach women (or vice versa), the body language plays a role in this more often than just looks alone.
Indeed, it would be hard to prove. But that's kinda the point: someone who doubts the importance of body language is not being anti-science, or asking you to trust them over some undefined cadre of experts. They're simply adopting a more skeptical view towards what's really a pretty small data footprint, compared to an infinitely complicated set of human interactions.
I think you'll find that you'll be met with basically zero resistance if you literally only say that body language plays a role, as opposed to implying that it's an important factor.
If not then what is it based on - the sexual attraction is what makes it a "romantic" relationship versus just an intimate platonic relationship.
I could quibble a bit with this (there's obviously overlap, but not symmetry). But that'd be getting bogged down, because the point was not to dispute this link, but to show that there's not much distinction between mentioning body language as the primary factor in attraction and the primary factor in romance relationships if you also suggest that all romance in relationships is sexual/attraction based, anyway. That lets you have it both ways: if someone tries to idealize love in some way, you can tell them they're not being scientific because it's all just an outcropping of sexual desire. But if someone says you can't reduce human relationships to body language, you can make a distinction between the two and say you're not.
Romantic relationship = intimacy + sexual attraction
Friendship = intimacy alone
One night stand = sexual attraction alone
Yeah, I'd agree with this. The ancient terms I mentioned earlier cover pretty much the same ground.
Thanks for that - sure love in general doesn't have to be mutual. I just assumed that when people think of an ideal love or relationship, they presume there's intimacy there.
Well, there could still be intimacy. A lot of unrequited love situations involve people who know each other well as friends, where one wants more and the other doesn't.
Problem is it's not, seeing as Presidents, company executives, etc study and rely on body language to help carry their speeches and public appearances - they don't really care about "Axe Body Spray" on the other hand.
I don't think that disqualifies anything: the kinds of people who run for public office or oversee large companies are absolutely the kinds of alpha males who look at sex as a conquest. Probably one of the reasons they so often get in trouble for it.
The thing I'm actually objecting to is the idea that attraction is essentially a series of tricks, and that women can be manipulated the way a video game can be if you just learn the right set of buttons to push. There may be general tendencies, but I tend to find these highly exaggerated and nowhere near dispositive.
I think their efficacy would be pretty tough to measure, too, given the obvious importance of confidence, and the fact that thinking you have some kind of pheromone/body language/pickup-artist-DVD-routine strategy that actually works can create that confidence, anyway.
Pussy Galore
06-01-15, 01:14 PM
I'm afraid you do not understand correctly; nobody said they couldn't talk about it. What they can't do is try to tell other people what it's like.
But how can we know what the other person mean by love since the concept isn't universaly defined. Among happines, justice, etc. it's one of the things Socrates tried to define, and that we still try to, but can't
I don't really see what that has to do with it--whether or not someone defines "love" differently or not, they'd still need to experience it (whatever "it" means to them) in order to know what it's like. And if two people are using different definitions, that usually becomes obvious soon enough.
There's also a pretty sizable difference between saying "you don't need to have been in love to talk about what love is like" and questioning how we can communicate any abstract idea.
MovieGal
06-01-15, 01:30 PM
To me, trust is a huge part of love. I need to be able to trust them completely and sometimes that doesnt happen. So I cant say "I love (this person)" if I cant say "I trust (this person)". But I can say "I care for (this person)" and that is all. Once trust is broken, there isnt much to the relationship as far as what was once a love relationship.
Derek Vinyard
06-01-15, 03:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raNGeq3_DtM
enough said
Pussy Galore
06-01-15, 04:00 PM
I don't really see what that has to do with it--whether or not someone defines "love" differently or not, they'd still need to experience it (whatever "it" means to them) in order to know what it's like. And if two people are using different definitions, that usually becomes obvious soon enough.
There's also a pretty sizable difference between saying "you don't need to have been in love to talk about what love is like" and questioning how we can communicate any abstract idea.
