The Doomed Forum

Your thoughts about l o v e
Page 3 of 3

Author:  Beerman [ Thu Apr 28, 2016 7:01 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

Author:  Beerman [ Tue May 03, 2016 9:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

Two songs, saying the same thing. Stronger alone. Hide. Wear armour

Author:  Beerman [ Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:36 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

Quite enjoyed reading this thread again. Agreed with a lot of d.mimøsa and endemoniada_88 had to say on page 1.

Important to differentiate between sexual and non-sexual love as they have different demands placed upon the participants and serve different purposes.

It's also important to bring in reality and virtual reality into the equation, although it could be argued that everything is virtual, and I would argue just that. If love is a verb then its opposite is betrayal and that has to be defined in the virtual and what is perceived by both participants as the non-virtual.

I'd also throw in the life-cycle of sexual love with age, from sexual love to non-sexual love, as needs and wants change from social to survival, imitating the non-sexual love of parent and child and necessitating the need for these roles to be adopted.

Author:  firebird [ Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

You do not want to know a scientists´ thoughts about love (and I do NOT only mean the sexual kind). :D

Author:  Beerman [ Tue Jun 16, 2020 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

Here are my thoughts on Sex and Love and Rock ‘n’ Roll. You can tell I'm waiting for the pubs to reopen...

When most people talk about love they are really talking about sex, and when most people talk about sex they are really talking about lust, which is the whole mating ritual experience, with the sex act thrown in there somewhere. I’m going to combine lust and the sex act and just call it sex, then I’m going to talk about sex, then if the pubs haven't opened I’m going to talk about love, and then if the pubs still haven't opened I’m going to talk about a thing I’ve called sexual-love which is what I think most grown-ups want to be in with people we are not related to, but I could be wrong.

Sex is biological, reproduction is nature’s intended consequence and chemicals create the desire to do it, and it can be addictive. A lot of people think they are in a love when they are in sexual relationship, although I personally don’t think a sexual relationship is a real relationship, but let’s call it that for now.

Sexual relationships start with infatuation, which, if you are looking for love, gives the people it brings together the time needed for each to check out the other in terms of character and what they can bring to the table. If this time is wasted by just focusing on the sex, then there will be no chance of love being formed and the sexual relationship lifecycle will run its course, namely, infatuation, disappointment, disillusion, desperation and dissolution. A lot of people don’t realise the clock is actually ticking during infatuation, or what they have to do during this period to see if they can fall in love. If the chance is missed most sexual relationships rarely last more than a few years, most can be measured in months, it depends how long you can stomach the final stages.

You don’t need to have a sexual relationship to find love. There are millions of young couples around the world that have their union arranged for them. The parents normally decide if the two are good for each other and if they will fall in love over the years as their life together progresses. This puts the decision in the hands of more experienced older people who can ask the awkward questions like ‘how much money do you have?’ and ‘what are your job prospects?’ and it moves the exploration of love away from sex which muddies the water. For centuries sex with multiple partners has been associated with shallowness in terms of intellect and morals, lack of commitment, and untrustworthiness. Significant factors in the rejection of a life partner. It’s only recently that promiscuity has become acceptable, if not deemed necessary to check out random candidates to find the one.

Neither does attraction have to be based on how someone looks. I would argue that ugliness defines beauty in that anything that is not ugly is beautiful. This applies equally to non-physical attributes as well as physical ones, and we each define our own ugly. Intelligence and character are far better attributes to base the selection of a life partner on than the shape of a body or fake behaviour which fade with time anyway.

Those doing sexual relationships can be divided up into groups and placed under two headings, the genuine and the disingenuous, or to put it another way; the actor, the indifferent and the dreamer; and the predators.

The Actor. If you search the internet for the definition of love you better have a sick bag ready. You’ll be faced with gushing sugary romanticism. This all started around 1200AD with the nobility in France. A game was devised in the royal court to give pleasure from denial. Royalty and knights would practice swooning at fair maidens, creating a romantic environment for couples, and the thrill they got was from the chase, sex without the sex act, or at least that’s what they claimed, and nobody talked about the peasants in the village for a quick one. This came to be known as Courtly Love and it has a lot to answer for because it is still widely played out today, as that internet search revealed. All actors agree to do it, there is no deception, it fits in perfectly with the Instagram/ Facebook/ Selfie/Look at me/ I am happier than you/ culture of today. Before Courtly Love, the concept of love didn’t really exist. The nobility married to attain and pass on land, money and power, the merchants paired up to share workload of business and household, and the peasants just had sex. Needs and wants never came into it and neither did affection. The modern day concept of love kind of combines all this together, and it works because it adds what the other emotionally needs, to material needs and work-sharing, and embellishes it all with a bit of romanticism. But the Actor just wants to play the pre-Raphaelite romantic part, as Shakespeare put it, sighing like a furnace.

