Seriously, so you want to be in love again...

[rruff]

A product of evolution. Humans, and all other animals, jump through all kinds of hoops for ***. It’s the prime directive for animals.

This is a common belief it seems. But I thought long and hard about... even did a good amount of historical research ... and evolution does not support "falling in love"... rather it's the opposite.

Looking at it from the male side, the most effective way to spread your genes is through violence and ****. Conquest and war. Kill the men and children, **** and enslave the women of child bearing age. Maybe this hasn't been so common in recent history, particularly the enslavement part, but killing and **** were certainly rampant during WW2... on all sides.

And as recently as medieval times we got the whole shebang. DNA testing has revealed 8% of men alive today from the region of the Mongol Empire ~800 years ago, are direct descendants of one man, probably Ghengis Khan. That's the most extreme "recent" instance, but there have been similar cases then and earlier. Further back in the Neolithic period (~8k years ago) the genetic diversity of men dropped to the equivalent of 1 for every 17 women... and that was world wide! It was the dawn of civilization, and larger and more advanced groups built their "empires" through killing, ****, and enslavement.

Falling in love has no part in any of that.

Even when looking at normal familial relationships that we are accustomed to, "falling in love and marrying" is a very recent paradigm. Throughout history in nearly every civilization or tribe we know of, arranged marriages were the norm, and people were expected to stay married for life. Falling in love was rightly seen as a poor reason to get married. Falling in love with someone else after marriage was likely to get you in big trouble and even killed.

The interesting question is why falling in love persists even when it is so contrary to evolution...? The answer must be that the belief in "everything is evolution" must be wrong... and for those who still remember what it is like to fall in love, and have fully surrendered to the experince and have not been jaded by disappointment... ya, it's wonderful. Just amazing. Glad to live in a time and place where this is possible or even common. There are many things in the world that are like this if you look.

 

[wb8vyn]

With statements like these ...




... you are effectively cutting yourself off from the majority of women -- at least the interesting, fun, and self-respecting ones (including the ones you're talking to by posting in this forum). Who wants to be (a) pigeonholed based on their gender and (b) relegated to helping a man match his socks and choose healthy meals? There are 12-year-olds who can do those tasks. In all the time that you have been participating in this forum, have you paid any attention to the % of fellow participants who are women "traveling from place to place"?

If you need that much help with activities of daily living, maybe you should hire a maid and not try to call it "companionship." Or you could admit that you're not really that helpless. The world has changed. That kind of attitude doesn't fly any more. Male and female helplessness both used to be considered cute by some people, but they're really not any more -- no shtick works forever.

I'm sure every single person on this forum has something they were once attached to that, rightly or wrongly, doesn't fly any more. We move on or we get left behind. \_(**)_/ your choice.

You seem very attached to these expectations (at least, they haven't changed a hair, as far as I can tell, since you began posting to this forum). If they're more important to you than either fun or companionship, and if the feedback you're gotten here is so meaningless to you, carry on you're doing great! Otherwise consider pushing yourself out of your comfort zone and trying out new activities and new attitudes. There is no easy way. You just gotta do it. The old world is not coming back.

And dude, if this is really about bereavment rather than life choices, get some support for that -- it's huge. I'm sure your wife was a wonderful woman. But missing her is one thing (and you can find a good way to do that) -- trying to bring back the Ozzie and Harriet era is another. It ain't gonna happen.

Got a shrink - I do guy stuff. No one knows me better than myself and I don't go round in public with tears running down my face.
Firstly, I do "get out" -- not pickup joints such as bars and dance places. I'm more coffee shops and Cracker Barrel type places. Even grocery stores and park benches works for me.
At first, I just felt sick all the time. lost my apatite, big knot at the pit of my stomach. (Not so much any more).
Anyway, I have run across some females to speak with - BUT so far, most have been too afraid to even have a pick nick or go for a walk without their crowd of hens (what will the neighbors think) or (I could be a kidnapper or worse). So I just move on.
After all is said and done - I'm old- no longer athletic, my wrinkles have wrinkles.
And Then there others that I meet who only want "things", In short money, and the things that it will buy.
My impression of you from your remarks leads me to believe you are young, I don't mean like a child but more the type and attitude that is reflected in todays 50% divorce rate.
Also, keep in mind that throughout the past 100 years people have moved from the rural areas into cities and apartments, into small spaces. No longer are children cheap labor, more a status symbol, instead of 4,5 or 6 kids, maybe 1 or 2. No longer do parents "raise" children, Schools and day care centers do.
So - The long and short of that is commitment, friendship have become passing things to be discarded when they are no longer personally or economically advantageous.
Nope - I will never become some one I am not, When I make a promise, I keep it come hell or high water.
I'm not stupid, I know that I don't fit the mold in todays life styles. I also know that I'm set in my ways and attitudes, I know that finding a kindred companion Is impossible but I keep looking anyway.
Also, sharing points of view is rewarding for me, like here and now, with you. I keep thinking that one day I just might find someone to argue with without rancor, to just be with and around, and to look at and admire day after week after month. Now that IS a fairy tale, been there, done that. One in several million.
Well -- I have to go crawl around on the ground to work on my pickup - parts will be here Monday or Tuesday and there are dishes to do and laundry. and Oh- I've got to take my thyroid pill. Apatite ya know. I do make good coffee!

