Exploring the Reality of Love: Perspectives from Science and Society

  • Thread starter Carly
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Love
In summary, Warren believes that love is real and that it can be identified with a chemical state in the brain. He also believes that love is great when it is taken to the bedroom.
  • #71
The_Professional said:
Sounds like they broke up with you. Perhaps you're bitter due to past experiences..

That might make sense...if it was true. Well, actually one of them did. The other two didn't. Either way, don't see how that's applicable. Two of them i broke up with because i got bored being with them--i'm sorry to say, it sounds callous, but that is what it came down to.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Ivan Seeking said:
Of course, as soon as Tsu saw me she was a helpless, but I was a complete gentleman. :smile: :smile: :smile:


Yeah, sure :rolleyes:
 
  • #73
franznietzsche said:
I wasn't saying what they felt wasn't real, I'm saying that it was nothing special. When they were saying these things after as little as 3 weeks(well, one of them anyway), that would be a logical conlcusion.

After only 3 weeks, they were probably confusing lust with love. It happens often among the young, as Ivan has already noted. I don't believe in love at first sight, I do believe in lust at first sight. Love takes a little more time to develop. You're still young, so it's not at all surprising that you haven't found real love yet.

I want an equal and a challenge.

What i want is a person who is fully my equal. A person who when my mind kicks into its machiavellian mode isn't even fazed, and walks right through every hoop with ease--a worthy opponent in the art of verbal fencing so to speak.

I'm not so sure about the "challenge" part, but looking for someone you consider your equal is important. However, keep in mind that finding your equal may not mean finding someone exactly like yourself, but instead, someone who complements you. She may have strengths you lack and weaknesses which are your strengths. Try to keep your mind open to that possibility. That's all part of what dating is about, finding out about a person enough to decide if they are someone you are compatible with or not. There's nothing wrong with taking your time to find the right person. True love doesn't happen all that often. You'll know it's real when it's like nothing else you've ever felt before, and only gets better every day you're with the person who stirs that feeling in you.
 
  • #74
Complicated explanations. Why not just let it happen? If it does, that's wonderful. If it doesn't, move on. I'd rather be alone than apologize for why I'm not.
 
  • #75
franznietzsche said:
I want an equal and a challenge.

What i want is a person who is fully my equal. A person who when my mind kicks into its machiavellian mode isn't even fazed, and walks right through every hoop with ease--a worthy opponent in the art of verbal fencing so to speak.

And I've never met one.

You don't need a girlfriend, you need a debating society.
 
  • #76
"Do you feel love is real?"

No, I feel love is a mixture of real and imaginary. Love is complex!
 
  • #77
the number 42 said:
You don't need a girlfriend, you need a debating society.


Yeah, i get bored at those too.
 
  • #78
I don't think a girl who'll constantly argue, nag and debate is good long term relationship material. After a while of incessant debating, arguing, nagging you'll get sick of her too
 
  • #79
the number 42 said:
You don't need a girlfriend, you need a debating society.

:smile: That's only what he thinks he needs. What he really needs is one who will put up with him and when he gets too full of himself can just tell him, "Shut up and kiss me."

franz, there's more to life than academics and debating. I hope you'll find a woman who can show you how to not take everything in life quite so seriously.
 
  • #80
the number 42 said:
You don't need a girlfriend, you need a debating society.
I was thinking along the lines of a sparring partner.

But that would seem to be a mutually destructive relationship. :rolleyes:
 
  • #81
Moonbear said:
"Shut up and kiss me."

Mooners, I remember a time when you could barely bring yourself to whisper the word 'reproduction'. Now its all "lets all have a massage" and "kiss me kiss me". I was a bit wary of you during your nun phase, but there seems to be some sort of rebound effect kicking in. That or you are running trials on Prozac at your lab? :biggrin:
 
  • #82
franznietzsche said:
Yeah, i get bored at those too.

What about a debating society in a skirt?
 