The Indifferent. This group includes an awful lot of young people, more so than it used to, and it seems to double with each generation, but It includes single people of all ages of course, and some not single. The indifferent want no strings casual sex and some don’t know what they want. The older ones can get into swinging, group sex, ‘friends with benefits’ arrangement, sometimes discovering to their cost that they are not as indifferent as they thought, all very sad. They don’t want to hurt anyone, they are not predators out to deceive and use, they do not pretend to be anything they are not. They simply want to scratch their sexual itch and seek others who wish to do the same. They couldn’t care less about you or anything about you. They don’t care if you are good or bad, and probably don’t care if they are either. For them sex has no meaning and the person they are having sex with is pretty much an object. Some just drift along bobbing about in life’s ocean being pulled this way and that, ask one where do you see yourself in a 10 or 20 years from now and they will look at you blankly. Whereas others care intensely about something like their job and don’t want anything that would distract from that so they get a cleaner in to do the housework and a person in to do the sex.

The Dreamer. They are the love seekers. They want to be in love so much that they will talk themselves into thinking they are. They believe sex will make the other person love them, but the actor will think it’s part of the play, the indifferent will think they are indifferent too, and the predator will take advantage. You could argue that the actors, the indifferent and dreamers are all merely players in this sexual farce, each in their time playing many parts. A dreamer may drift into indifference if things are not going well in the relationship, cheat with a stranger for a thrill, or go back with an ex to check out an alternative person to dream with, and drift back again to have another go at making it work. Maybe the saddest situation is where the people in a sexual relationship are both love seekers. Both want to be in love so much that they each pretend they are. It’s a bit like two actors where neither know it’s a game. It’s the saddest because it lasts the longest. The pain can go on for years, building up externally with constant arguing and bickering, or internally where there are no cross words said at all, until that ‘pass the salt’ moment when it all comes out like a dam breaking. Both scenarios end when they finally admit to themselves they don’t love each other and probably never did.

On to the types of predators;

Predators mainly target dreamers simply because the indifferent don’t care and actors think it’s all a passion play. That said they can use the actors and indifferent to suck in dreamers into things like threesomes and other such sexual thrill-seeking. The vulnerable make a great target for predators and they tend to go for these first, unless of course there’s money involved, then they make an effort. They go for the unloved, the lonely, the frightened, the bullied, the unpopular, the invisible, the neglected, the unsafe, the insecure. The dreamer dreams of a stable home, an idyllic family with an idyllic partner and idyllic children, and everyone is happy and smiling like on a TV commercial, and the predator knows just what to say to make the victim think they are going to get it if they have sex with them.

The Player. They move from one sexual encounter to the next seeking the excitement of a new body, new surroundings, a new scenario. In reality, each experience is much the same as the last, as will be the next. Their thrill comes from a repeatable process of flirting, sex act, and exit. Their reward comes from their performance and the conquest. When the excitement is gone, so are they, to reset the clock for the next one. They treat it as a game where lying and cheating are not only allowed to string their mark along, but it’s scored by the crowd they hang out with. Knowing the right things to say, the right moves to make to bed their object of desire is all part of the game. The more you bed, the more you string along, the higher your score. Some score points for the number of babies they can make. It’s all part of the game. The bigger the score, the bigger the man, or the bigger the woman.

The Leach. As highly skilled at bedding someone as the player, but they are not interested in scoring points, they are out to get what they can out of their mark, how much money they can take, how long they can stay for free, how much of their cooking, cleaning and laundry they can get done. They are immoral and they use people until the well runs dry then it’s on to the next one. They can have multiple sexual partners on the go at one time because that increases the money and the benefits they can extract. Some will even marry their mark to secure the benefits at home whilst having sex with others to gain extra benefits elsewhere. Marriage means nothing to them, it is just another tool to secure benefits.

