|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted January 04, 2014 10:37 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:44, 04 Jan 2014.
|
Quote:
If that's your opinion, then don't use words like TRUE or REAL, because these are BINARY words. Something is TRUE or NOT. Something is REAL or not. When you speak of TRUE knowledge and REAL love, you use these words in order to express a quality difference between your kind of knowledge and your kind of love and other knowledge/love. Since you are not using these words with the meaning they actually have, your statements are not worth anything, though.
Nor is it possible to determine what a MEANINGFUL amount of knowledge about a person is. Meaningful, in this context, is utterly subjective, and obviously so.
Not at all. Information can be true yet incomplete (just like knowledge about yourself can be), we are not talking about statements here. And yes, meaningful is subjective to a degree but that doesn't mean we can stretch its content to completely arbitrary distances, which had been one of the points people tried to get to your head all along.
Btw, on your answer to Smithey, you are not talking about love, you are talking about being loyal to your marital oath. They are not the same thing. People who oppose your notion of love at first sight, have at least a consistent idea about what love isn't and why it isn't so. On your "quest" to prove them wrong, you apply to a intuition and a feeling of enlightenment, then a feeling of being hit by a freight train and totally flying out of control, then trusting someone enough to do things blindly, then being loyal to your wedding vows... It doesn't look like there is a wholesomeness in what you say, it rather looks like you are working your way to come up with ideas like in a brainstorming that could make LaFS possible.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 04, 2014 11:40 AM |
|
|
JJ, dont get me wrong, most of the things you're saying are correct, however I dont think addictions come from relationships (good/bad) but instead derive from mental disorder/weakness, physical pain, failure in certain avenues in life and even nurture & nature (environmental/genetical cause)...
I for example played college B-ball, we had 2 guys on the team who were addicted to pain killers, when I went down with a knee injury (3 surgeries) I was prescribed percocet (I was lucky enough to know what it can do, coz of the other guys). Pain is immense and takes over all your thoughts, so you drop a pill, slowly slip into a semi-dreamy state and all is well. When I felt the need to take the pill without screaming in pain, I knew my body is starting to enjoy the sensation so I said Fu*k it, Im not gonna be one of those guys, stopped using pain killers and endured the pain (which was hell btw and maybe an overreaction on my part). Now, happy relationship means nothing when in physical pain coz:
1. There is no sex, no talk, no watching tv, there is nothing except for the pain in your mind as it takes over everything
2. Your supportive gf loves you so much, hence her only instinct is to stop that pain which means she is urging you to take the pill (which might or might not lead to your addiction) - people who love you are blinded by love and are themsleves in pain due to your suffering hence they dont make rational decisions - gf's will actually provide drugs/alcohol for their loved ones to stop their suffering (in the short run)...
I am not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to addictions however I know that one must want to stop the vicious cycle for themselves and not for those who love him/her otherwise it wont last.
Regarding my friend, they were married for 3 years, crash is according to him nobodys fault (oil spill on the road), she was and is a real trooper, went with him to physiotherapy, stuck with him during his 2.5 years as an alcohollic douche (organized interventions etc) and still is right there next to him however it was him who decided to end the alcohol thingy for himself and not for her, and regardless of how supportive she always was his alcohol problem derived from his inner demons IMO..
What Im saying is, happy relationship is a great thing to have, offers a much needed support and an anchor (as you stated) however it is not a magic wand that makes all your problems go away. Addictions are in most cases not relationship related coz today we need much more than just love, whether its success at work or anything else, addictions can sneak up on you (sleeping pills) or can be let into your world by you (alcoholism etc), addictions IMO come from lacking something in your Micro-world and unfortunately your Micro-world consists of supportive gf, supportive friends and family, self-love, and a few other things (which can include physical/mental issues that are outside your control as well).
Happy relationship is a cornerstone to your happiness but it certainly is not enough to cope with all things life throws at you, when its all said and done some crosses are yours and only yours to bear. Rely on your significant other to give you the support/strength (coz thats what healthy relationship supplies) but make sure you have the inner strength to push through everything coz in some cases all the love/support in the world wont change sh*t if you lack that mental stillness.. Thats all I was saying
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2014 01:03 PM |
|
|
smithey said:
JJ, dont get me wrong, most of the things you're saying are correct, however I dont think addictions come from relationships (good/bad) but instead derive from mental disorder/weakness, physical pain, failure in certain avenues in life and even nurture & nature (environmental/genetical cause)...
