Faithfulness Gene

[hyebruin]

for all the pseudopsychiatrists puttin in their 2 cents, i'm 75% on my way to not givin a f**k!

[anileve]

Well, yeah. It seems as if she's just been burned one too many times and shut herself down, whereas you seem like a true disbeliever. Still.

Bull's Eye.

[hyebruin]

ahhh look at our amateur shrinks here reasoning out mine and seapahn's reasons for "being the way we are"...haha!

well here's how i see loser: a laid back p---y whipped boy who has gotten in touch with/ been touching his "feminie side" more than is healthy (dancing in the rain---oh puhhhleeezzzz)

and a "power" hungry xena wanna be with p--is envy who wishes she were a man!

pretty good eh?? haha! this is a fun game to play

[Sip]

Don't know about being a "true non believer" ... But I feel like I should clarify my position regarding this topic. "Romantic Love" has manifested itself in many shapes and forms throughout human history. Our modern concept of "romantic love" is fairly new and doesn't really seem to have taken shape till probably around the Renaissance. Then organized religion seems to have gone on reaffirming the concept of "romantic love" between man and a woman and further advocating monogamy and the atomic family and the basis for a moral society.

Without going into too deep of a discussion, I am basically not convinced that romantic love is as deep rooted in the human psyche as the womens' channel and romance novels have us believe. I do NOT doubt that strong bonds can from between a man and a woman but I think the "love" we know today is more a product of mental conditioning as opposed to it being something natural in our genes.

After all, only about a few hundred years ago couples married to form families out of convenience and necessity ... I'd say our current understanding of romantic love in the US didn't really take form till probably the 1950's and 1960's when people started having sex for fun again

Also, if in fact this concept of romantic love between a man and a woman is no "natural" within us, then I am having a difficult time understanding why there are many societies and even "primitive" tribes around the globe that have a very different view on human relationships and how they form bonds with others. After all, shouldn't every human have this need for romantic love if it is so strong?

[hyebruin]

well, it's all about allowing yourself to be completely open to whoever you are with(which leads to vulnerability)...to completely trust and believe in that person and the relationship...and once that happens with both man and woman, only then does "love" truely come to exist! otherwise it's just a fantasy world...love is more than just a 'feeling' it is also a DECISION!!! and people seems to "forget" the second part of it on purpose i guesss..cuz then it would be so "unromantic"...

[spiral]

Don't know about being a "true non believer" ... But I feel like I should clarify my position regarding this topic. "Romantic Love" has manifested itself in many shapes and forms throughout human history. Our modern concept of "romantic love" is fairly new and doesn't really seem to have taken shape till probably around the Renaissance. Then organized religion seems to have gone on reaffirming the concept of "romantic love" between man and a woman and further advocating monogamy and the atomic family and the basis for a moral society.

Without going into too deep of a discussion, I am basically not convinced that romantic love is as deep rooted in the human psyche as the womens' channel and romance novels have us believe. I do NOT doubt that strong bonds can from between a man and a woman but I think the "love" we know today is more a product of mental conditioning as opposed to it being something natural in our genes.

...

Also, if in fact this concept of romantic love between a man and a woman is no "natural" within us, then I am having a difficult time understanding why there are many societies and even "primitive" tribes around the globe that have a very different view on human relationships and how they form bonds with others. After all, shouldn't every human have this need for romantic love if it is so strong?

I agree, and even if some people feel the need for romantic love, this is conditioned by sociological influence, which manipulates their psychological stance towards the issue.

[gevo]

I figure approach with utmost Naiveness yet see everything .. and romanc and love etc.. all that will fall into place if its the one... this will bring faithfullnes.. . and if still its not working for yeah.. then your not meant to be .. haha

[Anonymouse]

Don't know about being a "true non believer" ... But I feel like I should clarify my position regarding this topic. "Romantic Love" has manifested itself in many shapes and forms throughout human history. Our modern concept of "romantic love" is fairly new and doesn't really seem to have taken shape till probably around the Renaissance. Then organized religion seems to have gone on reaffirming the concept of "romantic love" between man and a woman and further advocating monogamy and the atomic family and the basis for a moral society.

Without going into too deep of a discussion, I am basically not convinced that romantic love is as deep rooted in the human psyche as the womens' channel and romance novels have us believe. I do NOT doubt that strong bonds can from between a man and a woman but I think the "love" we know today is more a product of mental conditioning as opposed to it being something natural in our genes.

After all, only about a few hundred years ago couples married to form families out of convenience and necessity ... I'd say our current understanding of romantic love in the US didn't really take form till probably the 1950's and 1960's when people started having sex for fun again

Also, if in fact this concept of romantic love between a man and a woman is no "natural" within us, then I am having a difficult time understanding why there are many societies and even "primitive" tribes around the globe that have a very different view on human relationships and how they form bonds with others. After all, shouldn't every human have this need for romantic love if it is so strong?

Indeed, for example during the Medieval times, it was 90% peasants, and most of them formed families out of necessity, because during feudalism forming a family was very important. They lived in subsistence. The only people that practiced "romantic love" were the upper class lords kings and nobles who had the time and luxury, since they lived off the remaining 90% of the population, and it was what we refer to as "courtly love". The whole modern notion of "romance" is rooted in this medieval tradition, so when the peasants eventually became the bourgeoise during the transition from feudalism into modernity, this value system was transferred. This is not to say there is no "love". What I meant was this whole "romantic love" crap that chicks love.

[loseyourname]

ahhh look at our amateur shrinks here reasoning out mine and seapahn's reasons for "being the way we are"...haha!

well here's how i see loser: a laid back p---y whipped boy who has gotten in touch with/ been touching his "feminie side" more than is healthy (dancing in the rain---oh puhhhleeezzzz)

and a "power" hungry xena wanna be with p--is envy who wishes she were a man!

pretty good eh?? haha! this is a fun game to play

Jesus Christ, you are the most predictable person to ever grace this forum - aside from Nimrod maybe. I hope you realize that you are reinforcing everyone's conception of you as a terribly bitter and spiteful person. If that is not, in fact, who you are, then for God's sake, quit playing games.

By the way, I only spelled out how you are. I never hinted at any reason why you might be that way, aside from negative past experiences that you have brought up quite a few times.

[Anonymouse]

Uh oh, she called loser pu**ywhipped.