What I'm arguing is not whether or not we can discuss abstract idea, but that even if you don't think that you have experienced it yourself you're entitled to discuss it as much as someone who says he can, because the feeling you might have felt that you didn't qualify as love might be qualified by someone else as love.
What I'm arguing is not whether or not we can discuss abstract idea, but that even if you don't think that you have experienced it yourself you're entitled to discuss it as much as someone who says he can, because the feeling you might have felt that you didn't qualify as love might be qualified by someone else as love.
It's pretty easy for all involved to expound on what an experience felt like and figure out whether or not their experiences were similar. That's how the word comes to exist in the first place--by noticing similarities in people's experiences and then categorizing them under a common term.
And, again, this applies to all human experience--hope, love, fear, whatever. So you're not really explaining why someone with no experience in an area can speak authoritatively on it. What you're saying calls the ability of anyone to speak authoritatively on any of these issues into question.
It also seems to be something different than you argued initially.
Pussy Galore
06-01-15, 05:04 PM
It's pretty easy for all involved to expound on what an experience felt like and figure out whether or not their experiences were similar. That's how the word comes to exist in the first place--by noticing similarities in people's experiences and then categorizing them under a common term.
And, again, this applies to all human experience--hope, love, fear, whatever. So you're not really explaining why someone with no experience in an area can speak authoritatively on it. What you're saying calls the ability of anyone to speak authoritatively on any of these issues into question.
It also seems to be something different than you argued initially.
What I meant is more that I don't really care who speaks authoritatively on a subject, but what the person says. Whether he's an authority or not. And on the particular subjct of love it's hard to define who has actually experienced it on a rational and impartial basis.
Also, I'd have a parrallel question that I really question myself about. Is it the same with faith? Since I never believed in any gods am I entitled to doubt the faith of others?
What I meant is more that I don't really care who speaks authoritatively on a subject, but what the person says. Whether he's an authority or not.
In general I agree that we should evaluate claims and not the people making them, but that only works in situations where we can verify their claims independent of the speaker. How would that happen here? And if someone says they've never been in love, but describes what it's like, how would you evaluate that statement? Wouldn't you inevitably have to compare it to how other people who have been in love describe it?
And on the particular subjct of love it's hard to define who has actually experienced it on a rational and impartial basis.
I don't think it's too hard; people largely describe it the same way. That's why we needed a word for it in the first place. Technically it's hard to define fear in a rational and impartial way, but if someone describe what it's like to be afraid, you can pretty easily tell they have, right?
Also, I'd have a parrallel question that I really question myself about. Is it the same with faith? Since I never believed in any gods am I entitled to doubt the faith of others?
Of course; but this isn't a parallel question. The parallel question would be: since you've never believed in any God, would you be entitled to tell other people what it feels like to have faith? Obviously not. And that's what's being said about love. People not in love can doubt whether or not someone else is, but they can't tell you what it's like.
Mr Minio
06-01-15, 05:32 PM
How do you tell apart love and infatuation?
How do you tell apart love and infatuation?
I'd answer but then it would bring up the disagreement with Yoda again.
After doing some reading, technically infatuation is a type of "love".
But I think the difference between infatuation, and a couple who've been together a long time and love each other is the level of intimacy.
I've always wanted to use the word hubris and now I can! :D
True story, I've known some religious people who are so repressed that they've pretty much never had sex, and even then very reluctantly and solely for procreation.
So based on that I think some one night stands have more "love" than that kind of repressed relationship, if love's defined by feelings of passion.
christine
06-04-15, 02:06 AM
True story, I've known some religious people who are so repressed that they've pretty much never had sex, and even then very reluctantly and solely for procreation.
So based on that I think some one night stands have more "love" than that kind of repressed relationship, if love's defined by feelings of passion.
But that's kinda besides the point isn't it? Now you're talking about sex not love. Those religious people you're talking about could still love each other very deeply no matter what physical relationship they have.
But that's kinda besides the point isn't it? Now you're talking about sex not love. Those religious people you're talking about could still love each other very deeply no matter what physical relationship they have.
