Women in those advertisements give creep me out, they look far too stern and robotic that I dont see any life. I once saw a picture of some actress with anorexia showing the area on her side and nearly every single rib was showing *PUKE*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Take Victoriam Beckham as an example. She is one of the ugliest women on the planet, currently.

Then I ask you, what is your definition of love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you can constrain love to a definition. I could tell you that love isn't sexuality. Getting those two confused will leave you extremely lonely.

 

Then I ask you, what is your definition of love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you can constrain love to a definition. I could tell you that love isn't sexuality. Getting those two confused will leave you extremely lonely.

 

 

 

+100!! =D>

 

Then I ask you, what is your definition of love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you can constrain love to a definition. I could tell you that love isn't sexuality. Getting those two confused will leave you extremely lonely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that to some degree, love has alot to do with sexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do know what you're saying. ^_^ Too much sexuality in a relationship can ruin it. And if you're way too obsessed with sex, you will be quite the lonely person.

 

 

Then I ask you, what is your definition of love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think you can constrain love to a definition. I could tell you that love isn't sexuality. Getting those two confused will leave you extremely lonely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think that to some degree, love has alot to do with sexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, I do know what you're saying. ^_^ Too much sexuality in a relationship can ruin it. And if you're way too obsessed with sex, you will be quite the lonely person.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well yes, I didn't say that sexuality is irrelevant when it comes to love. I just meant to say that sexuality doesn't equate love. You can definitely have sex without love (ie. both man and woman using each other for personal gratification/validation), and you can have love without sex.

Well yes, I didn't say that sexuality is irrelevant when it comes to love. I just meant to say that sexuality doesn't equate love. You can definitely have sex without love (ie. both man and woman using each other for personal gratification/validation), and you can have love without sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, love is nothing more than a human biological "booster" to reproduction. Just like hunger is an eating "booster".

 

Well yes, I didn't say that sexuality is irrelevant when it comes to love. I just meant to say that sexuality doesn't equate love. You can definitely have sex without love (ie. both man and woman using each other for personal gratification/validation), and you can have love without sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, love is nothing more than a human biological "booster" to reproduction. Just like hunger is an eating "booster".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, in the post which I quoted at first,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"love"- is something related to sexuality

 

 

 

love-???

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you can't define love why use it. How do you know if someone is in "love", or love. Please clarify.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

apinagez has a somewhat good way how love acts. Guess it's something to ensure the survival of the fitess.

I cant view the video at work but im pretty sure i know what it is. Its a viral advert produced for Boots. I doubt that its quite that bad in real life. In the viral ad the woman looked like she just came in out the street. In real life she would have had a total makeover first

You know.. humanity isn't the only species that considers beauty as an important aspect of their mating partner.

I cant view the video at work but im pretty sure i know what it is. Its a viral advert produced for Boots. I doubt that its quite that bad in real life. In the viral ad the woman looked like she just came in out the street. In real life she would have had a total makeover first

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Campaign for Real Beauty is where they took the video from.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is a website sponsored by Dove that campaings for real beauty. Hence, the name :P

 

Well yes, I didn't say that sexuality is irrelevant when it comes to love. I just meant to say that sexuality doesn't equate love. You can definitely have sex without love (ie. both man and woman using each other for personal gratification/validation), and you can have love without sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, love is nothing more than a human biological "booster" to reproduction. Just like hunger is an eating "booster".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apinagez' wife: You haven't said that you love me in a long while, it's making me sad and lonely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apinagez: Well yes, I don't feel like reproducing, so it makes sense. When I feel like having a kid I'll tell you I love you.

You know.. humanity isn't the only species that considers beauty as an important aspect of their mating partner.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do other species commit suicide because they see a standard of beauty within their species and don't know it's unattainable? It's important to know that in real life you can't walk around always with 5 hours of makeup process and most importantly, in real life you can't walk around with your body and face photoshopped. That's just asking for trouble, teens don't know you can't really look like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well yes, I didn't say that sexuality is irrelevant when it comes to love. I just meant to say that sexuality doesn't equate love. You can definitely have sex without love (ie. both man and woman using each other for personal gratification/validation), and you can have love without sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In my opinion, love is nothing more than a human biological "booster" to reproduction. Just like hunger is an eating "booster".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apinagez' wife: You haven't said that you love me in a long while, it's making me sad and lonely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apinagez: Well yes, I don't feel like reproducing, so it makes sense. When I feel like having a kid I'll tell you I love you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, I don't want to turn this into a mean thread, but from an evolutionary point of view Apinagez's words would be completely justified and logical. That's probably how it worked tens of thousands of years ago (though probably with less sophisticated communication)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Love is just a matter of individual happiness. Happiness has no role in reproduction when the sole intention is to carry on your line of genes, and probably most of our forefathers (and mothers) most likely didn't really "love" each other.

Well, I don't want to turn this into a mean thread, but from an evolutionary point of view Apinagez's words would be completely justified and logical. That's probably how it worked tens of thousands of years ago (though probably with less sophisticated communication)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am jumping in the middle of this so the point might have been addressed and I missed it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the love we feel for family and friends? That has nothing to do with reproduction does it?

