Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Faithfulness Gene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 8
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
  • #51
    for all the pseudopsychiatrists puttin in their 2 cents, i'm 75% on my way to not givin a f**k!

    Comment

    • #52
      Originally posted by loseyourname
      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.

      Comment

      • #53
        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

        Comment

        • #54
          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?
          Last edited by Sip; 06-20-2004, 01:51 AM.
          this post = teh win.

          Comment

          • #55
            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"...

            Comment

            • #56
              Originally posted by Seapahn
              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.

              Comment

              • #57
                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
                How do you hurt a masochist?
                -By leaving him alone.Forever.

                Comment

                • #58
                  Originally posted by Seapahn
                  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.
                  Achkerov kute.

                  Comment

                  • #59
                    Originally posted by 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
                    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.
                    Last edited by loseyourname; 06-20-2004, 11:17 AM.

                    Comment

                    • #60
                      Uh oh, she called loser pu**ywhipped.
                      Achkerov kute.

                      Comment

                      Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 template Next
                      Working...
                      X