If they don't enjoy sex then how can they have romantic love for each other? They might as well just be roommates
If they don't enjoy sex then how can they have romantic love for each other? They might as well just be roommates
Is sex your idea of romantic love then? Seriously if thats the way you think I can understand that, but I'd ask you to experience a relationship on it's own before commenting on how important sex is or isn't.
christine
06-04-15, 09:55 AM
If they don't enjoy sex then how can they have romantic love for each other? They might as well just be roommates
now this is telling me how you can think you can have a one night stand with more love in it than an entire marriage :rolleyes:
There is a lot more to the human condition than you have experienced for all your one night stands.
I love all MoFos but I don't have sex with them.
I love all MoFos but I don't have sex with them.
You are missing out.
You are missing out.
Can my first time on an Internet forum be with you? :lol:
Can my first time on an Internet forum be with you? :lol:
By the look of Judy I think it may have happened already :D
Mr Minio
06-04-15, 10:32 AM
You are missing out. +1
Mr Minio
06-04-15, 10:54 AM
I believe romantic love has very little to do with sex. It doesn't always exlude sexual intercourse, but it's possible to love somebody romantically and not necessarily bodily at the same time.
One night stand is in no way love. It's just a way to vent your sexual tension. Of course, it can transform into love later, but the sheer act of sex does not always imply love.
If a man and a woman don't have sex too often, be it because of their strong religious believes, or any other reason, including sickness, it doesn't automatically mean there's no romantic love. Hell, if they don't do it and are still together, it may even be a proof of their love, since sex is only a part of being with another person.
If you're with a person you love and then you find out this person's genitalia has to be removed in order to keep him/her alive and therefore sex will not be possible in the future (there are other ways of having sex, but let's make it simple and say there are not), you wouldn't of course ditch that person, because it's no longer a valid sexual partner for you.
now this is telling me how you can think you can have a one night stand with more love in it than an entire marriage :rolleyes:
A religious marriage definitely, where the two people are together more because they fear God will smite them from divorcing than because they want to be with each other for any genuine reason.
If you're with a person you love and then you find out this person's genitalia has to be removed in order to keep him/her alive and therefore sex will not be possible in the future (there are other ways of having sex, but let's make it simple and say there are not), you wouldn't of course ditch that person, because it's no longer a valid sexual partner for you.
What if you found out they had become a man?
You might still love them in a platonic way since you know them well, but since I'm assuming you're not sexually attracted to men, you'd no longer love them in a romantic way.
Ðèstîñy
06-04-15, 11:10 AM
How do you tell apart love and infatuation?
Because, when you truly love someone, you're willing to do as much as you possibly can for them. However, when you are simply infatuated with them, and everyday life with all it's little problems and such steps in, you're not willing to go that extra mile. You can get over it rather fast. I've had a ton of men infatuated with me, but I don't believe I've ever had one single man that truly loved me.
Well, not that I loved back.
Gee, thanks for depressing me. ;)
Love is the opposite of that famous quote, it's all about having to say you're sorry.
So I don't think 90sAce knows true love. ;)
Worst famous movie quote ever. That whole movie is annoying, it should be called Hate Crime not Love Story.
linespalsy
06-04-15, 12:14 PM
A religious marriage definitely, where the two people are together more because they fear God will smite them from divorcing than because they want to be with each other for any genuine reason.
It's not clear what you're asserting now. Is it "I've had one night stands with more love than religious marriages, which are all based on fear of god more than love" or "I've had one night stands with more love than some (loveless) religious marriages"?
I love all MoFos but I don't have sex with them.
Shortest and best explanation in this thread.
On the topic, most people tell me I'm cold when it comes to love and feelings, but it is not truth, I just think people who say they are in love every 3 weeks are idiots. I don't see love as saying romantic stuff, buying flowers and all that crap. I see it as something special between two people, unique for everybody... There is also love for your siblings, parents ,friends not just your partner so that sex thing is bs. People are also fast to say love, when its actually fun or some other positive feeling.
