91–100 of 270 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's more favorable than operating on false beliefs.
study and consideration is not false beliefs
Anything you believe that have loose variables with irreproducible outcome is false belief.
Those false belief are decisive when built properly, and you need them for functioning, but never ever rely on them for more than that.
> The real thing people should be actively looking for is strong emotional connection, as in: to what degree can I share who I am with this person, do they get it, how interested are they in who I am, my feelings and thoughts, can we accommodate each other’s preferences, are we good at talking.
I am in an hopefully now lifelong relationship, that almost failed at some point, but what brought us back together is this. So very true. We just "got" each other, from pretty early on, and although it can be crafted through years, it's just a bliss when it's spontaneous. And finding that level of connection (of course strengthened through the years together) again looks impossible.
(And if they stalk my account, I love you :) )
Looks like the commoditization of love/dating apps and social media begins to show its ugly tail. Stories from my circle of friends/families: - Girls obsessed over their physiques. Going skinny to the point it wrecked their hormones. - People who are married just shy over 2-3 years are thinking on divorce, or have girlfriends/boyfriends. - People having open relationships. - Girls randomly make out in club with some…
Hot take: men don’t want promiscuous women as long-term partners, fundamentally people desire long-term partners, and the commoditization of sex contributes to weak relationships and broken families.
Hotter take: men don't want long-term partners period, monogamy is social conditioning because it leads to stable and more successful settlements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Eros did not just represent lust but also love. Agape is a context more limited to christianity, which kind of has anti-sexual overtone. But there were many Erotes representing all kinds of desire and attraction > Anteros ("Love Returned"),[1] Hedylogos ("Sweet-talk"), Hermaphroditus ("Hermaphrodite" or "Effeminate"), Himeros ("Impetuous Love" or "Pressing Desire"), Hymenaios ("Bridal-Hymn"), and Pothos ("Desire, Lon…
Really there is Greek specific to Christian use? That's interesting. I'll have to look into that. It makes sense that different groups used different worlds. There are English terms like sanctification that you don't hear outside Christian circles.
Terrible agony: Wait for when you have kids.
I wonder about this. It's a crazy commitment/years to deal with. I just look back to my own childhood/what my parents dealt with. On the other hand part of me feels sad thinking I will be the "last me". Maybe get genome sequenced/publish books of my face and put it sealed in a landfill somewhere for preservation. Actually rocks last a long time so probably a statue made with a rock.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What exactly is “messed up” about open relationships and making out with strangers?
1. "Messed up" doesn't necessarily refer to that. 2. Not everybody thinks that's a good idea. Making out with strangers in a club is definitely trashy. It's the kind of thing that deceives everybody's expectations, also those of the bystanders, and can lead to a problematic outcome. You might want to say that that shouldn't happen in your particular ideal of society, but it does.
This post is part of a wider trend toward sex negativity. It's not predicated on any major social change - in fact young people are having sex later on average, having fewer sexual partners, and people of all ages are reporting less casual sex (at least in the US). But rather on reactionary moralising.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, with "females can typically smell" I meant that this is widely accepted as true in the animal kingdom. For humans, the effect appears to be there, but we don't have any stronger evidence. Then again, this might be unpopular to research due to its social implications.
> Then again, this might be unpopular to research due to its social implications. In the contrary I would suspect that being able to identify the specific chemical combinations that would make you hot would sell like crazy and there’s already snake oil on the market for this.
And the stuff we use to mask this effect - called perfume - is indeed pretty popular ;)
Is it just me, or does this article really overthink way too much? IMO, dating is ultimately not a subject that could be analyzed by logic. At least not on on the personal / self-help level (of course sociology / statistics still work). Trying to find some kind of generally applicable "rules of the game" that would work for everyone (or even most) people seems somewhat "not even wrong". It's simply trying to use the…
It has turned into a Game Theory kind of problem.
Dating sites used to have a lot of compatibility questions - I think OK Cupid still does - and they were useful for filtering by values. But filtering by communication styles is much harder, and I don't think anyone has attempted it.
The core of the problem is that everyone is playing by different rules. You have no idea what the other person's rules are. And some people are very insistent that their rules are correct and absolute.
Worse, some rules are dysfunctional and more likely to produce bad outcomes.
So it's like an intelligence war where the only signalling is behavioural, there are huge gaps in the available information, and you don't know what stakes the other person is playing to, or their appetite for risk, or what constitutes a win for them, or if they're aware of any differences between what they believe they want and what their actions reveal.
Inevitably the information-free areas are filled by wishful thinking - encouraging that in partners is part of some peoples' strategy - or paranoia. Or possibly both.
No wonder it's incredibly difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans don’t have a functional vomeronasal organ to sense pheromones, only a nose. And hence no functional pheromone signaling. This is abjectly incorrect information.
University of Chicago disagrees: https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/jo... EDIT: actually, they show that humans can somehow perceive MHC compatibility. So you might be correct in that I'm wrong on the delivery mechanism and pheromones aren't being used.