Ongezellig
IAZ and soft NAZ
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Bottom] | Replies: 111 | Views: 3 | Currently viewing: 1
actually its legal and moral to have sexual fantasies about mymy!!!
no matter what ((they)) say its true! its not bad nor immoral
>truth brother nothing but it
She deserves pure and innocent love only
TSMT
People hardly can fall in love with western animation characters because they aren't designed to be someone's goon material unlike the japanise animated films
Falling in love with cartoon characters is faustian, and frankly, very aryan too.
Love and lust are the same thing. Loving someone means you want to have children with them, which involves sexual attraction.
Try to name a single, real-world example of (non-platonic)love and lust being differentiated.
old married couples? the idea that the same love you have for your family doesn't extend to your girlfriend or wife is retarded or you are so porn brained that you are too far gone or you are brown
>>110603
What are you implying? That they would leave each other to fuck someone else if they didn’t truly “love” each other. They’re old… who are they going to find who is going to want to have sex with them?
Try to find another example.
I'm not the poster you're replying to, but how can you feel a "family love" to unrelated to you characters? Also, old couples are just the kind of couples that have already done their "mission" and that's to say bearing children and continuing their lineage, and went out of their reproductive age as well
what is the point of this debate you are going to just make excuses every time, i cant argue with you when your whole worldview is centered around lust and you don't believe in love we will simply never agree. people stay with their wives during and after pregnancy because they love them and their children, or if their wife or girlfriend gets seriously ill or becomes handicapped. you can be a jaded swarthy retard thinking the only thing that matters from women is sex all you want its not my problem
>>110606
We only got 2 messages into this discussion and you’re already backing out of it…
Men stay with their wives because they want to have children (a sexually-oriented motivation). They stay with the children to ensure they grow and further his bloodline (also a sexually-oriented motivation). They would stay with the handicapped woman because they’re still going to get free sex out of it… if their bedroom was completely dead, they would seek out extramarital affairs sooner or later.
Asking this and adding in (non-platonic) is like saying “there are no examples if you don’t count all the examples we found”
“Non-platonic love” means same-sex friendships and relations with family members. Sexual activity would never, under usual circumstances, ever arise within these relations.
>your whole worldview is centered around lust and you don't believe in love we will simply never agree.
Continuing my objection (>>110605), it's more reasonable to consider "lust" as an inseparable part of love, not that lust = love, but that love, obviously, contains some of lust, or something like that. I assume you got the idea.
>>110608
"Platonic love" isn't the love we have been talking about, though.
>>110609
Wait, you actually mean "platonic love", right?
Yes exactly so you can clearly love someone without lusting for them.
No. The love one has for friends/family differs from the love one has for possible sexual partners. There can never be a scenario in which you would want to start a family with someone without feeling sexual attraction towards them.
Yes obviously romantic love is different from platonic love. But you said love and lust are the same thing which is completely untrue. If your point is romantic love and lust are the same thing then say that.
Yes, romantic love and lust are the same thing. That has been the point I’ve been making the entire time.
It only works towards the zellig sisters and only due to the fact we love them platonically (I hope you do too)
But surely you don’t think that lusting after someone automatically means you romantically love them?
>>110617
If you want to have sex with someone, you (whether consciously or not) want to have children with them. That is “love”.
The idea that love is some abstract, mystical thing is a fictional notion. Most people in the world behave and think similarly to each other… there really isn’t that much of a difference between one woman and the next… or one man and the next. If your wife/husband died suddenly, you would be sad for a little while… but you would eventually get over it and remarry.
So to you the love felt by two people engaging in a one night stand is no different than the love felt by people who have been dating for years or a couple that have been married for 2 decades? It sounds like you just don’t believe romantic love even exists, not just that it is the same thing as lust.
Tbh I would rather separate romantic love (let's call it "strong lust") from trivial lust ("momentual, temporary lust"). But it's more a moral question than strictly biological.
>discuss it
>>110619
I don’t believe in “romantic” love… as I said, I believe that non-platonic love = lust.
The people who have been living with each other started out their relationship no differently than the people who met each other in a bar for a one-night-stand… they saw each other, noticed that they were sexually attracted to each other, and the relationship grew from there. The only difference in this context is the duration that the two people have dwelled together.
