Romance is a childish invention of poets and writers

[osgart]

I disagree. I agree with the basic premise that basic human behavior / urges in terms of seeking relationships, sex etc ultimately boils down to the instinctive urge to spread ones genes. Nevertheless, I don't feel at all that that underlying explanation makes any relationship I have any less meaningful on a spiritual and / or romantic level.

Reality is still the same. My bond with my wife is still the same. Our attachment is still the same. The fuzzy feelings we get when we share a candle light dinner remains the same. Regardless if, at bottom, we can explain our "need" for such relationships with instinctive biological urges or not.



This is an assumption.
I assure you they would still experience love like any other human.
Emotions are very real, regardless of the "mechanistic" biological explanation.



But it is............
Why would you be angry about that?
We are social creatures. We thrive in groups, we seek out companionship, we have psychological urge for "belonging" etc.
I don't see how this makes any of those things less meaningful.

How is that all biological? That's just your preferred way of looking at it.

I was referring to people who think love and belonging is a passing feeling, or nothing at all.

Instinctual urges is not my language. I think of love and romance as the ability to care deeply for someone. It's a shared understanding, not a primal desire. It has nothing to do with instinct, or reaction to certain stimuli.

I have never had the urge to spread my genes.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sex drive / the innate urge to spread our genes, is actually a driving factor in loads of human behavior.

With all due respect...
you do know how I immensely fancy men...
Would you call that "innate urge to spread my genes"?
In my case, I mean.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How is that all biological? That's just your preferred way of looking at it.

No it isn't.
It's biology that drives this behavior...
It's the basis of sexual attraction, the instinctive urge to find a mate, etc.
Seems pretty obvious.

I was referring to people who think love and belonging is a passing feeling, or nothing at all.

Well in some ways it surely is... The initial passion and sexual tension of a relationship surely fades over time in general.

Instinctual urges is not my language. I think of love and romance as the ability to care deeply for someone. It's a shared understanding, not a primal desire. It has nothing to do with instinct, or reaction to certain stimuli.

The instinctual urge is what drives that need on multiple levels.
We humans are social creatures. Solitude is not our forté.
Obviously you'll find exceptions to this, but in general we want to not be alone.
Next to that we have biological instinct to spread our genes; to reproduce.

All those things makes us want to come out of our rooms and socialize, find a mate, settle a family, etc.
None of this makes "love" and that bond and care any less real. Those are the tools by which we accomplish our innate desire for that social safety net, for reproducing, for not being alone.

I have never had the urge to spread my genes.

Are you a man? Have you ever had an erection? Have you ever turned around to double check that beautiful woman you just crossed in the street?

Why did you do that, do you think? Why is it, that sexual arousal is even a thing in the first place?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

With all due respect...
you do know how I immensely fancy men...
Would you call that "innate urge to spread my genes"?
In my case, I mean.

Yes.

Just because you're gay that doesn't mean that these biological processes aren't doing their thing in your body / brain.
These are all strategies geared towards reproductive success.
Some interrelated, some independent from one another.

Even simply the fact that orgasms are a means to pleasure, is a biological strategy for reproductive success, as it makes people want to have sex.
I never said the urge to spread ones genes is conscious. Some people will indeed very much go out of their way to not have children. Meanwhile, they still have all those biological processes going on, which nevertheless through evolution are geared towards raising reproductive success.

The desire to find a mate, the desire of social bonding... It's present in almost all levels of human behavior and psychology.
Even something as trivial as a sports match, is like a battle to be the alpha male.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes.

Just because you're gay that doesn't mean that these biological processes aren't doing their thing in your body / brain.
These are all strategies geared towards reproductive success.
Some interrelated, some independent from one another.

Gay and trans women, you mean. I am not gay.

Even simply the fact that orgasms are a means to pleasure, is a biological strategy for reproductive success, as it makes people want to have sex.
I never said the urge to spread ones genes is conscious. Some people will indeed very much go out of their way to not have children. Meanwhile, they still have all those biological processes going on, which nevertheless through evolution are geared towards raising reproductive success.

The desire to find a mate, the desire of social bonding... It's present in almost all levels of human behavior and psychology.
Even something as trivial as a sports match, is like a battle to be the alpha male.

My point is that romance is much more powerful than our reproductive instinct.

 

[osgart]

No it isn't.
It's biology that drives this behavior...
It's the basis of sexual attraction, the instinctive urge to find a mate, etc.
Seems pretty obvious.

Romance is intimate appreciation not sexual desire.

Well in some ways it surely is... The initial passion and sexual tension of a relationship surely fades over time in general.

Sex and romance are not the same thing.

The instinctual urge is what drives that need on multiple levels.
We humans are social creatures. Solitude is not our forté.
Obviously you'll find exceptions to this, but in general we want to not be alone.
Next to that we have biological instinct to spread our genes; to reproduce.

My sexual desire has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce nor is it romance.

