eLove

A place to talk about serious "real life" stuff without having to place it in between a demand by Blankie for food and Logue's latest almost-pr0n thread.
User avatar
Oxygen
Grandmaster of Grammar
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:14 pm

Re: eLove

Post by Oxygen » Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:39 pm

It could be better, but it could also be worse. Sometimes it's nice, sometimes it sucks. This is what I chose, and I'm zealous about my choices. We're meeting soon enough, which is pretty exciting ( no, no... ) and so, I'll see what happens then~

User avatar
Kurogamon
Keeper of the Keys
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:09 pm
Location: Blinded in the dark.

Re: eLove

Post by Kurogamon » Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:29 pm

Best of luck, remember that the best things in life can't be bought with money.
Can you hear them?

User avatar
Hell_Tempest
Grandmaster of Grammar
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Over there...you know, right there...

Re: eLove

Post by Hell_Tempest » Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:10 pm

I don't believe in love at all, just a situation where the gain is great for both parties involved. (eg: sex, money, nice house, children, etc..) so internet love is a definite no.
Image

User avatar
Kurogamon
Keeper of the Keys
Posts: 395
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 11:09 pm
Location: Blinded in the dark.

Re: eLove

Post by Kurogamon » Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:35 pm

>_>

True, that's the ultimate goal, mutual gain. Love is a necessary step in its achievement, not an optional detour. Although admittedly there's more ways to achieve it...
Can you hear them?

TheIrishPatriot
Grandmaster of Grammar
Posts: 1001
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:01 am
Location: Not Sweden
Contact:

Re: eLove

Post by TheIrishPatriot » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:36 pm

Hell_Tempest wrote:I don't believe in love at all, just a situation where the gain is great for both parties involved. (eg: sex, money, nice house, children, etc..) so internet love is a definite no.
I really don't believe that. It's quite possible to love a poor person who sucks in bed and is infertile. Added benefits? Sure. But love is more about wanting a person to be happy. And I know people who have been in love without any hope of it being reciprocated.

I'm not sure if what I have is actual love. All I know is that I want my girlfriend to be happy for the rest of my life, and I'd be more then pleased for us to spend our lives making each other happy. Is that love? Remembar, I is only 15, and we all know you're incapable of any real emotion or thought until you're 18!
Image
Read my prose please :).
An tírghrá Éireannach

ReDSeX
Holder of the Alt-F4
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:29 pm

Re: eLove

Post by ReDSeX » Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:42 pm

Everyone thinks they're in love at some point. Key word: thinks.
Love is such a fleeting feeling.

User avatar
shalnath
Holder of the Alt-F4
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:58 am

Re: eLove

Post by shalnath » Tue Feb 17, 2009 11:11 pm

Hell_Tempest wrote:I don't believe in love at all, just a situation where the gain is great for both parties involved. (eg: sex, money, nice house, children, etc..) so internet love is a definite no.
That's depressing if you truly think that. I think Irish nailed it, happiness is what really matters.
ReDSeX wrote:Everyone thinks they're in love at some point. Key word: thinks.
Love is such a fleeting feeling.
Isn't that the same thing as being in love?
"Within every world, there are cultures, within every culture, there are groups, within every group, there are leaders. These leaders are not truly chosen, they are destined, it is their fate to lead, and it is this fate that drives them. Souls yearn to be driven, they in themselves can not direct, however, these leaders are predetermined, by whatever means, to guide the wills and mend the errors of these wandering souls. A forest, cold, cured, flawless, meticulous, and fearful, what drives it, what keeps the balance? The inner beings of all the co-existant creatures swarm together, and every one is guided by another, in more a cycle, then a hierarchy. The eyes of a forest are always watching and guiding, yet the sun never sets on the forest, and it never shall." ~ The Chaos Theory

ReDSeX
Holder of the Alt-F4
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 4:29 pm

Re: eLove

Post by ReDSeX » Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:17 am

Love is mutual.

And anyone can say that they're in love. There's a difference between love and lust.