Well, that is my rambling on the topic.
It's not clear what you're asserting now. Is it "I've had one night stands with more love than religious marriages, which are all based on fear of god more than love" or "I've had one night stands with more love than some (loveless) religious marriages"?
Whichever gives him the most opportunities to a) tell people how the world works and b) disparage religion.
christine
06-04-15, 12:50 PM
I hardly tackled you about it at the time 90sAce, but this 'more love in a one night stand than some marriages' malarky is a daft exaggeration isn't it? ok you might say look at arranged marriages where they don't get on from the very minute they met, or people who wed from the convenience of getting a nationality etc, but never mind about that side of the sentence I'm interested in how you love someone in a one night stand? What love is that? Isn't that lust which is quite different?
Yeah, and let's be clear on something: bad marriages are not the same things as loveless ones. It's really hard to share your life ith someone for any significant period of time and not love them at all. You might have different goals, and be wildly incompatible in lots of ways, but that doesn't preclude love. It just makes being in love with them really frustrating.
Shortest and best explanation in this thread.
On the topic, most people tell me I'm cold when it comes to love and feelings, but it is not truth, I just think people who say they are in love every 3 weeks are idiots. I don't see love as saying romantic stuff, buying flowers and all that crap. I see it as something special between two people, unique for everybody... There is also love for your siblings, parents ,friends not just your partner so that sex thing is bs.
The type of love being discussed above was romantic love, not just "love in general".
The sex point is relevant because the difference between romantic love and typical platonic love is sexual attraction.
So the issue here really is just that some people don't like using the word "sexual" because it has negative connotations for them, but it's technically the correct term.
Again
Sexual attraction alone = lust
Intimacy alone = friendship
Sexual attraction plus intimacy = romance
Whichever gives him the most opportunities to a) tell people how the world works and b) disparage religion.
People don't just decide to 'disparage religion' for, like no reason
christine
06-04-15, 05:27 PM
The type of love being discussed above was romantic love, not just "love in general".
The sex point is relevant because the difference between romantic love and typical platonic love is sexual attraction.
So the issue here really is just that some people don't like using the word "sexual" because it has negative connotations for them, but it's technically the correct term.
Again
Sexual attraction alone = lust
Intimacy alone = friendship
Sexual attraction plus intimacy = romance
woah! you can't put human beings and the complexity of their relationships in boxes like that! There's infinite different emotions of love within relationships and indeed as I'm very much older than you I'm guessing, I can tell you there's a million shades of love within one single relationship as the years go by.
F.Scott Fitzgerald had it down when he said 'there is many types of love but never the same love twice'
woah! you can't put human beings and the complexity of their relationships in boxes like that! There's infinite different emotions of love within relationships and indeed as I'm very much older than you I'm guessing, I can tell you there's a million shades of love within one single relationship as the years go by.
F.Scott Fitzgerald had it down when he said 'there is many types of love but never the same love twice'
What I posted is straight from the documentary by Dr. Frank Conner, so I'd say it's a fair general description
christine
06-04-15, 07:15 PM
I'd never heard of Frank Conner , but looking him up I see he's a psychologist. Trouble is they're dealing in generalities when they're writing books. Human beings are complex on an individual level. No two people feel the same way about love. Those three states you had in your post - lust/friendship/romance - can overlap, can differ from day to day, minute to minute, person to person. I just don't believe you can pigeonhole feelings like that.
I'd never heard of Frank Conner , but looking him up I see he's a psychologist. Trouble is they're dealing in generalities when they're writing books. Human beings are complex on an individual level. No two people feel the same way about love. Those three states you had in your post - lust/friendship/romance - can overlap, can differ from day to day, minute to minute, person to person. I just don't believe you can pigeonhole feelings like that.
And let's not forget a lot of them can be silly. We all know those "doctors" saying someone got into murdering spree because of video game/movies etc...
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.