 

[wb8vyn]

This is a common belief it seems. But I thought long and hard about... even did a good amount of historical research ... and evolution does not support "falling in love"... rather it's the opposite.

Looking at it from the male side, the most effective way to spread your genes is through violence and ****. Conquest and war. Kill the men and children, **** and enslave the women of child bearing age. Maybe this hasn't been so common in recent history, particularly the enslavement part, but killing and **** were certainly rampant during WW2... on all sides.

And as recently as medieval times we got the whole shebang. DNA testing has revealed 8% of men alive today from the region of the Mongol Empire ~800 years ago, are direct descendants of one man, probably Ghengis Khan. That's the most extreme "recent" instance, but there have been similar cases then and earlier. Further back in the Neolithic period (~8k years ago) the genetic diversity of men dropped to the equivalent of 1 for every 17 women... and that was world wide! It was the dawn of civilization, and larger and more advanced groups built their "empires" through killing, ****, and enslavement.

Falling in love has no part in any of that.

Even when looking at normal familial relationships that we are accustomed to, "falling in love and marrying" is a very recent paradigm. Throughout history in nearly every civilization or tribe we know of, arranged marriages were the norm, and people were expected to stay married for life. Falling in love was rightly seen as a poor reason to get married. Falling in love with someone else after marriage was likely to get you in big trouble and even killed.

The interesting question is why falling in love persists even when it is so contrary to evolution...? The answer must be that the belief in "everything is evolution" must be wrong... and for those who still remember what it is like to fall in love, and have fully surrendered to the experince and have not been jaded by disappointment... ya, it's wonderful. Just amazing. Glad to live in a time and place where this is possible or even common. There are many things in the world that are like this if you look.

Of course the numbers do match up over thousands of years. Yup - BUT there are exceptions. There are animals who mate for life. Few, but they do exist.
Here is another fact that can not be over looked. Woman get big bellies and waddle like ducks near the end of their pregnant period, unable to hunt and gather, and then babies are totally dependent for the first years of life.
some form of community or support over a longer term is required for the human species to have survived at all.
Time for more research me thinks

 

[wb8vyn]

A lot of men who recently lost their long time spouse feel like they have lived out their allotted time. Being the one who is “left alone” is pretty tragic.

But truthfully at 62 years old you are just now getting to your retirement years, the years that many people have been longing to reach so they can start really having some freedom and fun.

You have a choice, you can stay stuck feeling like you have outlived your allotted time or you can realize there can be a whole lot of fun to look forward to.

One error - married 62 years. My age now is 84 years.
I am healthy and very active for my age. still able to stand up straight and walk and run.
My wife and I had many practical conversations early on b4 we got married. One involves the fact that men are always on the hunt. It's nature.
It's also nature that children are totally helpless for several years after birth and require total support (shelter, food clothing and so on) This requires either community or committed adult support of the male sort usually, In addition, disease can be passed on if multiple partners are involved. Some are deadly.
We decided that one man with one woman and one woman with one man was the right way to live our lives as a family.
A promise was made and in those days and times, a promise was kept no mater what. Ours was kept no mater if we were away or at home. no excuses.

 

[SLB_SA]

If you need that much help with activities of daily living, maybe you should hire a maid and not try to call it "companionship."

A man needs a maid by Neil Young

 

[rruff]

Of course the numbers do match up over thousands of years. Yup - BUT there are exceptions. There are animals who mate for life. Few, but they do exist.
Here is another fact that can not be over looked. Woman get big bellies and waddle like ducks near the end of their pregnant period, unable to hunt and gather, and then babies are totally dependent for the first years of life.
some form of community or support over a longer term is required for the human species to have survived at all.
Time for more research me thinks

What are you disagreeing with exactly?

Humans with our "big brains" and opposable thumbs have a greater range of expression than other animals. It makes us more able to adapt and optimize to new environments and situations. So we can mate for life... or not.