Must be some kind of misunderstanding - I don't think that addictions come from relationships, and I don't said anything like that. Maybe you misunderstood the last part of the post? Where I state, that an ex-addict has already had a big love, and one that's eagerly waiting for him to come back? With that I meant of course the drug of his choice, in this case the alcohol.
What I wanted to say with that was: if you have been an alcoholic (say, before your happy relationship with a person), it's A LOT easier to slip back into old habits, that is the old familiar relationship of your first big love, the alcohol.
Quote:
What Im saying is, happy relationship is a great thing to have, offers a much needed support and an anchor (as you stated) however it is not a magic wand that makes all your problems go away. Addictions are in most cases not relationship related coz today we need much more than just love, whether its success at work or anything else, addictions can sneak up on you (sleeping pills) or can be let into your world by you (alcoholism etc), addictions IMO come from lacking something in your Micro-world and unfortunately your Micro-world consists of supportive gf, supportive friends and family, self-love, and a few other things (which can include physical/mental issues that are outside your control as well).
Yes. The drug of choice of an addict fills a hole the addict is unable to fill in any other way. A happy relationship may not fill the hole, since it may not be relationship-related. Easy example: loss of employment. Opens up a hole the relationship can fill only when the couple starts a company or something - which won't happen often.
Quote:
Happy relationship is a cornerstone to your happiness but it certainly is not enough to cope with all things life throws at you, when its all said and done some crosses are yours and only yours to bear. Rely on your significant other to give you the support/strength (coz thats what healthy relationship supplies) but make sure you have the inner strength to push through everything coz in some cases all the love/support in the world wont change sh*t if you lack that mental stillness. Thats all I was saying
And I agree.
Quote:
Regarding my friend, they were married for 3 years, crash is according to him nobodys fault (oil spill on the road), she was and is a real trooper, went with him to physiotherapy, stuck with him during his 2.5 years as an alcohollic douche (organized interventions etc) and still is right there next to him however it was him who decided to end the alcohol thingy for himself and not for her, and regardless of how supportive she always was his alcohol problem derived from his inner demons IMO.
So when I understand right. They were married for 3 years, then the crash hit which was nobody's fault, then the loss of his leg made him an alcoholic, even though his wife was most supportive, but he finally came through.
Nothing much to add then. He sure has a fine wife. 
@ artu
Quote:
Not at all. Information can be true yet incomplete.
Which is what I've been saying: when you mean that you have true, but incomplete knowledge, you have true tidbits and make assumptions based on that, which may or may not be true. You may LIKE this kind of assumptions better, but then it's still assumptions (which in reality seem to be wrong quite often).
Quote:
And yes, meaningful is subjective to a degree but that doesn't mean we can stretch its content to completely arbitrary distances, which had been one of the points people tried to get to your head all along.
It's not "People", it's YOU who tries to tell me that while it's subjective, your idea of meaningful is more meaningful than mine in this case, and I naturally refute that. Subjective means subjective. Rational discussion would need experiments, and I linked to them - YOU have only your opinion.
Quote:
Btw, on your answer to Smithey, you are not talking about love
Exactly. I'm not talking about love, I'm talking about someone losing a leg being in a relationship. ANY relationship. You love a person - if that person vanishes or is changed into being someone else, you don't love the new person anymore, but the old one. So if a person loses their characteristics it's not that person anymore. I'm not all-knowing - a leg less may or may not be such a massive change, especially when it comes with a personality change, but that depends on solely on partner. For some it may be, for some it may not - married or not.
I just mentioned marriage, because you speak an oath when you marry, that is catering for that.
For the second time I can't help to add that I resent the dismissive way you try to bulldoze away everything that's not fitting into your worldview. I'd like to remind you that I don't expect you to change your opinion, I just expect from you that you tolerate and accept the notions of others when you cannot prove their notions wrong.
I have no problem with you living the way you do, deciding things the way you do, loving the way you do or lead a relationship the way you do, but it's definitely not RIGHT or BEST in an objective kind of sense so that would make other people's ways somewhat inferior.
