...what does that say about the human need for companionship and love?

Our genes give us the desire for sex... that is a given, but with the ample ways to buy or fake (prostitution and masterbation), why do we still strive for that perfect union between two loving adults? how does the concept of romantic love fit in an egotistical mind (this operating under the premise that an egotistic mind is the basis of humanity consciousness and also remains self serving for the duration of said consciousness)?

doea love boost ego's? hmm, i never really consider this aspect of love, i just always figured that love completes a vast majority of an individual: their desire for sex, their emotional need for connection, etc.....
it is already a given that lust boost ego's, and although lust sometimes coincide with love, i do not think a relationship firmly planted in love would boost an ego....for love, true love, is simply that pure metaphysical connection between two people, the highest feeling anyone could ever ahieve, and although that is something to be egotistical about, if it were indeed true love such feelings would merely be the afterthought, hence sometimes never considered, of love......
so perhaps love, true love, does not, or at least should not boost ego's; however, i would be a fool to say that they do not......

Why do we thrive on the perfect union? Because of the symbolism of it, I guess. I could go into the bathroom right now and beat off...but to go and be with my girlfriend and make love is something totally different...

I suppose its the attitude with which you deal with sex. My girlfriend and I's goals deal with making each other feel good. She makes me feel very, very good, but thats nothing unless I have also made her feel the same. If your wish is for the other person to benefit, then it is something totally different from prostitution or masturbation. It is a sign of caring, by putting your partner's pleasure above yours. If you just want to get aroused and feel good, then you might just as well beat it or buy it or something.

yes, but where does this need to attend come from? is it not socialized? have we not been taught to please to be pleased? is that not just a cue for subservience?

and what is true love and who can ever really feel it?

being that the love of my life just basically told me to go away a few days ago, i am now convinced that True Love only exists for those who are ignorant of it, to those who do not seek it, like myself.......as for the whole pleasing to be pleased, i don't know, i am not lying when i say i once got a girl off eleven times to my zero, and that with this last girl i actually found her g-spot and guided her to having a vaginal orgasm rather than clitoral......why do i share these things, in one way i am very pleased that i have done these things, but in another way i suppose i hold it against them with the intention of gaining something in return.......for example, this last girl is a little more involved with lust than love, whereas i am love than lust; therefore, my guiding her body to the appex of lust could have been an intentional response to get her to love me, as oppopsed to getting her to perform some physcially pleasing aspect......

now you're starting to see my perspective... you wanted something from her and pleased her to get it... you said you wanted love, but did you ever truely feel it? if love is supposed to be unselfish, why did you expect it in return for sexual gratification?

"All these things shall love do unto you that you may know the secrets of your heart, and in that knowledge become a fragment of Life's heart.

But if in your fear you would seek only love's peace and love's pleasure,
Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love's threshing-floor,

Into the seasonless world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears."

Kahlil Gibran

This reminds me of B grade films with the classic scene of someone trying to show a blind person what colours are. Sorry to be down on the whole feel good scene of it, but "red is hot" "blue is cool" is crap.

The same holds true for "love". I cannot recall the number of times Ive been in debates about "love" in which Im told I dont know what "true love" is because I see it differently. Classic/recent example being that of a girl who suicided over a lost "love". There are quite a few billion of us on this planet. To think that you have found the ultimate union that no one else will ever feel is arrogant to say the least. Therefore, continuing with this it has to hold true that this can be extremely varied.

My only point is that blue is not cool and red is not hot, they are just reflected light. Love in me isnt love in you. "Justice".

Anyways, on a personal level I think love is always ego boosting. If you think so much of your partner to call it love you must be proud of them and hence proud to be with them.
But that is only opinion not a statement of fact.

Regards,
Vahl

PS: I really like the bunnies.

really? as for the post... interesting point, but i believe it is easier to just debunk the feeling via the principle of ego... yes, i realize that everyone has their own definition, but it is by amalgamting these definitions that we have a collective reality...

Honestly, love is as much a cultural construct as anything else is. The need to love someone (especially in our 21st century form of the word "love") is shaped by the romantic and liberal bourgeois notion of love that is shaped in the 19th century. We don't have to love anyone. We choose to because that is what society wants us to. In much of the past we were merely given mates..and that is how society functioned. The notion of love has changed so much that we feel a pressure from the outside to love. I think in some cases we need love, but that is really more of the function of our ego. I think the Greeks in some senses had it right when they said that one is the beloved, and one is the lover, there is no equilibrium in the doling out of love.

ah... we are all objects of another's self interest? what of those who are never sought?

yeah, what about me?

Love is for fools. I can say this with all honesty, because I was one of those fools...I wasted many years pursuing a hopeless dream...now, I just want a blow job....I really don't think man needs love to survive. I survived on love, and lost it, and know I will never love again. I only want companionship....and a blow job... (This viewpoint is subject to change without notice)

I guess it's entirely possible for a human being to go without contact of another human being, but I'd assume that in most cases, people interact. Can people interact without love so much that we don't become objects of desire? Perhaps, but that innate sexual drive would force us to equate something with desire (i'd assume). Speaking in a purely economical sense, we are all objects of capitalism's desire. We are all objects of political desire. We are all objects of our own desire. As far as those who are not sought "lovingly, or desierably" perhaps we can say, then that loneliness is in love with them. Perhaps no one is really sought after because of desire for passion or love, but to escape loneliness.

hmmm... how existential.

i think what the issue is when discussing love is everybody has their own definition...some equate love with sex and others equate love with an emotional need for each other. Then there's the concept of what kind of love...romantic, friendly, unrequited, on and on...humanity has a desire to name and label everything, and if something doesn't apply to pre conceived notions it's a new label...and then those who are willing to "create" their own belief about a society endorsed vision, are frowned upon, labeled as sexually emotional devients, even accused of much more "heinous" crimes against "true love".

I agree that the vision of "true love" everyone seems to hold as the ideal life of bliss and perfect soul mates in the world is over romanticized...true love isn't like that...it's loving all the reality with the rose tint, having to love yourself before you are strong enough to love another...when you are spiritually ready you will get what you need to grow...but it's all a harvest...and not all love is romantic and yes i believe love can exist completely separate of sex...we are just animals after all the fancy darwinism is taken away...

Random User


Registered: Nov 2001
Location:
Posts: 51
Status: Online



I guess it's entirely possible for a human being to go without contact of another human being, but I'd assume that in most cases, people interact. Can people interact without love so much that we don't become objects of desire? Perhaps, but that innate sexual drive would force us to equate something with desire (i'd assume). Speaking in a purely economical sense, we are all objects of capitalism's desire. We are all objects of political desire. We are all objects of our own desire. As far as those who are not sought "lovingly, or desierably" perhaps we can say, then that loneliness is in love with them. Perhaps no one is really sought after because of desire for passion or love, but to escape loneliness


very interesting, yet what happens when one does fall in love, even if it was just the bi-product from escaping loneliness? surely this could be "true love"; however, if it could be agreed upon that the first feeling of love, for we have all had that "one," is "true love," could it be possible to meet someone (escaping loneliness) and feel a stronger love, thereby the "one" was not really the "one" at all......is this then "true love?"

therefore, I ask what of those people that happen to spend their life with their "one"....could this be a misconceived notion of "true love"? (for there may not exist the love of lonliness)