No, it's simply the fact that I've seen that argument wreck countless other threads with an argument that neither side can hope to win. It often sidetracks threads to that topic, when it isn't even about whether someone understands love or not, at least not exclusively, which is the direction that such arguments tend to take, the exclusive assumption that one particular person either does, or does not, understand love, a concept which no human can truly claim to understand anyway.ravensheart18 said:So you want a discussion, but only if we agree with your assumption?Doclector said:TLR; What do you think of this assumption?
PS: Could we please steer away from "You don't understand love!" comments.
Yeah right, waste of a thread.
People need to be in a relationship to be "complete"...?
- Thread starter Doclector
- Start date
If you are fine being single, then be single, seriously. I was single for quite awhile and it never bothered me. Now I am not and its just as fine.
If you aren't one of those people that has to be in a relationship every waking second of your life, then don't. Just do whatever it is that makes you happy, the hell with expectations. However if you are only avoiding it because you are afraid of rejection or the work it takes, that might be an issue.
If you aren't one of those people that has to be in a relationship every waking second of your life, then don't. Just do whatever it is that makes you happy, the hell with expectations. However if you are only avoiding it because you are afraid of rejection or the work it takes, that might be an issue.
People sure are taking relationships too seriously
And the whole religious practise of tying two people together for all eternity is just crazy in most cases
And the whole religious practise of tying two people together for all eternity is just crazy in most cases
Actually no...I just got out of a relationship where the guy was utterly controlling because I couldn't take it. A relationship doesn't have to complete you...
You see I've never felt any real need to have a girlfriend I mean to quote Barney Stinson on the topic: ?Bimbos. They?re easily confused. It?s one of the thousand little things I love about them. I love their vacant, trusting stares; their sluggish, unencumbered minds; their unresolved daddy issues. I love them Lily, and they love me. Bimbos have always been there for me, through thick and thin?mostly thin. B-man don?t do thick crust, what up!?
I've taken this philosophy to heart and been happier ever since.
I've taken this philosophy to heart and been happier ever since.
...ehhh... i'm married and i as much as i hate to say it, i can imagine a life wothout my wife and children. I may not be happier but i can imagine it. You don't need another person to be complete, but like a hammer without a nail (pun somewhat intended) it can be useful for alot of other things it's just not as useful as the right tool. my stance on love/marriage if you find someone awesome, if you don't make sure you have fun until you do.
If you want to talk about "primal urges, you might be interested to know that (according to "science"), primal humans were serial monogamists. This means that we originally tended to be monogamous with one person at a time, but had several mates throughout our lives (well, as many as you can have when you only live to 20). So even if the biology places importance on finding a mate, the idea that any one person will "complete" you isn't necessarily part of that.dogstile said:
Personally, I think this whole long-term monogamy thing has more to do with property arrangements and the challenges of raising children in modern civilization than it does with the human makeup.
Edit: More from observation than experience, I think you're going to do a lot better in a relationship if you feel complete before you go looking for that special someone. Thinking that companionship will "complete" you is setting yourself up for strained relationships and bad breakups.