I expect you to accept that, because these things are utterly subjective and everyone has to and should find their own way.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 04, 2014 01:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
It's not "People", it's YOU who tries to tell me that while it's subjective, your idea of meaningful is more meaningful than mine in this case, and I naturally refute that. Subjective means subjective
"People" was short for Mvass and me, I think looking at his his words, it's clear that he thinks impossibility of love at first sight is not a subjective matter. Subjective means subjective, sure, but love can't mean just about anything. If we (including you) claim that its absence can be easily felt, there are things that enable us to spot it. So, the whole debate isn't about if some people's feelings are inferior or not, it is just a question of WHEN to call it love. But I agree we reached a point where not much new can be added, so it's best to agree to disagree at certain points.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2014 05:41 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
"People" was short for Mvass and me, I think looking at his his words, it's clear that he thinks impossibility of love at first sight is not a subjective matter.
That may well be, but as long as there is no objective definition, what is possible and what not is academic; which doesn't mean, EVERYTHING is possible, but it would seem that the first thing would be to find a definition we can all agree upon. So I agree that Quote:
Subjective means subjective, sure, but love can't mean just about anything.
I'm not sure, though, whether I DID claim this (and too lazy to check right now): Quote:
If we (including you) claim that its absence can be easily felt, there are things that enable us to spot it.
I mean sure, if there is nothin, there is nothing. I know, though, that I've claimed that you would know if it IS love (at first sight) - and if you did NOT know, it wasn't (I also noted that this was somewhat elitist (which I'm not feeling well with), since it's something like: there is this real thing, it's massive, you will know it when you encounter it (and logically, as long as you didn't encounter it you missed something out); this has all the earmarks of religion (you could easily switch love with Jesus or something), and I'm not feeling well touting it, which is the reason why I don't insist on being right - there are too serious consequences with this kind of thing -, but my intent is just to allow for the possibility).
Quote:
So, the whole debate is just a question of WHEN to call it love. But I agree we reached a point where not much new can be added, so it's best to agree to disagree at certain points.
I'm not sure I get the correct meaning of your sentence.
*I* would have written: So the whole debate is just a question of when to call it LOVE.
Anyway - be that as it may, it would seem that a real debate would be possible only with a working definition.
Since you and Mvass are not only engaged in the discussion, but seem to think along the same lines for a couple of aspects, you may be able to come up with a satisfactory suggestion for a provisional definition? I'm open for tries. I could also try something, but only when there is interest to continue.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 04, 2014 10:58 PM |
|
|
|
Well, I think any attempt of a definition will not be necessarily wrong, it can even be interesting and original but certainly incomplete. As I said earlier, the variations on love caused by people's personality differences are too many for an ultimate definition.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2014 11:12 PM |
|
|
We don't need an ultimate definition, just one we can all accept.
Wiki is actually not that bad a start. I find the parts Biological Basis and Psychological Basis quite useful, and I think it should be possible toderive something from that.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 04, 2014 11:19 PM |
|
|
Just curious, how can you all agree on the definition of love when its so different amongst various fields ? (not even taking into consideration the subjective views of heterogeneity in all of us) 
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 04, 2014 11:36 PM |
|
|
|
Well, we don't actually, at this point.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 06:13 AM |
|
|
The problem with giving a definition is that, unless we're talking about something a priori like logic or math, it must ultimately point to something in the world. That's not a problem when the definition is of something concrete, for example, if you're trying to give the definition of "red", you can point to something red and say "the color of that". (Obviously, you can give the definition of "red" in terms of wavelength, but then you have to point to something in the world and say "That's a wave, and a wavelength is [etc].) The problem with doing that for love is that it's relatively easy to dispute whether something is an example of it. No one will argue if you say that red is the normal color of a stop sign, but if you say that love is the feeling felt towards each other by people in a stable long-term relationship, someone can always say "But isn't that contentment?", "But even long-term relationships end sometimes, so did they REALLY love each other?", and so on. If you try to define love as the feeling that motivates certain behaviors, someone can say "But people can do those things for other reasons", and/or make other objections.
This is why I think artu's questions are good - without getting into the territory of disputes about what love is, we try to figure out whether feelings change, and how. Then, once we establish that they do change as a relationship progresses, we can say that what the feeling changed into is love.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 06:23 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Well, we don't actually, at this point.
and none of you ever will. the osm has you. no escaping.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 07:42 AM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
Well, we don't actually, at this point.