What about people who date but do not live together? You don’t think they feel any more love for each other than two people who don’t even know each other’s last names before they have sex?
>>110623
You mean like soldier wives who stay at home while their husband goes out to service? They probably have some sort of agreement set up (they own a home together, they have kids already, they have some form of mutual committment or another) which causes them to stay “together”.
That’s the “ideal” explanation. In reality, it is very common for soldiers to get cheated on when they are away… so common that it’s become a “meme”. They refer to them as “Dear John” letters.
No I mean like people who meet and start dating, live in the same city, but both have their own house/apartment.
What about it? People can’t be expected to move in together as soon as they start dating…
You said it was dwelling together that makes people feel differently in a relationship over time. But couples can live separately for months into a relationship. You don’t think they at any point have feelings that aren’t found in a one night stand until they cohabitate?
>>110627
I never said that at all. Please reread the prior post.
I said that people who live together for an extended period… and people who only hook up for a single night… both instigated their relationship the same way - sexual attraction.
You said “The only difference in this context is the duration that the two people have dwelled together.” So what if they have not dwelled together? Then there is no difference and their relationship cannot be any deeper than two people having a one night stand.
> Then there is no difference and their relationship cannot be any deeper than two people having a one night stand.
It’s true. It sounds bleak, but relationships do not really extend any deeper than physicality. That’s why people cheat on each other so often, and why divorce rates are high in countries where it is easy to get divorces.
You will get an undiscovered illness that kills you within the next 5 years.
Okay so you legitimately do not think the relationship between the two daters is any different than the one night stand?
Have you ever had a girlfriend? If the answer is “no”, then how would you know anything about “love”? It only exists as a nebulous concept with your mind, inspired solely by escapist media which romanticizes the concept. That’s why your opinion on the topic isn’t realistic.
No. There’s no magical “deep love” that appears in one of those relationships that doesn’t appear in the other. You can “love” someone’s behaviors and peculiarities… but you would find just as many lovable aspects within some other person if you found them sexually attractive.
I have had a girlfriend, it sounds like projection in your case because once you find someone that enjoys your company you will understand and you'll stop falling for the pol memes
Emphasis on “had”. She eventually left you? Can I take a wild guess that she is now currently dating someone who is more attractive than you?
I agree physical connection and attraction is an important part of a romantic relationship, but acting like romantic relationships can never in any way be deeper than lust is silly.
There’s nothing deeper than lust… and there’s no example that you could provide that wouldn’t just be something you saw in some romantic anime.
>In reality, it is very common for soldiers to get cheated on when they are away…
It's maladaptive, in fact. Being socially destructive, it's the same base instinct that comes from the need for what we would call "romantic love", but since it's only an evolutionary instinct, it only pushes, and doesn't lead directly, so people often lead astray themselves. Although promiscuous immoral sex stems from good biological impulses, it essentially undermines their fulfillment. Exactly on this basis we have to distinguish more conscious attraction from simple internal urges. If you look deeper than you actually look, biology forces us to separate productive sexual relationships and their types (monogamous monoracial families) from incorrect ones (polygamous, interracial, homosexual, etc.).
“Word salad” posts like this which sound like they were written by aspiring philosophers are almost always completely detached from reality. Whether something is “maladaptive” has not has no bearing on whether or not it exists… or “should” exist.
>>110640
Uh… it isn’t. “I have” is present tense. I “have had” means that one has had something in the past.
Are you the guy I was replying to? You’re saying you still have a girlfriend?
So you just imply that the "purpose of life" is precisely sex, and not that sex is a tool for achieving this "purpose"? This is a misrepresentation.
It you want to speak in purely biological terms… yes, the purpose of life is sex. Not only does it continue one’s bloodline, but it also serves as the most pleasurable and fulfilling activity that one may partake in.
No, I'm an observer. And as I remember, present continuous represents the action that began once and still continues, correct me if I'm wrong.
>Serve as one what
I mean it is only this pleasurable because it's biologically the most needed thing in our lives. For everyone.
Yes. How does that contradict anything I’ve said previously?
That does not, right, but the problem is that you're misinterpreting and substituting these things.
Provide an example of what you’re referring to. How am I misinterpreting and substituting things.
>>110658
All of that is just some weird semantic word-game that you are playing with yourself. Whether sex is the goal in-and-of itself or the means of achieving a goal is irrelevant.