All those things makes us want to come out of our rooms and socialize, find a mate, settle a family, etc.
None of this makes "love" and that bond and care any less real. Those are the tools by which we accomplish our innate desire for that social safety net, for reproducing, for not being alone.

I understand those feelings. But romance is intimate appreciation between two people.

Are you a man? Have you ever had an erection? Have you ever turned around to double check that beautiful woman you just crossed in the street?

Why did you do that, do you think?

Not to pass on my genetics. This has nothing to do with romance.

Romancing a lover, and platonic romance are different things as well.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Gay and trans women, you mean. I am not gay.

A biological male who's into men. Sounds gay to me.
That you are also a transwoman doesn't really change that in my view.
Not that I care though, identify however you wish. All fine with me.
Whichever way it is noted... in any case you engage in relationships that will never result in biological children. So my point remains the exact same.

Gay, trans, straight but infertile,... doesn't matter. You are a human. And thus human biology affects you just as much as any non-transgender, straight, fertile human.

My point is that romance is much more powerful than our reproductive instinct.

And my point is that it wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for our biological makeup geared towards raising reproductive success.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Romance is intimate appreciation not sexual desire.

Didn't say it was. There were comma's there, followed by "..."
It's however all part of the same thing: biological strategies geared towards reproductive success.

Sex and romance are not the same thing.

Surely you see how they are linked.

My sexual desire has nothing to do with wanting to reproduce nor is it romance.

Euh.... it has everything to do with it.
You do know how babies are made, yes?

I understand those feelings. But romance is intimate appreciation between two people.

How doesn't that fit in with what I said?
Sounds like you are trying to make a pointless semantic argument tbh.

Not to pass on my genetics. This has nothing to do with romance.

Not consciously, no. But biologically: absolutely!

Romancing a lover, and platonic romance are different things as well.

Not really.
They are aspects of the same thing. Multiple biological strategies for accomplishing the same thing: raising reproductive success.
These things don't exist in a vacuum. They are interconnected.

 

[osgart]

Didn't say it was. There were comma's there, followed by "..."
It's however all part of the same thing: biological strategies geared towards reproductive success.




Surely you see how they are linked.



Euh.... it has everything to do with it.
You do know how babies are made, yes?



How doesn't that fit in with what I said?
Sounds like you are trying to make a pointless semantic argument tbh.




Not consciously, no. But biologically: absolutely!


Not really.
They are aspects of the same thing. Multiple biological strategies for accomplishing the same thing: raising reproductive success.
These things don't exist in a vacuum. They are interconnected.

It's like we speak totally different languages.

Sperm and the egg. Lol

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's like we speak totally different languages.

I don't feel like we do.
I feel more like there's an unwillingness to understand that human psychology is an evolved trait and that matters of love, romance, bonding, etc are at bottom all strategies geared towards raising reproductive success.

I've encountered this before. In my experience, people feel like it diminishes the "magic" of love / romance and makes it meaningless.
I don't feel like that at all.

Regardless of what drives it at bottom at the biological level, it doesn't change how I feel about my wife nor does it change anything about the bond we share, the memories we have, the experiences we gathered over the years nor how special and "magical" it is that we have been together since high school.

Human psychology, like all matters in life, has an explanation.
So what?

 

[osgart]

I don't feel like we do.
I feel more like there's an unwillingness to understand that human psychology is an evolved trait and that matters of love, romance, bonding, etc are at bottom all strategies geared towards raising reproductive success.

I've encountered this before. In my experience, people feel like it diminishes the "magic" of love / romance and makes it meaningless.
I don't feel like that at all.

Regardless of what drives it at bottom at the biological level, it doesn't change how I feel about my wife nor does it change anything about the bond we share, the memories we have, the experiences we gathered over the years nor how special and "magical" it is that we have been together since high school.

Human psychology, like all matters in life, has an explanation.
So what?

I wasn't implying anything to diminish your experiences. I just don't make the connection with biological reproduction and love and romance.

 

[HonestJoe]

Thought?
Be as honest aspossible.

I think you're both wrong.

The fundamental drive for any species is continuation of the species, not only reproduction itself, but broader social structures and mutual support. Everything we do, certainly everything driven instinctively, will be rooted in that underlying purpose. Of course, we are an especially complex species, particularly in the context of our creative intelligence which can lead us to directly ignore our instincts (for good or bad).

Our desire to form binary relationships is clearly built upon that drive to reproduce, and so an element of it will relate to direct sexual appeal. Because of our complexity, imagination and social structures though, we will generally look for more than that in long-term partners, all sorts of subtle, complex and sometimes apparently irrational preferences, instincts and reactions. That as a whole is commonly expressed and described in the form of romance, and while that concept is essentially an invented one and has often been presented in fiction (often in an exaggerated or simplified manner), the underlying elements certain exist in most of us to some extent.

I'm not sure you can really separate sexual and romantic elements of relationships or compare their importance, certainly not in a generalised manner. They're all part of one complex, varied and ever-shifting mess. It would be ridiculous if it didn't somehow work.

