@Argoyle
"I don't know if there is a set minimum amount of time that needs to pass before it can be love, but I do agree that it is not instant nor immediate."

Don't know about the minimum amount of time either but the feeling of falling in love lasts about 2 - 3 years and after that there is either loving or nothing. And by nothing I mean "because we're so used to being together, it feels kind of nice and I don't want to seek for another partner" kind of thing. I had that with my ex boyfriend and didn't realize it before he wanter to break up. When we moved in together I was like planning how the future should be together (like marriage and kids etc.) but LUCKILY he had different thoughts and got another girlfriend before we even broke up. We wre together for five years.

Luckily? I'd never had a chance to meet a person who left me after a very short while. What makes that lucky? I had never had the chance to really get things going in last December with the guy I'm with now. We first met almost 7 years ago and never told each other we had a crush but were thinking of the possibility for years. He lives 5000 miles away so.. I'm not thinking anything like "this is meant to be" or such crap but with him it was always different than with other people.

And because we live so far away from each other we are already planning the future as in marriage in 2013 and stuff. It's really difficult to get to America not to mention how difficult it is to be there more than 90 days at a time and the long-term visas are veeery difficult to get. But no, we're not too stupid young people and getting married right away just to be together, I'm spending three months with him this spring and I'm sure that will give a little hint of what it would be like.

There was some nice conversation here about being lesbian or asexual or just not being interested in relationships before the love found you etc. I've always been such a girl who just freaks out and panics when guys show they're interested. It's weird even when I'd want it myself I have felt like I should run away so I could think clrearly. I think my problem always was that I was afraid getting hurt.

I don't believe in love.
I think being happy and in love is just one tactic from many tactics nature and evolution hold for us.
There are all sort of "tactics" for nature to make us live and make children, not all of them are happy ending.
So if love is true for you, it doesn't mean it's true for others.

Quote:
Exactly, most of what we think is love is nothing more than someone playing with your feelings

@sargon: The problem I have with that explanation is that it doesn't explain homosexuality and/or sterile couples feelings.

Going from that definition, sterile people's feelings should fade away completely every time since there's no way for them to have kids naturally.

Even more so with homosexuals as childbearing is impossible naturally.

KTC: could be that just because one instinct (reproduction-ish) is missing the others aren't.

Then again, it's been fairly well established that it's impossible to change a decision if you've based your identity around it... And since any homosexual progress organization encourages that (It was so officially a couple decades ago, nowadays it's become cultural) there may be no explanation of homosexuality or the nonexistence thereof since all attempts at that ignore one of the most important logical/scientific principles, Occam's razor.

tl;dr: All theories on the subject are wrong, no matter what they say, because their methodology/reasoning is flawed. People are just too heated on the subject.




Quote:

Agreed
All love is is people playing with each others feelings... at least initially, until the game went horribly out of control so now neither person has a choice but to keep making the other person want him/her / happy. Unless one/both choose(s) to destroy each other and him/her self/selves by destroying the feeling/quitting.

Edit: Err, I tried to qoute KTC...


That's not true.
For instance, the greeks were homosexual, but they still had children.
And there are gay couples today who have children with a surrgate mother.
Regarding sterile couples, I think evolution tactics are not always straight forward or plain to see.
For instance, you do you care for your brother's children? They are not your own? So here is an example of someone who can care of someone else's children even if he don't have a children of his own.
Part of the evolutional tactics are... negative... for instance... murder and genocide come to mind...

I think one of the main reasons I don't believe in love is that there are very realistic, very unromantic reasons why we love each other. Although our brains deceive us to think there is something beyond than just mutual selfishness.

@Sargon

Homosexuality in Ancient Greek is not really comparable to today's homosexuality.

Oh you did not just compare ancient greek 'homosexuality' to today's concept of homosexuality. They are nothing alike. I've explained the differences between them about three times on the forum and do not feel like doing it again. Research it. They are not comparable.

Evolution: you said that love and related feelings are to "live and make children...". That is quite different from caring for another's child. (And is an argument for homosexuals are defective but that's a different issue).

Sterile individuals and gays cannot have kids naturally. This argument doesn't make sense for fertile couples who choose not to have kids for whatever reasons. Again, the love component should fade away because they cannot/will not have kids if we follow this reasoning.