  • #83
Astronuc said:
I was thinking along the lines of a sparring partner.

But that would seem to be a mutually destructive relationship. :rolleyes:

Hmmm. I can't see how a girl punching the living solids out of me could be much of a turn on. It would only be mutually destructive if I could get a couple of low blows and rabbit punches in. (Did I just say "low blows"?).
 
  • #84
franznietzsche said:
Its not a question of what i experience. Using anecdotal evidence is horribly unscientific, i would think by now i should have established that that is the sort of thing i would not do, use my own anecdotal experience as evidence.

Its about what i can objectively observe around me.

It completely is a question of what you experience! Unless you think you have solved the problem of other minds, that is. One cannot fully understand what it feels like to be in love, or to feel any other kind of subjective experience for that matter, unless one has experienced the relevant quality for one's self. (Some might argue that a complete, objective neuroscientific description of the brain would give us a complete understanding of subjective experience, but as we do not have such a complete neuroscientific description, this contention is irrelevant to the immediate conversation here.)

I've had three girlfriends that were at one point all ready to start planning a wedding date, one right after the other.

What did it take to get there? Nothing at all really. Let's face the facts: I'm abrasive, egotistical. I have a superiority complex that makes john nash appear humble. Quite simply I'm an arsehole. and yet, all of them "loved" me. Simply because i knew the right things to say at the right time. Because i knew what was attractive and what wasn't. All of them made a big deal about the distinction between "lust" and "love", but all of them "loved" me. Not because love was anything magical, just because i knew what to say when.

My conclusion? "Love" is cheap, and nothing special. It is as easily gotten as it is lost.

Is that anything more than anecdotal evidence?

In any case, since you cannot have leapt into your former girlfriends' minds, you cannot know what it was that they were emotionally experiencing. Very likely, at least one of them did feel genuine emotions for you, and not just in a lusty way. The relatively short lasting, brightly burning feeling of "being in love" can be ignited in short term circumstances. The question of under what conditions this emotion can be 'turned on' for certain people does not address the experiential quality of the feeling itself. The feeling of "being in love" or "romantic love" itself, as other people have described, is probably one of the most wonderful and intoxicating emotions a human can experience; it is really quite different from feeling lust. One who has experienced both emotions will be quick to tell you as much.
 
  • #85
hypnagogue, I just noticed your location. While your in there, please find out what's going on. I'd like to know - sought of a sanity check, if you will. :smile:
 
  • #86
franznietzsche said:
I want an equal and a challenge.

What i want is a person who is fully my equal. A person who when my mind kicks into its machiavellian mode isn't even fazed, and walks right through every hoop with ease--a worthy opponent in the art of verbal fencing so to speak.

And I've never met one.

Dude, you're 17, aren't you? How many girls have you been even peripherally involved with that weren't teenagers? Plenty of women of the type you describe are out there (though admittedly, I generally found them outside of southern California). You have to consider that men who are arseholes like yourself tend to attract weak-minded women that crave abuse. I'd be wary of anyone that was attracted to me if I were you. It would be better if you found someone that you were actually attracted to (and not just physically, as there is an obvious mental component that sounds important to you). It's easy to be confident when confronted with a woman who will fall for you no matter what. If you really want to call yourself confident, find someone who is a challenge. Don't just wait for her to come along; challenge yourself, and don't try to tell me that you can't find a single person that fits your criteria. I know they're out there.
 