The solution to the issue of women having a hard time with tasks at the end of pregnancy, and babies being helpless, is well taken care of by having a tribe or community. There was never a time when humans wandered alone or in pairs to any degree.

 

[wayne49]

Don't be in a hurry, what you had in a long term partner is a rarity these days.
Don't make any rash decisions to fill the void that you feel.

 

[rruff]

A man needs a maid by Neil Young

Better a dog...

 

[lonerwolf52]

No explanation required. Humans, as with all animals, are hard-wired. But h7mans are social animals and the socialization is at odds with the natural instincts. Man, like the other great apes, are not monogamous creatures. This brings to mind something I once heard and to which I have taken then liberty to modify to more suit my opinion regarding how socialization conflicts with nature.

“Marriage is an elaborate ruse. It’s an unnatural arrangement which forces its participants into an unhealthy monogamy. Like Chinese water torture, a slow accretion of petty fights and resentful compromises slowly transform both parties into howling, neurotic versions of their former selves.”

Really?

 

[Zerpersande]

This is a common belief it seems. But I thought long and hard about... even did a good amount of historical research ... and evolution does not support "falling in love"... rather it's the opposite.

Falling in live doesn’t mean monogamous. It does me sticking around long enough to get that offspring to a survivable age. Love is a biochemical reaction meant to ensure the propagation of the species. And the 7-year itch starts the process all over again. For many at least. Look at the divorce rate.

 

[RonDean]

I think that's most of it. I imagine it's hard to "move on" after 62 years of loving someone... no matter how well you deal with it... especially with a 84 year old body.

He's definitely in the generation where men and women had defined roles and ways of showing care and affection for each other... especially in rural areas. It seems weird... but it's not really that weird. I don't believe he's actually looking for someone to feed him and make his socks match, it's "code" for something else.

I liked Morgana's reply from 2 years ago. (shows how old this thread is too.)

I think the gender stereotypes he expressed shows he has some relearning to do, along with most folks of his and my generation. FYI, I am in my late 70's, but working on (mentally) getting back to my early 30s. And I I lost my SO a few years back to cancer. So, I can certainly relate.

But, at no time in my life did I subscribe to those stereotypes. I like to think I am a better cook (amateur chef - if you please) than most women I have known and I can research (google) what's healthy on my own. If I ever have a problem with my socks, I will just park my rig near the beach and wear sandals all the time.

Although I would like to have another companion at some time, it certainly won't be to do things for me I can't do myself or pay someone for. I'd like to think it would be an even exchange of making each other happier than we would have been had we stayed alone. And if she's a better mechanic than me, I'll drink to that.

 

[Zerpersande]

The interesting question is why falling in love persists even when it is so contrary to evolution...? The answer must be that the belief in "everything is evolution" must be wrong...

No, the answer doesn’t need to be that evolution is wrong. Love is a chemical cocktail that works a lot like MDA and MDMA, they are love drugs. That cocktail is so strong that some species see males dying during mating season because they don’t eat. That cocktail results in marriages. And marriage could have originally been a concept to stop all the fighting over, due to the monopoly on, mating rights. Each male could get himself a female. The 7-year itch was certainly found to be a problem back then as it is today. Some societies resolved that by allowing more than one wife. I’ve never had the inclination to try that system.

 

[Zerpersande]

But what causes the cocktail... ?

Missed this.
The urge for life to make life. That urge, or habit, increases then odds of survival of the species. The organism that first had ran around trying to do that and made more offspring (with that habit/urge/proclivity/desire) built into its genetic makeup. Which resulted in tet more of the same kind of organism, all with that tendency.

If you want to search for a mystical, supernatural cause for this, go for it. I’m just not buying into it.

 

[rruff]

Falling in live doesn’t mean monogamous. It does me sticking around long enough to get that offspring to a survivable age. Love is a biochemical reaction meant to ensure the propagation of the species. And the 7-year itch starts the process all over again. For many at least. Look at the divorce rate.

Did you read my post? I said nothing about monogamy... and debunked your thesis thoroughly. Bring something new to the table!

People don't need to fall in love to have *** and produce offspring. At least for men, falling in love is clearly contrary to maximum gene propagation.
Couples aren't necessary for raising children; in the many millennia of tribal existence children were raised collectively by women, until the boys became of age. There is no reason to "stick around" for 7 years. You aren't going anywhere anyway, unless you leave the tribe... and they expect you to stay married.
Arranged marriages have been the norm, both in tribes and civilization... for life.
Men will spread way more genes if they simply have *** with as many women as they can.

So what's falling in love got to do with evolution? Zip...