Perhaps its my inner unrealistic romantic side talking, but I am very hesitant to simplify love (oversimplify it imo) it as merely a way to facilitate baby-making since it does not explain the large amounts of exceptions in homo sapiens and other species.

Lust? Perhaps. There must be a physical attractions somewhere. But Love? Hmmmm.

Quote:
Pederasty was different than homosexuality. See, one partner was an adult, the other was NOT. Plus, it wasn't based on love!

Oh right,
Well, anyway, I ment evolutional tactics are not obvious.
For instance, a person who may not want to have children simpley removes himself from the gene pool. Evolution can be achieved in negative ways as well.
Bottom line there are children, however they were created (and survived) does not matter.
If someone kills himself, that's part of evolution, he just removed himself from the gene pool.
If someone kills someone's else child, that's part of evolution. Animals in nature kill offsprings of other males of the same species. Why do animals kill other males' offspring? Have you thought of that?

What I mean is, having a relationship with love and loving your children and give them a good home, is just one tactic out of many evolutional tactics.
Other tactics can be a lot more violent and negative.
That is why not everyone seek love, and why not everyone want love. Because from an evolutional stand of point, having a good loving relationship is not the only right way to live our life and "Serving evolution" by making children. Removing ourselves and others from the gene pool is also part of evolution.

@sargon:
First off: Suicide isn't evolution. What an individual's genes are is irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is dependent on a population change in the gene pool, if we follow the Natural selection model. It's fine and dandy if you have a good mutation but that doesn't change the population as a whole and will not affect the species development. As a whole, I'm hesitant to even apply natural selection to humans since many of the advancements of humans are against it. More people now than ever before are no longer dying of life threatening diseases, injuries, or other mishaps that would have otherwise gotten rid of 'defective' people. Because of medicine and what not, I'd be more incline to think humans are becoming stagnant rather than evolving. I do not see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand which is love.

Second: Several species of animals will kill their own cubs for any variety of reasons. See male lions and dolphins for more examples. Also, I can name a lot of animals who do not care about the male's offspring or not. From the top of my head: insects. Again I do not see how this is relevant to the discussion at hand.

3rd: I feel like I'm repeating this about 3 different times. I'm still not getting where love = baby making machines as I've already named fertile couples who for whatever reason refuse to have kids. There are plenty of people who hook up but will not have kids. Furthermore, it doesn't explain why sterile/gay couples stay together despite the lack of children. These are all rather big exceptions.

So again, I think your explanation is far to simple to explain love. Love, if it was only to facilitate babies, will mean that any couple without kids should break up fast since the kids part of the equation isn't fulfilled. Does that happen? Yes, but the opposite happens a lot too ie they stay together.

KTC, think of love in a broader way.
Love is not to make you have babies, it's a tactic to make you... help certain people survive. Whether those are your own children, someone else's children, or other people anywhere at any age.
Hate, is the other side of the coin, it's a tactic trying to hold down people.
My claim is that both those emotions are related to the "tactics of evolution" to make certain people survive and other become extinct.
So it's not directly related to making kids, it's about loving those "you want" to survive, and hating those "you want" to be extinct(in a subconciouss manner).


(I have seen the nations rise and fall, I have heard their stories I heard them all, but love is the only engine of survival)

Sargon you're completely contradicting yourself. In part of your post you say that you don't believe in love. and then you say it's just one of nature's many tactics for reproduction. It's either real or it isn't, there's no halfway. People die for love, people do crazy, crazy stupid things for love.

Dying for something is the complete opposite of evolution, you're evolutionarily hardwired to protect your life and limbs before ALL else.

Also, You're posting a lot without making clear points. I find your last post lacking a rebuttal or an opinion. In order to stay on track without wandering, changing the topic or blindsiding people with "other stuff" you should post clear opinions or rebuttals while backing them up and providing evidence or sources.

I think if I post the six classical forms of love it might help out a little:

Eros is physical attraction, love at first sight.
Storge is love that developes over time, based on similar likes and proximity.
Ludus is a collector of loves, a player, a contest.
Pragma is based entirely on rational and reasoning, while lacking heart.
Mania is obsaessive, controlling and jealous love.
Agape is classified as selfless and spiritual love.

