Jump to content

Being in love


Recommended Posts

yesterday I read some véry interesting theory about being in love. To make it short:

being in love is a natural instinct. Thousands of years ago (when we were still apes :P) being in love was necessary because it makes you wanting sex. If two strange people in that time met each other, they have to make sure they won't die out but survive, and they have to make childs. So being in love is just a help for having sex and make sure we don't die out.

So we can conclude that being in love is only something which makes us wanting sex.

Well - I'm terribly in love at the moment, but i really DON'T want sex. How do you think about this? If you put is this way, it means we could never be in love... I don't agree with that. Please let me know how you feel about this!

Link to post
Share on other sites
orderinchaos

I don't agree either. In fact my best relationships have been loving, but non-sexual. I guess we developed a respect for each other that wasn't compromised by stuff down below.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I also disagree, though I think that this oversimplification is made all too often. The emotional perpensity of people to rely very strongly on others makes it's own sense from a survivalist standpoint: there's strength in numbers, and families/communites are more likely to be able to survive if they work collectively. I would argue that we're actually EXTREMELY instinctually tooled for collective existance (maybe I'm just a sociology major) and that means relying on others, which means love. The notion of being "in love" as we're talking about it really only dates back to the advent of industrialization (and therefore can't be talked about in prehistoric terms)- two people forming an strong mutual bond and running off to create a nuclear family.

Link to post
Share on other sites
VivreEstEsperer

right...

A. being in love doesn't necessarily require sex...

and

B. i really liked that argument someone gave somewhere along the way that asexuals are god's plan for population control... (that we have a special function of our own)... :)

goodnight

Kate

Link to post
Share on other sites
guardianoftheblind

One can also counter that idea by looking at things from the other direction. A significant number of humans have no problem with having sex and reproducing without love being involved. It seems to me theories like that are attempts to successfully give purpose to universal experiences. I would say this theory doesn't successfully give purpose to the concept at hand, neither does it describe a completely universal experience. Not everyone who has sex is in love, not everyone who is in love has sex, and not everyone experiences sex and love in the first place.

AVENguy's idea of love as a means towards collective existence sounds interesting, many humans have been pack animals for centuries. This could be a separate discussion in itself, but it would be interesting to look at humans compared to other animals. Do other creatures besides humans form emotional bonds with their mates, particularly pack animals? I'm not sure about that. I am pretty convinced though that some other animals do form a sort of protective relationship with their children, that could be examined to be love or not. One final point about humans vs other creatures, do members of any other species have sex simply for pleasure? But then again, I'm not so sure if it's a great idea to compare humans to animals, since a homophobic arguement often used is there aren't any gay animals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eta Carinae
One final point about humans vs other creatures, do members of any other species have sex simply for pleasure?

Yes. Dolphins do, at least in captivity, and certain other types of primates do (bonobos, I believe, but don't quote me on that or even assume I spelled it correctly).

Link to post
Share on other sites
One final point about humans vs other creatures, do members of any other species have sex simply for pleasure?

Yes. Dolphins do, at least in captivity, and certain other types of primates do (bonobos, I believe, but don't quote me on that or even assume I spelled it correctly).

Yes, I knew that too... and did you know a pig has an orgasm of half an hour? (sorry, just had to post it ;))

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
ishouldbelockedinaninsane

I've never been in love with any but myself that I am aware of. Maybe God. But definitely no other. I sometimes say I am in love but I dont think it implys the same things as most people believe it does, and that is why I don't have any friends. <giggles>

Link to post
Share on other sites

even if i did believe in the whole ape theory (which i don't), i'd have to say that that's why humans have evolved.

at, least, WE have. don't know about the other neanderthals we share the planet w/.

as i've said before, there ARE other ways to be intimate w/ people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

*throws back head & laughs ass off*

gotcha......... :D :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
there are gay animals, at least occansionally. some apes, some birds, some fish.

I think all mammals, at least, have roughly the same percetages of homosexuality as humans. (Where did I read/hear that? I don't remember...)

And, of course, you could always take the Vonnegut/Slaughterhouse Five approach and argue that there are seven genders that are used to make a baby (in most terrestrial species, anyway...), but we don't/can't see them for whatever reason. :wink:

And some monkeys masturbate...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

i'm going to have to go with [aury, i think said it?] the idea that we have evolved. our brains have evolved in such a way that we are capable of thinking, feeling, organizing, learning, etc. in away that animals cannot. and one of the things that has evolved with that is the ability to love.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, we needed sex for the whole evolution thing, but we're not evolving anymore, so I say, who needs sex?

We are not all immortal yet :?

And who says we stopped evolving? We are, in subtle ways. I don't think you can have have a period when a species is static in terms of evolution. Unless somehow they're all exact replicas of one another. In that case they'd be a group of clones, and not a species. I think.

Not to say I think anyone needs sex. We don't. NO SEX. Let the population dwindle for all I care! There's too many of us anyway. I'm sure the planet could stand to have a few million (billion?) fewer humans on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Julie, too bad we don't get to choose WHICH billion goes!

Cate

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...