Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -


  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#11 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:52 AM

the fallign in "love" with a painting thing isnt love its more like obsession or infatuation.
having said that i agree that love is hard to define. it is more than inatuation, obsession or lust, stonger but less intense, if that makes sense.

About males mating for life being stupid izzy i have to partially disagree i think it is just as silly if not more so for females to mate for life. it reduces their chance of carrying on their lineage as much, if not more so than for men.

As to human love being different than animal love i have to say no. many animals mate for life, is a good example. However i would like to use a more personal and emotional arguement. Ask any pet owner if they love their pets and if their pets love them the answer will almost always be yes (there are a few mean pets out there :) )
  • 0

#12 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 August 2010 - 02:54 AM

About males mating for life being stupid izzy i have to partially disagree i think it is just as silly if not more so for females to mate for life. it reduces their chance of carrying on their lineage as much, if not more so than for men.

Er, no. Consider the animal kingdom. Females, once impregnated, have to carry and then raise their youth, which is facilitated by the help of their male partners. Once pregnant, it's unlikely she'll get pregnant again while still pregnant. Considering JUST offspring here, one female human can have about one child a year (a little more if multiples are taken into account), while males can go out, and if fertile, impregnate as many women as they can score. When women mate for life, statistically, their chances of raising healthy offspring is increased (totally not ragging on single moms here, I believe it has more to do with the stability of a home than the amount of parents, but the amount of adult figures in a child's life certainly contributes), so it's in their best interest to stay with their man. For men, this is technically also true, but the more women they copulate with, the even greater their chances are for successful offspring.

By animals, I meant like penguins. I know it's a little different for humans, and as a species with already a larger population than ideal, obviously I don't support the above. :P

  • 0

#13 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2010 - 03:19 AM

When women mate for life, statistically, their chances of raising healthy offspring is increased


actually this is not true. though the 9 month thing is true (for humans) there are a lot of other factors. for instance the more often a male has sex the lower his sperm count. so a woman during her fertile period having sex with multiple partners greatly increases her chances of becoming pregnant. A woman having sex all the time does not affect her chances of becoming pregnant but a man who has sex constantly reduces his. Yes i know he doesnt have to have sex constantly but lets face it hes a male if he can he will (obligatory sexist remark sorry) A man who constantly has sex with the same woman increases the chance that he will have have sex during the time a woman is fertile, with multiple woman there is the chance he will miss the fertile period. unless he is having sex with them all every day, but again sperm count decreases and well eventually hed just have a heart attack and die (die happy of course but still die) There is the whole sterility problem but that goes both ways. the more diversified the gene pool for a woman's (or a man's for that matter) the lesser the possibility of all children having the same genetic defects (yes i know if it comes from the woman it changes nothing but right away you are diversifying 50% of the gene pool. If your talking about mentally stable offspring as opposed to physically healthy offspring then your statemnet could have some merit but that also works for men as well.

On the whole the human race is roughly 50/50 male/female if say over her lifetime a woman can have say 20 children (arbitrary number), women having several men gives them best diversification. for men to have several women to increase the number over the 20 it means other men have to sire less than 20. so yeah 1 guy can father 200 kids but that means several others will never become fathers. good for the lucky guy, sucks for the others. if the women divesify then all can reach their potential 20 with maximum genetic mixing. which is on the whole best for all, genetic diversificationally speaking. that is why i said better for women, as it is better for the human race as a whole than just men being polygamous.
  • 0

#14 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 August 2010 - 03:39 AM

Er, are you just making up statistics? Men dying from heart attacks from sex? Seriously?

It only takes 1-2 days for sperm to replenish. If what the man is *trying* to do is impregnate a chick, staying with the same partner for a month (assuming both are fertile) will yield a child.

The rest of your argument has no merit because genetic defects go both ways.

And hey, the dude is trying to have 200 kids. This is the real world. He doesn't care what's best for society, he has the evolutionary yearning to ensure his lineage is conserved.

Also, twenty women each caring for one child from the same father will create more healthy (physically and mentally) than one woman with twenty children all from different men. Not to just throw in the stereotypical gender roles here, but the mother's have to nurture their youth, at least to some extent. Twenty kids? Foo' you trippin'.

  • 0

#15 phaze

phaze

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1002 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2010 - 05:07 AM

@Izzy: If as you say the feelings we describe as love are either electro-chemically driven or socially driven what room is there for free choice?
  • 0
Perfecting Mafia suicide since August 2008

#16 Quag

Quag

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1707 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2010 - 10:59 AM

the men dying from heart attacks wa a joke,
yes genetic defects go both ways but if a woman (or a man) keeps the same partner then there is the chance that genetic defects will be passed on so yes arguement goes both ways. what i'm saying is that genetically speaking it is better to spread the gene pool.
my point on the sperm is for a woman 1-2 days is still 1-2 days. and statistically speaking it is still a factor.
the point of the 20 kids (it was an arbitrary number to just show the point) was to show that as a species, not individually, polygamy genetically makes sense. Often what is good for an individual is not necessarily good for the species as a whole.

why would a woman having 20 kids from same man have healthier kids than from 20 different men? you make statement as if it is fact but again genetically speaking it makes no sense. If you are talking about societal development of the kids that is another matter.