 

[osgart]

I wasn't implying anything to diminish your experiences. I just don't make the connection with biological reproduction and love and romance.

I've had people tell me that love is merely an emotion. Once the emotion passes then there's nothing there. I was referring to people that think romance is a fairy tale with no basis in reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I just don't make the connection with biological reproduction and love and romance.

Psychology / biology does

Love Influences Reproductive Success in Humans - PMC

As love seems to be universal, researchers have attempted to find its biological basis. However, no studies till date have shown its direct association with reproductive success, which is broadly known to be a good measure of fitness. Here, we show ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2021/08/LoveinHumans.pdf

Romantic attraction and evolution: New study pinpoints key traits in mate selection

What makes someone a desirable partner? New research explores the deep evolutionary and psychological factors that influence our mate choices, revealing insights about what men and women prioritize in relationships.

www.psypost.org

As said, I don't think any of this is particularly significant in every-day relationship dynamics (although I could imagine how it might help putting things in perspective at times). But I find it interesting nonetheless.

And in context of the thread: there's no reason to put things like "love" on some metaphysical / spiritual pedestal as if it is something "special" without logical biological underpinnings. And as I also noted multiple times, this, in my view at least, doesn't at all diminish the significance thereof in everyday life and experience.

 

[Kathryn]

I met my husband when he was 47 and I was 42 and I'd had a hysterectomy, which he knew all about. If anything, the idea of NOT spreading our genes was an aphrodisiac.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've had people tell me that love is merely an emotion.

Well, it is....
I've said as much to people also. But usually I said that in response to people talking about Love (capital L) as if it is some sort of force or entity which exists independently of human brains.

I was referring to people that think romance is a fairy tale with no basis in reality.

Ok. I don't agree with that. But I don't disagree either.
If anything, I think it's a weird thing to say.

It's a concept. A subjective thing which makes sense in context of human social dynamics. It doesn't exist as an objective thing in the world.
But as a biological process, a strategy of social bonding and mate selection - it sure exists.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I met my husband when he was 47 and I was 42 and I'd had a hysterectomy, which he knew all about. If anything, the idea of NOT spreading our genes was an aphrodisiac.

With all due respect, first of all at that age, other social dynamics come into play, as @HonestJoe noted.
Having said that, as I also noted in this thread, the "drive to spread genes" need not be conscious.
Many processes exist / are in play which, through evolution, all play a part towards that "ultimate" evolutionary goal of propagating are active regardless of consciously wanting children or not.

Human psychology is fundamentally build around it.
This is why people still have sex even when infertile or when using birth control.
This is why we seek out social bonds even when kids are the last thing on our mind.
This is why loneliness is a thing, regardless of a child wish.

As honestjoe stated, there's also all kinds of psychology at play for building proper social structure etc, which has in and of itself nothing to do with reproduction. But which in turn nonetheless is all about providing an environment where reproductive success at large (for oneself and / or for others) is maximized.

I like the way @HonestJoe described it: a "complex mess" of processes all ultimately geared towards the propagation and survival of the species.

 

[osgart]

Well, it is....
I've said as much to people also. But usually I said that in response to people talking about Love (capital L) as if it is some sort of force or entity which exists independently of human brains.

It's a qualitative aspect of being, not an outside force, yes. Love exists within beings and is a quality that influences emotions, and is enduring when emotions come and go.

Ok. I don't agree with that. But I don't disagree either.
If anything, I think it's a weird thing to say.

It's a concept. A subjective thing which makes sense in context of human social dynamics. It doesn't exist as an objective thing in the world.
But as a biological process, a strategy of social bonding and mate selection - it sure exists.

Love , romance, things like that are not strategies. It's opposite a strategy. It's rather selfless within existing relationship. It's more than mere concept. It has qualitative existence beyond emotions within beings.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

I mean...that's what I was told, yesterday by a group of intellectuals I frequent.
They pointed out that it was in its primitive form during the Hellenistic Novel (like the one by Longus), then it was resurrected by the Medieval Poetry (Occitan literature particularly), then with the Shakespearean tragedies, It blossomed with the German Sturm und Drang and Romantik (hence the name, romance).

They say love is pure reproductive instinct...and people seek a mate because it's their sex drives and biology that pushes them to do that.. There is nothing spiritual or romantic about that.


And I replied to them: I beg to differ. It is quite the opposite. It is the the romantic side present in our brain which pushes us to seek love, and to sto being single.
It has nothing to do with sex drives. Since people won't die by just being single and with a sexless life.

Romance is more powerful than sex (sex is just an unncecessary part). It is the search for beauty in the relationship between two people.

Thought?
Be as honest aspossible.

I really don't care to analyze it, I just want to keep it.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

With all due respect...
you do know how I immensely fancy men...
Would you call that "innate urge to spread my genes"?
In my case, I mean.

Perhaps just your legs.