  • #87
Astronuc said:
hypnagogue, I just noticed your location. While your in there, please find out what's going on. I'd like to know - sought of a sanity check, if you will. :smile:

That's meant more as a tongue in cheek way of saying that your acquaintance with me is nothing more than your internal mental construct of who I am. So technically, I suppose you could imagine how I might assess what's going on in your head given what you think you know about who I am and how I think, but for this delicate matter I advise sticking with your own self-construct of Astronuc as opposed to using Astronuc-simulating-hypnagogue. :wink:
 
  • #88
the number 42 said:
Mooners, I remember a time when you could barely bring yourself to whisper the word 'reproduction'. Now its all "lets all have a massage" and "kiss me kiss me". I was a bit wary of you during your nun phase, but there seems to be some sort of rebound effect kicking in. That or you are running trials on Prozac at your lab? :biggrin:

:smile: I think all those little candy hearts in my avatar are having some weird effect on how my words are taken. Hmm...trying to decide if that means I should keep the avatar or ditch it. :-p

I think I get all my Prozac from the water supply. :bugeye: :-p
 
  • #89
loseyourname said:
Dude, you're 17, aren't you? How many girls have you been even peripherally involved with that weren't teenagers?

Only one of those three was actually. I've never dated a women my age or younger actually.

Plenty of women of the type you describe are out there (though admittedly, I generally found them outside of southern California). You have to consider that men who are arseholes like yourself tend to attract weak-minded women that crave abuse. I'd be wary of anyone that was attracted to me if I were you.

So I've learned.
It would be better if you found someone that you were actually attracted to (and not just physically, as there is an obvious mental component that sounds important to you). It's easy to be confident when confronted with a woman who will fall for you no matter what. If you really want to call yourself confident, find someone who is a challenge.

I never said i was confident, Ivan was the one who used that word. I just said that somehow i managed to always say the right thing, at the right time, without ever losing control of a situation (or it seems like that sometimes, i don't know how true that really is)
 
  • #90
hypnagogue said:
That's meant more as a tongue in cheek way of saying that your acquaintance with me is nothing more than your internal mental construct of who I am.
I have to remember not to take what I read so literally. :wink:

hypnagogue said:
. . . your own self-construct of Astronuc
Hmmm, I don't have one of those. Got any idea where to get one? :wink:
 
  • #91
Of course love is real, love is a chemical reaction to hormones in the brain, how is it not real? What nonsense is this.
 
  • #92
loseyourname said:
...arseholes like yourself tend to attract weak-minded women that crave abuse. I'd be wary of anyone that was attracted to me if I were you. It would be better if you found someone that you were actually attracted to (and not just physically, as there is an obvious mental component that sounds important to you).

Insightful stuff (the whole post), and suggests a knotty pattern:

Pattern 1:
A/ Weak-minded masochistic women are attracted to Arseholes.
B/ Arseholes are not attracted to weak-minded masochistic women.
C/ They start dating and it ends in tears.

Pattern 2:
A/ Arseholes are attracted to women who are: an equal, a challenge, very patient, excellent debating skills, attractive. These women are very scarce if they exist as a species at all. Let's call them Penthouse Amazons.
B/ Missing data: Are these women attracted to Arseholes? If we can generalise from Pattern 1 to Pattern 2, then we would predict that Penthouse Amazons are not attracted to Arseholes. (It could be that they are attracted to some other species that exists only in their superb imaginations).
C/ Missing data: If Arseholes and Penthouse Amazons start dating, does it work out well? Again, extrapolating from Pattern 1, they soon realize that they are not getting what they need from each other, and it ends in tears.

I'd like to end this post with some words of wisdom, but... uh... I can't think of anything. How about a few words of wizdumb instead? This is from William James (on drugs):
"Women are monogamous
Men are polygamous.
Higgamous Hoggamous
Hoggamous Higgamous".
 
  • #93
I have some answers to 2B and C, but it'll have to wait.

Along the lines of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

Back later.
 
  • #94
Astronuc said:
I have some answers to 2B and C, but it'll have to wait.

Along the lines of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

Back later.

Back later? What are you doing, cruising the bars for Penthouse Amazons? I hope you don't expect a grant for this 'field research'.
 
  • #95
the number 42 said:
Back later? What are you doing, cruising the bars for Penthouse Amazons? I hope you don't expect a grant for this 'field research'.


Its a special kind of "grant" he's looking for. Besides its friday, that's what friday's are for.
 