You say Wiki would be a good start, since love relates to many things, in Wiki we rather find longer explanations, a lot of talk about stages, overlaps, categories... It's like the famous elephant metaphor where many blindfolded people grab an elephant from various parts and asked to define it. Anyway, in the psychological basis section there is a Zick Rubin who says 3 things constitute love, attachment, caring and intimacy. That would be a simple enough definition, at least to work on, I agree that these things constitute love (although not only these things, he left out passion among other things) and I don't think attachment or caring aspects of love can develop instantly. I also think it would help to clear out things, looking at the biological basis part where things are examined in three stages:
Lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust is the feeling of sexual desire; romantic attraction determines what partners mates find attractive and pursue, conserving time and energy by choosing; and attachment involves sharing a home, parental duties, mutual defense, and in humans involves feelings of safety and security.
At the risk of oversimplifying I would say, me and mvass don't call things love yet, at stage one. Because, if things stay at stage 1 and do not develop further, we can easily forget the person, replace her with another one, we may not even remember her after some time. It's a dud. You on the other hand, seem to see stage 2 and 3, completely caused by some unknown element in stage 1. I see no valid reason to assume that.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 10:42 AM |
|
|
artu said:
JollyJoker said:
Well, we don't actually, at this point.
You say Wiki would be a good start, since love relates to many things, in Wiki we rather find longer explanations, a lot of talk about stages, overlaps, categories... It's like the famous elephant metaphor where many blindfolded people grab an elephant from various parts and asked to define it. Anyway, in the psychological basis section there is a Zick Rubin who says 3 things constitute love, attachment, caring and intimacy. That would be a simple enough definition, at least to work on, I agree that these things constitute love (although not only these things, he left out passion among other things) and I don't think attachment or caring aspects of love can develop instantly. I also think it would help to clear out things, looking at the biological basis part where things are examined in three stages:
Lust, attraction, and attachment. Lust is the feeling of sexual desire; romantic attraction determines what partners mates find attractive and pursue, conserving time and energy by choosing; and attachment involves sharing a home, parental duties, mutual defense, and in humans involves feelings of safety and security.
At the risk of oversimplifying I would say, me and mvass don't call things love yet, at stage one. Because, if things stay at stage 1 and do not develop further, we can easily forget the person, replace her with another one, we may not even remember her after some time. It's a dud. You on the other hand, seem to see stage 2 and 3, completely caused by some unknown element in stage 1. I see no valid reason to assume that.
Lust (stage 1) is what draws two individuals together, its what sets the stage for, well stages 2,3, without its existence stages 2,3 will not come to exist either. How can you claim that stages 2,3 arent caused by elements of stage 1 is beyond me considering the fact that each stage leads and is necessary for the next stage...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 10:43 AM |
|
|
For me the biological basis is the most important thing - it's the foundation of our existance as a species, and if you have a closer look at the times the body chemisstry is influenced by the desire/passion and by the attraction phase, it's fairly obvious, that the first (couple of weeks) is just long enough to ensure reproduction (that is pregnancy), while the second is basically the time necessary to birth and breast-feed the resulting infant, until the infant is able to be sustained without breast-feeding.
The attachment thing is less clear, though. While with lust/attraction we clearly have the cause-effect relation of chemistry changes -> feeling, since it serves a primal purpose necessary for the species to survive, longer lasting attachment isn't strictly necessary for anything, so the question would be whether in this case the supposedly higher oxytocin levels would really be the cause of the effect attachment - or whether the attachment effect would be something else and cause higher levels of oxytocins.
Be that as it may, if the attachment thing would be supported at least by the higher oxytocin levels, then the question would be where the higher oxytocin levels come from.
One possible question relevant for love at first sight would be this: is it possible that in a case of love at first sight simply the higher oxytocin levels are there from the start? Togetheer with the other stuff?
That would be a simple explanation.
Psychologically, I like the intimacy/commitment/passion triangle better than the attachment/caring/intimacy one. I don't see something here that would make an extended time necessary to develop any of those factors over a minimum amount of time.
Fromm's definition of love being an action is a pretty good mirror of what we are doing here, since I like the definition: "love is ultimately not a feeling at all, but rather is a commitment to, and adherence to, loving actions towards another, oneself, or many others, over a sustained duration". Don't wonder: while "over a sustained duration" would look like not in my interest, I don't see the problem. With love at first sight the loving action swlould basically start immediately, and while they COULD stop at any time (which would mean, it wasn't love), if they continue, it's not only love, but even love at first sight.
