Is sexual attraction necessary for romantic love?

[annoyinggirl]

OK, since you don't seem to grasp what a truth table is, I'll provide another proof that $P\rightarrow Q$ is not the same as $Q\Rightarrow P$:

P: $x$ is an integer
Q: $x$ is an even number
Then $Q\rightarrow P$ but $P\rightarrow Q$ is not true.

Now answer my question.

you're just using fancy notation to escape the discussion. why can't you just use english and debate like real adult? Use any of these:
If A, then B
A
Therefore B
If A, then B
Not B
Therefore not A

If A, then B
If B, then C
Therefore if A, then C

A or B
Not A
Therefore B

A or B
If A then C
If B then D
Therefore C or D

 

[micromass]

you're just using fancy notation to escape the discussion. why can't you just use english and debate like real adult? Use any of these:
If A, then B
A
Therefore B

or

If A, then B
Not B
Therefore not A

or
If A, then B
If B, then C
Therefore if A, then C
or
A or B
Not A
Therefore B
or
A or B
If A then C
If B then D
Therefore C or D

OK...

Now can you answer my two questions please?

 

[annoyinggirl]

OK...

Now can you answer my two questions please?

what's your question again?

 

[micromass]

what's your question again?

1) Give me references to what is well accepted by evolutionary biologists what the evolutationary purpose of romantic love is.

2) Prove by logic that romantic love requires sexual attraction.

 

[Fervent Freyja]

@annoyinggirl
You stated that your definition of romantic love is "...an attachment with your someone you have sex with."

So replace the term romantic love with your definition into his request:

2) Prove by logic that romantic love requires sexual attraction.

According to your definition of romantic love, it is the same as this statement:

Prove by logic that an attachment with your someone you have sex with requires sexual attraction.

Now, does that make any sense? Just admit that you could have worded it better.

 

[BillTre]

1)

understanding of natural and sexual selection

Sexual selection is a subset of natural selection, not separate from it.

2)

I think romantic love = sexual attraction + platonic love.

You can define romantic love as platonic love plus sexual attraction if you want, but it should be distinguished from other definitions. There are many definitions of this.

3)
Although care of young may be used as a rational for a something like "romantic love" driving a long term pair or family. Other more selfish evolutionary "forces" can be in opposition to this. Males typically want to (evolutionarily speaking) procreate as many times with as many females as possible. This is adaptive if many of their offspring grow up and in turn breed.

4)

anytime sex exists, sexual selection must also exist, which means sexual attraction must exist

This argument applies to non-humans:
Sexual attraction is not necessary in some non-human in organisms. Plants, using pollen blowing in the wind have no need for sexual attraction. Similarly, sea animals that breed by blindly releasing gametes into the water in the hope they will a complementary gamete to fuse with. All that is needed is coordination of the release time (possibly by an environmental stimulus like tides or moon phase).

5)

the question was does romantic love require sexual attraction?

As Fervent Freyja pointed out, real human life presents many cases where sex and "romantic love" do not always occur together.
Or as ShayanJ pointed out homosexuality would seem to be an exception (no reproduction).
Another apparent contradiction would celibate couples (no sex/reproduction).

 

[ShayanJ]

Falsify this: Romantic love is a myth. It cannot be measured or shown to truly exist at any objective level, show me the genes responsible for this romantic love. It's merely a belief and not a natural byproduct of human physiology, it's a social ideal that exists in some, not all, societies.

You have to realize that love, romantic love, or romance are all recently invented concepts. They were only introduced into the belief system of some societies within this last century. Even still today, many cultures and regions in the world do not place weight upon romantic love or even believe in it- it's more about survival. Humans have gotten along just fine without romantic love for many tens of thousands of years. It is not required for our species nor any other organism to be successful in reproducing.

Maybe you should face some hard facts. Men don't really place so much weight on romance or emotional attachment being a precursor to having sex. In the absence of young, healthy women they will have sex with what is available (see rape also)... Look at the sex industry. Sex is often just sex to them, only the abundance of attractive women and social rules allow it to look as if romantic love is human nature. It certainly is not.

Of course love is not objective, otherwise societies would be a mess because everyone would love everyone and would want to marry them!
Anyway, you're saying that because we can't objectively show that love exists, so it does not exist. But this is pure nonsense, because its a day-to-day experience that human's consciousness has a subjective part different from a person to the next. Of course, this subjectivity may be emergent from an objective underlying mechanism but its still a subjective experience. And love is just one part of this subjective experience. The problem of explaining this subjectivity through an underlying objective mechanism is called the hard problem of consciousness.

 

[Evo]

I think this thread has gone as far as it can go, closed.

 

[OCR]

I think this thread has gone as far as it can go, closed.

Closed ? ... huh, do I have special privileges ? ...

 

[Evo]

Closed ? ... huh, do I have special privileges ? ...

Why, yes, yes you do. Evo now closes the thread.