  • #96
Astronuc said:
I have some answers to 2B and C, but it'll have to wait.

Along the lines of the Golden Rule - Do unto others as one would have done unto onself. (This does not apply to masochists).

Back later.

I've always lived by the rule "Do unto oneself as you would have others do unto you." I've never thought it a good idea to rely on other people to treat you well. Treat yourself well and be happy with that.
 
  • #97
franznietzsche said:
Its a special kind of "grant" he's looking for. Besides its friday, that's what friday's are for.

franz...I think you missed a day somewhere! :eek: It's Saturday!
 
  • #98
Moonbear said:
franz...I think you missed a day somewhere! :eek: It's Saturday!


Hmmm...well i thought it was odd that a party that wild happened on a thursday. THis explains so much.
 
  • #99
the number 42 said:
Back later? What are you doing, cruising the bars for Penthouse Amazons? I hope you don't expect a grant for this 'field research'.
No, I spent time with my son today - kind of a father-son day. He had to get a hair cut, and I took him to a local festival. Then to a music store. Came home.

I don't cruise bars. I never have, and I never will.

As for Penthouse Amazons - interesting. But my response will have to wait.
 
  • #100
the number 42 said:
Pattern 2:
A/ A******s are attracted to women who are: an equal, a challenge, very patient, excellent debating skills, attractive. These women are very scarce if they exist as a species at all. Let's call them Penthouse Amazons.
B/ Missing data: Are these women attracted to A******s? If we can generalise from Pattern 1 to Pattern 2, then we would predict that Penthouse Amazons are not attracted to A******s. (It could be that they are attracted to some other species that exists only in their superb imaginations).
C/ Missing data: If A******s and Penthouse Amazons start dating, does it work out well? Again, extrapolating from Pattern 1, they soon realize that they are not getting what they need from each other, and it ends in tears.
I have known quite several attractive women who would qualify as Penthouse Amazons, and all of them seem to have attracted the 'wrong' kind of men. Most have married and divorced at least once. Several now live alone.

One of the women I dated during my early years in university went on to pose for Playboy, after she and I had gone separate ways. She was feeling 'rebellious' and just did it. She then married one of the 'popular' guys from the university. I and others thought it was a big mistake.

Down the road, I ran into her at a university function after both of us had been married about one year. She was carrying her months old son with her, while her husband was off somewhere with his buddies. When I mentioned how great it was to be married, she responded "well for some people". After further brief disucssion, it was clear she was miserable. When I had dated her, she was studying Italian (already fluent in English and German), economics and international relations. She had planned a career in international business and finance. When I saw her years later, she had sacrificed all of her dreams for a man who didn't care or had no clue.

I have known several women with similar experiences. So the answer to Pattern 2 B and C, is quite often yes -

2B - Attractive woman falls for the 'wrong' man.
2C - More often however, it is the woman who does not get what she really wants, and the man is clueless (IMO).

I didn't realize that 'franznietzsche' is not quite 18 years of age, until loseyourname pointed it out.

FN, IMO, you're still too young to know whether Love is real or not. Young people think infatuation (desire or lust) is Love. It isn't.

Love is based on mutual respect, honesty/truthfulness, loyalty. Without those attributes, Love does not exist. Also, mutual respect is only possible when a person has self-respect. From self-respect arises "do unto others, as you would others do unto you."

BTW - lose the egotism.

=============================
And the rest of the gentlemen, consider:

Do right by your woman, she'll do right by you. (Bad Company) :cool:
 
Last edited:
  • #101
Astronuc said:
One of the women I dated during my early years in university went on to pose for Playboy, after she and I had gone separate ways. She was feeling 'rebellious' and just did it. She then married one of the 'popular' guys from the university. I and others thought it was a big mistake.