Simply a matter of perspective.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 11:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Lust (stage 1) is what draws two individuals together, its what sets the stage for, well stages 2,3, without its existence stages 2,3 will not come to exist either. How can you claim that stages 2,3 arent caused by elements of stage 1 is beyond me considering the fact that each stage leads and is necessary for the next stage...
There's nothing in the quote that indicates first stage is necessarily an instant thing. If there was, what you claim would logically had to be not that love at first sight is possible but all love relations start at first sight. Which is a much broader claim and one with many contrary examples.
Secondly, even if we consider the first stage universal, reducing love to first stage would be like reducing the definition of your existence to the first living organism that ever existed. There's too much that happens in between.
Quote:
Psychologically, I like the intimacy/commitment/passion triangle better than the attachment/caring/intimacy one. I don't see something here that would make an extended time necessary to develop any of those factors over a minimum amount of time.
What is a minimum amount of time, I already stated that I'm not necessarily talking about 50 years or something like that... Just to be clear, do you think we can feel intimate and committed to a person in 2 minutes?
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 12:30 PM |
|
Edited by smithey at 12:31, 05 Jan 2014.
|
artu said:
Quote:
Lust (stage 1) is what draws two individuals together, its what sets the stage for, well stages 2,3, without its existence stages 2,3 will not come to exist either. How can you claim that stages 2,3 arent caused by elements of stage 1 is beyond me considering the fact that each stage leads and is necessary for the next stage...
There's nothing in the quote that indicates first stage is necessarily an instant thing. If there was, what you claim would logically had to be not that love at first sight is possible but all love relations start at first sight. Which is a much broader claim and one with many contrary examples.
Secondly, even if we consider the first stage universal, reducing love to first stage would be like reducing the definition of your existence to the first living organism that ever existed. There's too much that happens in between.
I never claimed a thing about love at first sight, nor have I said stage 1 = love, I think a mix of three stages is love and each stage is a vital one, with that being said IMO lust/attraction is the cornerstone for love hence also the obvious choice for stage 1 coz without it stages 2,3 wont happen (between strangers at least).
Im not sure how you hit on girls Artu, but I do it only if I am attracted to the girl (LUST/attraction), that is the first stage and it leads to stages 2,3 during which you explore all aspects of your potential partner, however if Im not attracted to the girl, I will not engage hence stages 2,3 will never occur...
You can not seperate either of the stages as they're all equally important however it is reasonable enough to assume they were given numbers with a purpose - stage 1 leads to stage 2 which leads to stage 3, exclude one of the stages and chances of the next one happening are diminished by default...
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 01:02 PM |
|
|
artu said:
What is a minimum amount of time, I already stated that I'm not necessarily talking about 50 years or something like that... Just to be clear, do you think we can feel intimate and committed to a person in 2 minutes?
Well, OBVIOUSLY: if we need only a fraction of a second to check a face for FAMILIARITY, we ARE obviously looking out for something that SIGNALS intimacy - something that allows to bridge the gap between 2 persons.
This is fairly difficult to pinpoint, but we might assume something like "thresholds" for all these elements: once the level of intimacy and commitment reaches a certain threshold it may "click", and something like love with all its consequences may be the result and may be realized as such.
However, relationships may well start on quite different levels here: love at first sight would mean quite high initial levels in that case.
So to answer your question: I wouldn't know about 2 minutes, that is, I wouldn't want to be nailed on that exact amount of time. I would tend to say, yes, but the 2 minutes would really have to be worth it.
If I was have to give a time myself, I'd say something like an evening (or the equivalent of it), which would be a couple of hours. If that doesn't qualify as love at first sight, I'd be too uncertain: I'd wager, if 2 minutes would qualify the people in question would opt to spend more time with each other, so in practise the time span would always or nearly always exceed two hours.
So say, you are a student and enter the library; you happen to stumble upon another student and have a muted two-minute conversation about the mishap that just happened ... if there WAS something high-level going on, they would immediately arrange something, like immediately having a coffee or meeting in the evening to continue the conversation.