This is why I said before that posts like this are always detached from reality… the question of whether or not a dichotomy exists between these two things does not physically translate over to reality… it only serves as a hypothetical though-experiment that can only exists in your mind.
Ev&oe it's a discussion that involves at least two Christians which defend morality on biological grounds arguing what is naturally reasonable and what is not reasoning from these very biological grounds.
>>110661
>Whether sex is the goal in-and-of itself or the means of achieving a goal is irrelevant
And why do you think so?
>this dichotomy exists only inside of your head
What a dichotomy? "Romantic love"/"trivial lust"? Whatever you call it, it's just a fact there are bad and good strategies in the "life goal" achievement which is reproduction (or gene preservation through reproducing if more precisely).
>>110671
>And why do you think so?
Explain to me how something like that translates over to, and has a tangible effect on, reality.
>there are bad and good strategies in the "life goal" achievement
I don’t think anyone in the thread ever argued this. I’ve always said that people who are attracted to each other want to have sex with each other.
>Explain to me how something like that translates over to, and has a tangible effect on, reality.
Well it's simply helps us in understanding what we actually need to live happier lives and be a successful breed.
>>there are bad and good strategies in the "life goal" achievement
>I don’t think anyone in the thread ever argued this. I’ve always said that people who are attracted to each other want to have sex with each other
Albeit you technically equated things like smash-and-dash (bad strategies) with actual families (good strategies), this is why I got butthurt at you
>Well it's simply helps us in understanding what we actually need to live happier lives and be a successful breed.
There’s nothing that needs to be “understood”. People who are horny for each other will fuck… and that fucking will generate babies. People understand this intuitively… they don’t need to read a book or entertain abstract concepts to understand it.
>Albeit you technically equated things like smash-and-dash (bad strategies) with actual families
I didn’t. That is likely a byproduct of you reading through the message too quickly and getting “butthurt” for no reason. I merely said that both of these scenarios were instigated by the same feelings (lust/sexual attraction).
To “generate” means “cause to arise or come about”. It’s an appropriate word.
>There’s nothing that needs to be “understood”. People who are horny for each other will fuck… and that fucking will generate babies. People understand this intuitively… they don’t need to read a book or entertain abstract concepts to understand it.
So you think that spiders' strategy for breeding & raising children is effective? Lol. Well it's too subtle, the joke is that spiders bear little spiderinis and then genocide them en-masse.
>You're butthirt for no reason, I'm agreeing with you (allegedly)
Ok Fritzl, turns out my opinion is true (woah)
>>110678
>So you think that spiders' strategy for breeding & raising children is effective? Lol. Well it's too subtle, the joke is that spiders bear little spiderinis and then genocide them en-masse.
You think you understand more about nature than nature itself… like you have the right to “critique” the way the world is? That is bizarre and nonsensical.
>You're butthirt for no reason, I'm agreeing with you (allegedly)
I guess? You are indeed getting upset for no reason. If you agree that lust/sexual attraction is the promary motivator for male/female interactions… then yes, we are in agreement.
Ph, and I should say that the method that spiders rear their babies is indeed effective… as there are literally quadrillions of them on Earth.
>You think you understand more about nature than nature itself…
Translating this into real english: "I AM DA NATURE"
>But where's your right to do things I don't like HUH?
There's no such a thing as a right to criticize anything
>Well if X is X then we agree
Breath-taking point, indeed
>>110684
It's a name for pedophiles and sodomites as a whole
>>110682
And if not their strategy there'd be more of them. Quite important detail, you know
I can tell you’re no longer arguing sincerely. You started off being overly-verbose and are now being brash and obtuse… “I AM DA NATURE”. You’ve already admitted before that you were butthurt, so I am going to perceive this as you conceding from the discussion.
asexual people also get into romantic relationships, that's a clear example. what you seem to not get (much like the other EPI victims of this modern era) is that the physical pleasure people experience from sex often isn't the main thing they enjoy about it, what they enjoy more is the connection they're having with the other person and the fact that they're sharing that pleasure with them.
wait, You're saying people do it for connection and not just cuz it's fun?
Post actions
[Return] [Thread list] [Index] [Catalog] [Top] | Replies: 111 | Views: 3 | Currently viewing: 1