Well, I don't want to turn this into a mean thread, but from an evolutionary point of view Apinagez's words would be completely justified and logical. That's probably how it worked tens of thousands of years ago (though probably with less sophisticated communication)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have to be very careful with treating humans as simply evolutionary beings. Did you read Kant's scenario? If you treat your wife like that, you're going to be getting a call from your lawyer. Simple as.

 

Well, I don't want to turn this into a mean thread, but from an evolutionary point of view Apinagez's words would be completely justified and logical. That's probably how it worked tens of thousands of years ago (though probably with less sophisticated communication)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am jumping in the middle of this so the point might have been addressed and I missed it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the love we feel for family and friends? That has nothing to do with reproduction does it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today, of course it does, but I'd say if we were suddenly warped to a stone-age society, there would be no such thing as "love" we'd feel for our family and friends, just an urge to protect those close to us and to be friends with those who can provide us with resources and ally with the big strong guys and give them some resources in return, i.e. "friendship"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are just insticts and are not "necessary", but in an age like this we are fortunately able to worry about other things than a giant mammoth destroying our camp. Reproduction is one of the simplest things reliant on instict.

 

 

Well, I don't want to turn this into a mean thread, but from an evolutionary point of view Apinagez's words would be completely justified and logical. That's probably how it worked tens of thousands of years ago (though probably with less sophisticated communication)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am jumping in the middle of this so the point might have been addressed and I missed it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the love we feel for family and friends? That has nothing to do with reproduction does it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today, of course it does, but I'd say if we were suddenly warped to a stone-age society, there would be no such thing as "love" we'd feel for our family and friends, just an urge to protect those close to us and to be friends with those who can provide us with resources and ally with the big strong guys and give them some resources in return, i.e. "friendship"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are just insticts and are not "necessary", but in an age like this we are fortunately able to worry about other things than a giant mammoth destroying our camp. Reproduction is one of the simplest things reliant on instict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would posit that those "instincts," or those urges to protect one another come from love - or are love. I would assert even further that you absolutely no idea what types of things people in the stone age felt and you are making a fairly large leap in logic based on something you have merely made a guess about.

 

 

 

Well, I don't want to turn this into a mean thread, but from an evolutionary point of view Apinagez's words would be completely justified and logical. That's probably how it worked tens of thousands of years ago (though probably with less sophisticated communication)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am jumping in the middle of this so the point might have been addressed and I missed it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the love we feel for family and friends? That has nothing to do with reproduction does it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today, of course it does, but I'd say if we were suddenly warped to a stone-age society, there would be no such thing as "love" we'd feel for our family and friends, just an urge to protect those close to us and to be friends with those who can provide us with resources and ally with the big strong guys and give them some resources in return, i.e. "friendship"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are just insticts and are not "necessary", but in an age like this we are fortunately able to worry about other things than a giant mammoth destroying our camp. Reproduction is one of the simplest things reliant on instict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would posit that those "instincts," or those urges to protect one another come from love - or are love. I would assert even further that you absolutely no idea what types of things people in the stone age felt and you are making a fairly large leap in logic based on something you have merely made a guess about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you've read anything about prehistoric humans and their behavior or watched documentaries, guesses and assumptions are as good as it gets. It's fairly safe to assume that in a society where most of your time is spent on searching food and finding a safe place to live in, (and with less sophisticated brain functions) emotions like "love" can't fully thrive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may also want to read about human behavioral ecology and it's subtopics, it is very likely no coincidence your ancestors ended up living together, or that they didn't mate because of "love".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would posit that those "instincts," or those urges to protect one another come from love - or are love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insticts are to emotions like the sun is to the moon. If you are left out in a world where you have to fight to survive, you will only trust on your insticts to make sure your lineage stays alive; not because you love yourself.

 

 

 

 

Well, I don't want to turn this into a mean thread, but from an evolutionary point of view Apinagez's words would be completely justified and logical. That's probably how it worked tens of thousands of years ago (though probably with less sophisticated communication)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am jumping in the middle of this so the point might have been addressed and I missed it...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What about the love we feel for family and friends? That has nothing to do with reproduction does it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Today, of course it does, but I'd say if we were suddenly warped to a stone-age society, there would be no such thing as "love" we'd feel for our family and friends, just an urge to protect those close to us and to be friends with those who can provide us with resources and ally with the big strong guys and give them some resources in return, i.e. "friendship"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