In that case a clear distinction, whether everything was there after two minutes or whether things were clear after the first real date would be rather difficult.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 03:02 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 15:04, 05 Jan 2014.
|
Quote:
I never claimed a thing about love at first sight, nor have I said stage 1 = love, I think a mix of three stages is love and each stage is a vital one, with that being said IMO lust/attraction is the cornerstone for love hence also the obvious choice for stage 1 coz without it stages 2,3 wont happen (between strangers at least).
Im not sure how you hit on girls Artu, but I do it only if I am attracted to the girl (LUST/attraction), that is the first stage and it leads to stages 2,3 during which you explore all aspects of your potential partner, however if Im not attracted to the girl, I will not engage hence stages 2,3 will never occur...
Sorry, since that is the main discussion, I thought your objection was also a position about love at first sight.
About stage one being the cornerstone, that's true if you're in a bar or something but not so true if we're talking about a classmate or co-worker. In that situation, you may fall for her as time goes by, especially if she is into you and she's aiming for that. (Yes, we are easy.) I remember when I was like 17 or 18, in school, there was this girl that wasn't much of a looker but she was very feminine once you got to know her and the first woman that I actually
had wonderful conversations with, so in time I fell totally in love with her.
JJ said:
Well, OBVIOUSLY: if we need only a fraction of a second to check a face for FAMILIARITY, we ARE obviously looking out for something that SIGNALS intimacy - something that allows to bridge the gap between 2 persons.
This is fairly difficult to pinpoint, but we might assume something like "thresholds" for all these elements: once the level of intimacy and commitment reaches a certain threshold it may "click", and something like love with all its consequences may be the result and may be realized as such.
Well, contextually, in the wiki quote intimacy is not meant as familiarity based on face recognition or something like that... It's meant as something more like closeness.
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 03:32 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Quote:
I never claimed a thing about love at first sight, nor have I said stage 1 = love, I think a mix of three stages is love and each stage is a vital one, with that being said IMO lust/attraction is the cornerstone for love hence also the obvious choice for stage 1 coz without it stages 2,3 wont happen (between strangers at least).
Im not sure how you hit on girls Artu, but I do it only if I am attracted to the girl (LUST/attraction), that is the first stage and it leads to stages 2,3 during which you explore all aspects of your potential partner, however if Im not attracted to the girl, I will not engage hence stages 2,3 will never occur...
Sorry, since that is the main discussion, I thought your objection was also a position about love at first sight.
About stage one being the cornerstone, that's true if you're in a bar or something but not so true if we're talking about a classmate or co-worker. In that situation, you may fall for her as time goes by, especially if she is into you and she's aiming for that. (Yes, we are easy.) I remember when I was like 17 or 18 in school, there was this girl that wasn't much of a looker but she was very feminine once you got to know her and the first woman that I actually
had wonderful conversations with, so in time I fell totally in love with her.
I think you're dead wrong, both classmates and co-workers I asked out coz I found them to be attractive, what you're describing is a simple case of being chosen by the woman, which just means you're a bit less assertive than me when it comes to women (I have a few friends like you).
Of course there are cases in which people start as friends (however I believe that in most cases we become friends with females due to some sort of attraction to them) and fall in love but in a same manner there are cases in which people skip both the stage 1 and 2 - arranged marriages for example, and only then regress to stages 1&2...
This is however not the "formal" behavior, alpha male sees and takes what he wants hence stage 1 must be the cornerstone regardless of the location. Club, workplace, school, it doesnt matter, men are hunters, a big part of who we are is dependant on assuming that role as primitive as it might sound...
If a girl just lets me know we're together it kinda takes the accomplishment out of it (effortless = less worthy), and that "accomplishment" also does wonders for the girl (he really wanted me hence he courted me for so long). Thats how things work in nature and we are nothing but evolved animals...
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted January 05, 2014 03:43 PM |
|
|
|
But a clever woman wont necessarily tell you that, she can still make you think it was all your idea or she can be the kind of woman that gets attraction of any men once she starts to speak. We remained friends for years to come, although she was not a looker, she could make many men fall in love with her. Besides, forget about her intentions, you can simply fall as time goes by, regardless of what she wants. It wasn't about being less assertive (although I admit I can get shy sometimes), and it was like "I think of us when I hear the songs" kind of stuff. I'm not saying things don't work like stage 1, 2, 3 in order, I'm saying it's not the only way.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