Sure, there are biochemical reactions involved, but they aren't evolutionary reinforced. Rather the opposite.

If you want to search for a mystical, supernatural cause for this, go for it. I’m just not buying into it.

I'm not searching for anything... just pointing out the obvious.

 

[rruff]

No, the answer doesn’t need to be that evolution is wrong.

I didn't say that either. What's wrong is believing that everything is evolution.

 

[eDJ_]

As we share our opinions, mine goes like this:

Being in love may be somewhat different depending on our age/stage of life and experience. First loves seem to be the most devastating at break up. What's lasting from it is the wonderful times of having a best friend & companion to share a most intimate connection with on the levels of mind, body, and emotions. In spite of the pain of break up those things tend to linger on and set the stage for future relationships. (in hopes of a better outcome)

I would suggest the mind and body be as equal as possible. The emotions may be best at 50% so that each partner has to willingly share and participate with the other to make the best of the relationship.



I'd offer this songs:

Jana Kramer I got the boy...she got the man

 

[RonDean]

I didn't say that either. What's wrong is believing that everything is evolution.

I agree with a lot of rruff's points, but must point out that evolution is S L O W. Until just a few years ago, *** = offspring more often than not. With a much higher prenatal and postnatal death rate, that's probably not a bad thing. On top of that, a lot of our ancestors didn't seem to have the cause and effect details worked out very well either. So... although a lot of the urge to mate (and co-habitat) is hard wired into us by evolution, I think a greater motivation is the increased survival benefits of groups, regardless of associated sexual activities.Even a group as small as two.

Humans like to gather in groups. All primates do. But, a lot of different sexual norms exist. The Bonobos treat *** like we treat handshakes and are female dominant. Gorillas have their Silver-back male leader claiming most sexual prerogatives. Young male chimps (our closest relatives) prefer older females. These experienced females have the most *** and most females mate with multiple males. But, we all practice social grouping. Without it, we would still be prey animals and dumb as stumps.

Thus, many of us nomads, even as we escape urban life, still caravan and gather together. When I pull into a new camp spot, I always try to be friendly with my neighbors. We strike up conversations and often we gather around a common meal or (conditions permitting) a campfire. I would submit that making that smaller grouping of two is just an extension of that impulse. When I had a significant other, we spend much more of our time, especially as we aged, doing the same things. Talking, sharing, etc. And, that is what I miss most now.

 

[Zerpersande]

So what's falling in love got to do with evolution? Zip...

When you fall in love your body is known to have high levels of oxytocin, among other things. But hormone is secreted in everybody’s body and that body got here by evolution.

Oxytocin is significantly more potent than the opiate morphine. Stops pain. And it also gives an intense of euphoria. I’ve done a LOT of drugs and nothing compared to those injections of morphine I received after my shoulder reconstruction surgery. Now when you meet someone that ticks all your boxes her voice, touch, taste and smell causes a release of stuff that is a key player in your ‘emotion’ called love. You’ve said little more than ‘evolution didn’t cause love’ and yet without that feeling there would be a lot less people on the planet. And the fact that it lasts through hardships for a long time (7 years??) also prevents seeing a bunch of newborns abandoned on the streets.

Sure, there are biochemical reactions involved, but they aren't evolutionary reinforced. Rather the opposite.

The compound responsible for love is a product of evolution. And if you can find a way to cause the release of oxytocin et al in your partner every time said partner walks in the room, they’ll not just always be there. You’ll create a pavlovian response that will have your mate walking out of the room and then immediately returning.

Whatever ticks all of the boxes most certainly has a psychological aspect. What causes sexual attractiveness changes. Social evolution. The ‘Big Butt‘ box is permanently grayed out for me. Whatever trips your trigger.

 

[RoamerRV428]

And even the creatures that do pair and mate for life occasionally have flings on the side and some, like the wolf, waste little time finding a new mate if their old one dies or can no longer sexually perform.

plus: They re-mate when a partner dies; how quickly this happens depends on the survivor’s gender. Females find a new male within as few as three weeks. Males, however, tend to wait until the following fall..........


animals have a limit point blank. survival and future survival and this mate for life while they will IF they can will dissolve very quickly if their personal natural life needs change, I mean how else can life move forward in truth for that species?

Humans have options. You want love you go for it long as ya want to be in a companionship, you don't, just stay alone but of course we all 'find our levels' of what relationship we need and can find as we age for sure.

 

[rruff]

....yet without that feeling there would be a lot less people on the planet.

I've shown why that isn't the case, and never has been. You've yet to try to debunk my arguments... or even explain why you believe falling in love is necessary, or promotes the production of offspring.

Are you confusing the *** drive with falling in love?