User avatar
Loki
Gypsy
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2008 12:16 am
Location: In a sea of paper cranes and a sky of paper planes.
Contact:

Re: eLove

Post by Loki » Sun Feb 22, 2009 2:08 pm

Removed all the spam here, you people (You know who you are) need to stop spamming.
Let's do what comes naturally
ImageImageImageImage
I'll be waiting in Haven.

User avatar
Rising_Dusk
Chosen of the Intargweeb
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:50 pm
Contact:

Re: eLove

Post by Rising_Dusk » Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:35 am

TheIrishPatriot wrote:And I know people who have been in love without any hope of it being reciprocated.
Truth.
"I'll come to Florida one day and make you look like a damn princess." ~Hep

User avatar
Deschain
Diabolical Doomsayer
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:44 am
Location: Four Trials

Re: eLove

Post by Deschain » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:01 pm

Rising_Dusk wrote:
TheIrishPatriot wrote:And I know people who have been in love without any hope of it being reciprocated.
Truth.
I agree with RedSex then they aren't in love, they are just lusting in a platonic way.
Those who seek war deserve for the war to find them.

User avatar
Rising_Dusk
Chosen of the Intargweeb
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:50 pm
Contact:

Re: eLove

Post by Rising_Dusk » Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:27 pm

Being in love with someone is not inherently a mutual thing, though - at least not always initially. There are many instances where someone will be in love with someone else and the other not return the feeling until a much later date when they realize their true feelings or something like that. Movies take advantage of that all of the time as some antagonistic relationship of chick-flickness.

Anyways, unless you're using an obsolete and archaic definition, lust is only a physical and sexual desire. It can happen that you love a person's mind and any corporeal interest comes about as a byproduct of you loving that person spiritually/mentally/etc. Generally that's where people make the distinction between lust and love.
"I'll come to Florida one day and make you look like a damn princess." ~Hep

User avatar
Deschain
Diabolical Doomsayer
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:44 am
Location: Four Trials

Re: eLove

Post by Deschain » Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:55 am

Learning about love from chick-flicks is as efficient as trying to learn physics from Die Hard or one of Arnie's movies. Love is as likely to happens between similar persons as it is between different persons. There are so many mechanisms involved that trying to guess which one will determine the outcome is nigh impossible.

Punch line is this love has like a 0.01% chance to succeed yet 99% of people believe they are the lucky 0.01% .

Lust can be also non-physical and non-archaic as in "he lusts for power". A strong desire, craving.
Either way if you lust/love for something you on some level want to have sex with it and/or make babies. If you are blocked from your goal you'll probably try to rationalize like "I love your mind/ It is better not to do it." etc. Some people can live with such rationalizations (they aren't conscious) others use some other method to repress the urge and those who don't manage to repress or endure the weight of their urge just go crazy.
Those who seek war deserve for the war to find them.

User avatar
Rising_Dusk
Chosen of the Intargweeb
Posts: 4031
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 1:50 pm
Contact:

Re: eLove

Post by Rising_Dusk » Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:45 pm

Deschain wrote:Learning about love from chick-flicks is as efficient as trying to learn physics from Die Hard or one of Arnie's movies.
Intentionally misinterpreting a post in order to set up a straw man fallacy and discredit the other person's opinion is about as efficient as plagiarizing in a paper you're trying to get published.
Deschain wrote:Either way if you lust/love for something you on some level want to have sex with it and/or make babies. If you are blocked from your goal you'll probably try to rationalize like "I love your mind/ It is better not to do it." etc. Some people can live with such rationalizations (they aren't conscious) others use some other method to repress the urge and those who don't manage to repress or endure the weight of their urge just go crazy.
See, that is an opinion and has no basis in fact. Who are you to tell people what they love about a person? Seriously, that's not only disrespectful, it's incredibly arrogant of you. You can't justify whatever claims you're using by saying that the person "isn't conscious," because again you have no capacity to know that.

By making your point, you are saying that people live only for instinctive desires and that love is a personified lust that is both meaningless and entirely corporeal in its roots. That, sir, is something I utterly disagree with.