When women mate for life, statistically, their chances of raising healthy offspring is increased (totally not ragging on single moms here, I believe it has more to do with the stability of a home than the amount of parents, but the amount of adult figures in a child's life certainly contributes),

You realize if you inverse the words women and men in that sentence it means exactly the same thing. ie if a woman mates for life to 1 man then that means a man mates for life with 1 woman. polygamy being illegal in north america, and only practised by an very small minority, there is ample proof of all kinds of problems with the children in these polygamous families.

side. i think this is why i like this forum people always go off topic in interesting ways. not completely way out or stuff just slightly off topic
  • 0

#17 Izzy

Izzy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3054 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 26 August 2010 - 10:03 PM

@Izzy: If as you say the feelings we describe as love are either electro-chemically driven or socially driven what room is there for free choice?

Not a lot. Our choice is pretty much limited to whether or not we decide to act on our feelings. You can control who you love no more than you can control the types of food that you think taste good. You can resist foods you like about as much as you can people you like. ...It sucks.
  • 0

#18 NickFleming

NickFleming

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1233 posts

Posted 27 August 2010 - 03:29 AM

Hahaha. You know it broski.

I still stick to the chemical definition. Yay dopamine and serotonin (and ketamine and norepinephrine!) ((I *think* those are song lyrics. The ketamine is questionable, but it first syllably.. :unsure:)) ..But I digress.

Love is very "real", if you want to delude yourself. Which I encourage, it's nice to have that tingly feeling and forced smile whenever you're around the person you like. I'd assume we're the same as animals, if not a little more advanced. Some animals mate for life, and this is evolutionarily stupid for the males, considering it downs there chances of reproductive success. Ergo, love!


Last part may or may not apply, depending on ratio of males and females. Also, there are only so many resources in any given area, so over-reproducing could be bad. There are of course the chemicals, but I believe devotion is a learned trait, going along with morals. For instance, there was a nice guy who was working on putting pipes in something, and the pressure built up and shot the pipe through his brain. He lived, but he became mean and selfish, leaving people to believe that such was the default, and kindness was learned. (Pipe passed through whatever part of the brain is in charge of morals)

EDIT:
Just noticed this other quote of Izzy's,

I know it's a little different for humans, and as a species with already a larger population than ideal, obviously I don't support the above

so she already took that part into consideration. Lol when I saw 'Last Post: izzy Topic: love' I was preparing myself for a really long post :lol: . No offense to izzy (I personally would take that as a compliment, otherwise I wouldn't say it).

Edited by NickFleming, 27 August 2010 - 03:33 AM.

  • 0

#19 EDM

EDM

    Smiley Queen

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4238 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At my laptop...:P

Posted 29 August 2010 - 08:47 AM

Woah, just saw this topic and found it weird......:lol: :D

My thoughts: There is love in many forms, and 'true' love is one of them...

I can say that I love icecream (to eat).......but it's love for food.....or I love music, or I love parties, etc.
Then higher level; I love my school, I love my job, I love my wealth, etc....different and higher because it's on a slightly enclosed scale...
Then there's love between couples; very close to the top, only separated because of the whole BF-GF thing and dating, etc. can be considered as true love, but only if it's for life......
The top level is love for friends, family, neighbours, etc. [and of course, God for us religious: others, stay out of this one....:P]....this I consider to be True Love because it's not all about flowers and candy....... :D :D

Love for life and heart and soul is a whole different level......why? well, why not? It's basically a collection of the above, right??? and of course, yourself... :D

Animals do have similar emotions for love, but theirs is not as complex.....it's true love all the way; for all, it's equal... :D

Love is infinite; the only thing that stands in the way of love is vice, evil and temptation. So be careful...:D

umm...other than that, there isn't much to say..... :D

Edited by EDM, 29 August 2010 - 08:56 AM.

  • 0
Please Have a Look at The Board Guidelines... :) Before You Start Partying At The Site...Rules help out, here... :D :D :D
I'm The Smiley Queen Posted Image...Bow Down To My Smiley Smileyness!!! :P :D :D :D

#20 EDM

EDM

    Smiley Queen

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4238 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At my laptop...:P

Posted 29 August 2010 - 09:00 AM

Extra:

Infatuations with chemicals isn't love: it just happens to give similar emotions, but it's never complete......science, although great, can't describe love......but we can..... :D :wub:
  • 0
Please Have a Look at The Board Guidelines... :) Before You Start Partying At The Site...Rules help out, here... :D :D :D
I'm The Smiley Queen Posted Image...Bow Down To My Smiley Smileyness!!! :P :D :D :D




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users