They are just insticts and are not "necessary", but in an age like this we are fortunately able to worry about other things than a giant mammoth destroying our camp. Reproduction is one of the simplest things reliant on instict.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would posit that those "instincts," or those urges to protect one another come from love - or are love. I would assert even further that you absolutely no idea what types of things people in the stone age felt and you are making a fairly large leap in logic based on something you have merely made a guess about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you've read anything about prehistoric humans and their behavior or watched documentaries, guesses and assumptions are as good as it gets. It's fairly safe to assume that in a society where most of your time is spent on searching food and finding a safe place to live in, (and with less sophisticated brain functions) emotions like "love" can't fully thrive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You may also want to read about human behavioral ecology and it's subtopics, it is very likely no coincidence your ancestors ended up living together, or that they didn't mate because of "love".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would posit that those "instincts," or those urges to protect one another come from love - or are love.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Insticts are to emotions like the sun is to the moon. If you are left out in a world where you have to fight to survive, you will only trust on your insticts to make sure your lineage stays alive; not because you love yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What I see out of that is not about love itself - but about how we respond to love. Prehistorics might not have had time to respond to love, but it doesn't mean the feeling wasn't there. I do things now that are out of instinct and not because I love myself. In situations where I don't even know people I will act on instinct and help them when necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's very possible that prehistorics didn't have time to reflect on their feelings of love - but that doesn't mean love isn't there. During the Roman Empire, life was good for everyone and art expressing ideas like love flourished beyond belief. Enter Middle Ages, no one has time to think about love - it's all about survival and getting to Heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But then, when life starts becoming easier we start reflecting on things like that again. Does that mean love didn't exist? Or does that simply mean we didn't have time to reflect on love? I don't think it's a matter of love "evolving" into our bodies, merely just that the situation presents itself with or without the opportunity to reflect on love. But if you don't have time to reflect on love, and therefore, don't have any understanding of what love is when you feel it - it does not mean it's not there.

 

 

 

What I see out of that is not about love itself - but about how we respond to love. Prehistorics might not have had time to respond to love, but it doesn't mean the feeling wasn't there. I do things now that are out of instinct and not because I love myself. In situations where I don't even know people I will act on instinct and help them when necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's very possible that prehistorics didn't have time to reflect on their feelings of love - but that doesn't mean love isn't there. During the Roman Empire, life was good for everyone and art expressing ideas like love flourished beyond belief. Enter Middle Ages, no one has time to think about love - it's all about survival and getting to Heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But then, when life starts becoming easier we start reflecting on things like that again. Does that mean love didn't exist? Or does that simply mean we didn't have time to reflect on love? I don't think it's a matter of love "evolving" into our bodies, merely just that the situation presents itself with or without the opportunity to reflect on love. But if you don't have time to reflect on love, and therefore, don't have any understanding of what love is when you feel it - it does not mean it's not there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have to agree with that. Just because you don't have a chance to show an emotion like love it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. But I still don't know why we talk about it. :lol: Went so offtopic... My mistake..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But yes, in a modern age like this, emotions can and will (in some aspects) override evolutionary traits, and even the prettiest and smartest woman in the world could fall into love with the ugliest and shortest man in the world who acts arrogant, drinks vodka all night long and doesn't even care about her. That's just how weird the human mind is when it's given enough space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And that is love, on behalf of the woman at least. It can make all of us appreciate life, act strange, murder, rob, laugh, cry...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My point was that teens should throw their "crap body image" into the trashbin and realize even the models they see on billboards don't really exist.

Wow, good read. I just read the whole "what is love debate" you guys just had. Quite interesting. I actually agreed with Ghost!

I don't know what you guys are on that girl looks hot after she went through photoshop I would definitely have sex with her if I could reach into photoshop which is a skill that would be very useful in today's society because you can like hack into the FBI just by going there and reaching into somebody's monitor and pulling out secret information on UFOs and stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Care to elaborate on how a Photoshopping program could hack into the FBI? I would think you'd need to hack the firewalls of the databases of the NSA, CSI, and FBI instead.

 

I don't know what you guys are on that girl looks hot after she went through photoshop I would definitely have sex with her if I could reach into photoshop which is a skill that would be very useful in today's society because you can like hack into the FBI just by going there and reaching into somebody's monitor and pulling out secret information on UFOs and stuff.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Care to elaborate on how a Photoshopping program could hack into the FBI? I would think you'd need to hack the firewalls of the databases of the NSA, CSI, and FBI instead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No.

I don't think it's a bad thing that women have something to aim for in life. Many women want to be beautiful so I say let them try, that woman isn't real but if women want to go to lengths to be beautiful to impress men what is the problem? I certainly wouldn't mind if all women went to such lengths to be beautiful. Is it a bad thing?

I certainly wouldn't mind if all women went to such lengths to be beautiful. Is it a bad thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I certainly wouldn't mind it either if you could actually photoshop your face every day you go to school or a job interview, or have hours of makeup and lighting professionals blasting the right kind of light to your face at the perfect angle all day long.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sadly you can't. The only length here is the neck of a model that's been stretched by 3 inches by a program, and in that particular video, those shoulders couldn't support her head. Should especially young people really aim for something that can't be done?

I don't think it's a bad thing that women have something to aim for in life. Many women want to be beautiful so I say let them try, that woman isn't real but if women want to go to lengths to be beautiful to impress men what is the problem? I certainly wouldn't mind if all women went to such lengths to be beautiful. Is it a bad thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well if it's their choice fine, their decision.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Problem is mostly when people start starving theirselves to death or doing physical or mental harm, or spending too much time on it and do not socialize, have fun, etc.