My stating of "I don't believe in love" is kind of an anti romantic - fatalist statement.
I didn't say "Love doesn't exist", I said I don't believe in it.
And I have a point in my previous post, you probably just missed.
The point was love is one of many evolutional tactics, so is hate.
It relates to the discussion in the sense that not all individuals use the same tactics, and thus not everyone will really pursue loving someone.
And if love was such a wonderful and mystical thing, then why not everyone want it\need it?
I can't see any other explaination for love except for an evolotional mechanism.
Do you have any other explaination?
That is the point.

I didn't miss the point in your post, you just repeated what you said five posts up. Again.

I don't have an explanation for love, no one possibly can, but I can certainly point out how love is definitely not an evolutionary tactic to further the species, as well as the flaws in your logic. (:

Evolutionary tactics would be the continued survival of the species by increasing the size and biodiversity of the gene pool and any possible genetic mutations that may be beneficial to the species, correct?

Romantic and sexual love does the complete opposite, it limits your sexual partners as well as anyone you're reproducing with. Therefore reducing the size of the species gene pool, which is counterproductive. it's essentially discrimination based off physical appearance, personaility, pheromones, compatability, etc, etc, etc.

Also, I saw no responce to my comment about people dying for love. How would you explain that, if love were in fact just an evolutionary tactic? Survival is a must in terms of evolution. So how could it be that an evolutionary tactic would lead to you to perish?

I repeat myself because you seem to fail to understand my arguments.
Evolution is not survival of as many as possible, it's survival of "the best".
That means if someone dies for love, he just removes himself from the gene pool because he is not "good enough" to survive.
The reason love makes it a lot harder to find a partner, is because part of evolution(natural selection) is to find THE BEST partner, not just any partner.
And as I mentioned, evolution in the macro scale is not just making babies, it is also "removing the weak" from the gene pool.
It's kind of cruel, but it fits with the cruelty of man kind.

Quote:

I understand the conclusion you're trying to make, I simply disagree. You've used faulty logic to arrive at your conclution and I also believe your personal bias is influencing it, which brings me to: Are you in a committed long-term relationship? (: and how desirable would you say you are to the opposite sex? (or the same sex, I assume you're straight.)

Quote:

In order for survival of the fittest to take place you need quite a bit of genetic diversity, which would be better suited by having offspring with multiple partners. so ideally, I believe evolution would take this path. Not limiting sexual partners which is what love does.

Quote:

I'm sorry, this doesn't even make sense.

Have you ever heard of people who insist their partner is attractive, even though generally that person is seen as average or below-average in looks? Love blinds, and people do stupid things for it. If a man dies in place of his wife, it's not because he's evolutionarily inferior, because quite simply in natural selection there is no way to reasonably define inferior vs. superior. even if a specimen is pysically weaker than it's counterparts, a simple genetic mutation changing the color of it's body can result in the weaker specimens survival and death to the physicaly superior partner.

I am not the most expert on eveolution, this is stuff I have read on the internet.
But basically you can have two people where one person is "Better" than the other person in all aspects(genetically). At least as much as evolution is concerned.
Some partners will bring you healthier, stronger, smarter offsprings, and part of natural selection is that fact that these people are more attractive and desired.
Can you have someone "weak" that makes a big difference? Sure, our world is a lot less "fair" or different than the environment humans have lived at for the last few thoudsands of years.
It can be a lot better to have one "genetically superior" partner than many "lesser" ones.
I am not sure, these two tactics might be viable though. One would prefer many lesser partners, and the other would prefer the best single partner he\she can get.

To be honest, I am not sure all of this true, I am just saying your assumption that evolution means needing to have as many partners as possible is wrong. And thus you can't prove by that that love is in contradiction to evolution.

Quote:

Completely ludicrous.

Evolution has no concious or intellegence, it's not a being that can calculate the genetic superiority of one individual to another. There is absolutly no way to calculate genetic superiority unless you're speaking of a specific variable or trait, such as comparing someone who has sickle cell to someone without it.

KTC has already talked about people who will choose partners with whom no offspring is possible. And i don't feel like beating a dead horse but following your logic, these people are removing themselves from the gene pool because they are genetically inferior.

Even with sickle cell, it's not as clear cut since depending on the environment, it might be actually beneficial to be heterozygous for sickle cell rather than completely normal.

For example, people with both a sickle cell allele and a normal cell allele survive better in areas with malaria.