Anyways, moved to serious discussion.
"I'll come to Florida one day and make you look like a damn princess." ~Hep

User avatar
Deschain
Diabolical Doomsayer
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:44 am
Location: Four Trials

Re: eLove

Post by Deschain » Wed Feb 25, 2009 10:43 am

Rising_Dusk wrote:
Deschain wrote:Learning about love from chick-flicks is as efficient as trying to learn physics from Die Hard or one of Arnie's movies.
Intentionally misinterpreting a post in order to set up a straw man fallacy and discredit the other person's opinion is about as efficient as plagiarizing in a paper you're trying to get published.
How about misineterperting a post due to short time span I had to reply to it. Any case strawman or not chick-flicks and discussion about love have next to nothing in common.
Rising_Dusk wrote:
Deschain wrote:Either way if you lust/love for something you on some level want to have sex with it and/or make babies. If you are blocked from your goal you'll probably try to rationalize like "I love your mind/ It is better not to do it." etc. Some people can live with such rationalizations (they aren't conscious) others use some other method to repress the urge and those who don't manage to repress or endure the weight of their urge just go crazy.
See, that is an opinion and has no basis in fact. Who are you to tell people what they love about a person? Seriously, that's not only disrespectful, it's incredibly arrogant of you. You can't justify whatever claims you're using by saying that the person "isn't conscious," because again you have no capacity to know that.
I'm Deschain but that is Freud. Stuff I mentioned were from a Psychology classes I had in high school. Or to be more precise defensive mechanisms.
When we can't have something our id wants and our super-ego won't let it our ego puts up a defensive mechanism. If our urge manages to break the mechanism ego repairs it with some other defensive mechanism and if he can't we go crazy.
Before you start yelling at me that his theory is disputed keep in mind that some of his assumptions still hold water.
Rising_Dusk wrote:By making your point, you are saying that people live only for instinctive desires and that love is a personified lust that is both meaningless and entirely corporeal in its roots. That, sir, is something I utterly disagree with.
Yes and No. We live on instinctive desires but we aren't their slaves. It is like a dark murky undercurrent of unconscious water nurturing the lilies that grow above in your consciousness.
Yeah love is corporeal but it ain't meaningless or meaningful.
You give it meaning. You give it purpose. You dress it up. You make it abstract and long-distance. But no matter how you dress it up there is some sexual background even if you can't see it. And just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't actually there.

All of your examples aren't contrary to what I said.

Take for example a classic story of the fox and the grapes.
Bottom line: The fox is still hungry. But in order to help herself (where I come from foxes are female) so she made a rationalization to stop the protesting Id by saying the grapes are sour anyway. It is called Intellectualization.

Now look at someone who is in love with someone. Lets take Mike for example he has erectile dysfunction, is poor and ugly you want to punch his ugly face just for being so damn ugly. Let say he is in love with Laura who is smart, pretty, well-educated, well-behaved and rich. Now Mike knows he stands a snowflakes chance in hell with Laura so in order to protect himself he puts her on a platonic pedestal admiring her from afar. His "love" for her is pure untouched and unspoiled. Right? Not really. That def. mechanism is called Idealization. If he admitted to himself that he was an ugly, dirty and poor and that he can't get it up what do you think he would do?

Now take all your and examples (and Mike's) of non-physical love and ask them or yourselves this: "If there were no personal issues (looks-issues, smells, erectile or vaginal dysfunction, discomfort or pain, chance of pregnancy or infection) involved and the object of affection agreed to it, would you get physical with her/him?". Now count noes. If they say no then ask them "Why not?" and prod until you get the truth. I doubt there is a single capable and willing person who loves someone but

Anyone claiming that love is something high and mighty is as wrong as someone claiming it is some petty organic process. It isn't either and putting your expectation way too high in the sky will just make you crashing down when faced with reality.
Love is a feeling between two(or more) persons. The true love (for most people) only lasts for a few days/months/years after which it just becomes a sort of "buddy" relationship. True for on rare occasions two perfectly committed people find each other and have a perfectly happy monogamous relationship. On most cases they end up with a mediocre monogamous relationship and in worst case a goddamn awful monogamous relationship.

Post Reply

Return to “Serious Discussion”