Down the road, I ran into her at a university function after both of us had been married about one year. She was carrying her months old son with her, while her husband was off somewhere with his buddies. When I mentioned how great it was to be married, she responded "well for some people". After further brief disucssion, it was clear she was miserable. When I had dated her, she was studying Italian (already fluent in English and German), economics and international relations. She had planned a career in international business and finance. When I saw her years later, she had sacrificed all of her dreams for a man who didn't care or had no clue.

This is exactly what i don't want. What's the point of a "penthouse amazon" if she loses her independence? She then ceases to be who she is. I've never met a woman for whom this hasn't been a problem though--its one of the classical problems in feminist literature--how does a woman define herself? As a mother, a wife, a girlfriend, but does a woman ever define herself simply as 'Me'?

Any woman who does not define herself simply as 'me' and isntead defines herself in terms of her realtion to others fails to be a 'penthouse amazon', and is patently unattractive, IMO.


Love is based on mutual respect, honesty/truthfulness, loyalty. Without those attributes, Love does not exist.

By definition.

Also, mutual respect is only possible when a person has self-respect. From self-respect arises "do unto others, as you would others do unto you."

I disagree. In fact, i don't see any of the logic behind that.

I can't respect a person who isn't independent, who doesn't exist on her own. It just doesn't work.

A person who does not define themselves independent of those around them, particularly independent of myself, cannot be challenging or interesting. It just doesn't work. That woman you mentioned that you knew, she failed to define herself independently, and isntead defined herself in terms of her realtionship to her husband--her husband defined himself as independent of her--so of course she was going to be miserable.

BTW- lose the egotism

Again, i define myself as independent of others. I exist, whether or not people recognize it, i am who i am regardless of them. If everyone else died tomorrow, and i was the last human being, i would still be exactly who i am today.

To lose the egotism would be to lose that fundamental independence.
 
Last edited:
  • #102
Astronuc said:
I have known quite several attractive women who would qualify as Penthouse Amazons, and all of them seem to have attracted the 'wrong' kind of men. Most have married and divorced at least once. Several now live alone.

Because most of these genetic celebrities have low self-esteem. And depending on how she was raise and her relationship with her dad, being involve with a bad boy is an unconscious way of giving the finger to her father.
 
Last edited:
  • #103
franznietzsche said:
To lose the egotism would be to lose that fundamental independence.
Actually, I am wondering whether or not you mean 'egoism' or 'egocentrism' as opposed to 'egotism'. The former being more self-centered as opposed to simply conceited.

Actually, in either case, the egoistic and egotistic persons are by definition 'dependent' on others to 'feed' their egos, i.e. egoists/egotists 'need' an audience.

To lose 'egoism' or 'egotism' is the true path to independence. :biggrin:

As for independence - successful relationships are based on "inter-dependence". My career is quite independent of my wife and family, however, my career enables me to support my family. My wife's work is independent of the family, but she uses her job to enhance the standard of living of the family. In other words, we both contribute to something in which we both share (example of mutuality).

As for "Penthouse amazons", I really dislike that term. The attractive women I knew did not go as far as exposing their most intimate anatomy to the world as do the women in magazines like Penthouse and Playboy. In fact, all the women I dated or new as friends were, and probably still are, quite modest. They just seem to have met the wrong men.
 
  • #104
Astronuc said:
In fact, all the women I dated or new as friends were, and probably still are, quite modest. They just seem to have met the wrong men.

So you admit to being one of the "wrong men"?
 
  • #105
JasonRox said:
So you admit to being one of the "wrong men"?
Actually, no.

I am on good terms with all the women I dated or knew as friends. I was honest and respectful, and perhaps too reserved.

As I was a university student, then graduate student, my future was uncertain, especially when I changed academic paths from physics to nuclear engineering. Accordingly, my relationships with my girlfriends were all on a friendly (platonic) basis.

In a couple of cases, I declined a level of intimacy for which I was simply not ready, because there was no commitment of marriage. What can I say, I am simply 'old-fashioned'. The women then broke the relationships at that point.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top