The Narcissist. Nasty people who hate people who don’t think they are as wonderful as they think they are. They seek control and power over their victim until it becomes a master-slave relationship where the bullied is made to feel worthless, isolated, apologetic, obedient. They are vampires, sucking the life-blood from their partner, chipping away at their self-esteem to get them dependent so they don’t go anywhere.

The Sociopath. Sociopaths are born normal but grow up in a sociopathic environment that squeezes the empathy out of them. By the time they are adult, most are indistinguishable from psychopaths. Sociopaths are easily mistaken for players, leaches and narcissists but being without empathy and having goals that go beyond their own ego, they are much more dangerous. They are without mercy or remorse. They are the sort who would beat their partner to convince them not to put on child support because that would take money away from them achieving something else, or push them under a bus if they get in their way and won’t step aside. Sociopaths, hey, can’t live with them, can’t get away from them alive.

I think I’ve covered the major ones in the game. There is a rumour they are considering opening pub beer gardens on 22 June, if not I'll go a little deeper.

Author:  Beerman [ Thu Jun 18, 2020 10:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

We capture data about the world through our nerve endings, spinal cord and brain. These organs you can cut open on a post mortem table and study how they physically work. Our brain sits in complete darkness in the skull, but within that brain an illuminated image is produced by electricity, so convincing and so real-time that it is as if we are actually there. The mind, that illusive thing created by the brain, conjures up a virtual world and places us in it enabling us to understand it, interact with it and through emotions, motivate us to change it through our actions.

If the brain is like a piano, with a case of wood housing hammers, levers and wires, then the pedals and keys would be the senses responding to forces exerted on them from the outside world, and the mind would be the sound that emerged from the piano. Intelligence orders the noise into songs we can sing along to. The things we see in our mind are not real, even if they are constructed from real things. They are simulations created from reflected radiation bouncing off objects and converted into electricity by our eyes and we give them meaning which can be manipulated and variable from person to person even if we see the same thing.

When we see a chair we don’t just see four wooded poles supporting two flat pieces of wood as say a dog might, we, in accordance with our intelligence, see legs, a seat, a backrest, its design, and we assign it meaning, functionality, aesthetics and value. We give complex meanings to the things we see and feel and we form meaningful connections with them. Our minds take what we see and passes it through a model of the physical world as we perceive it, and then through a model of semantics constructed from past teachings, experiences, and conclusions from our own thoughts. This semantic model generates complex meanings and emotions.

The brain may identify the object we are having sex with as being animal, vegetable or mineral, but the mind gives meaning to the object and the sex being had with it. This meaning generates the degree of pleasure, indifference or disgust we are having. What rubs the nerve endings doesn’t really matter as long as its meaning generates pleasure.

Assign no meaning to sex and it becomes a self-indulgent pleasure, as meaningless and fleeting as quenching a thirst on a hot day with a cold beer. Sometimes the thirst is quenched before the beer is half drunk, sometimes the more often you quench a thirst the less pleasurable the quench becomes, and sometimes overindulgence can get you addicted to quenching and it becomes an act that has to be done to stop the pain from not quenching. Whether it’s a person or a porn site, if the mind assigns no meaning to sex then pleasure comes from your fantasies and you moves on when you’re done as if it never happened.

Assign meaning to sex and it can used to achieve things beyond sex. The meaning assigned by the predator is to make it an activity that gets them what they want, like making it into a job interview. Performance is practiced, confident and used to sell themselves to the interviewer to get the money and status the job will deliver. The meaning assigned by the dreamer is of hope and romanticism, perfect for the predator to deliver.

You can’t really assign the meaning of love to sex unless you know what the meaning of love is. In the past, and I’m talking centuries here, you didn’t need to know the meaning of love explicitly because the social system comprising society morals, institutions and parents, guided you. But you could argue this social system has been declining exponentially for some years now with the liberalisation of sexual behaviour. Young people today and in the future need to know explicitly what love is if they are to stand any chance of achieving it. In the absence of a social system to guide them they must guide themselves.

The risk in talking about stuff like this is you can come across as a self-proclaimed latter day saint of virtue and wisdom; a pretentious holier than thou silly old sod. So can I just say that I make no moral judgements of anyone but myself. My views are my own formed by years by thinking about it. If all you want is sex then fine, I’d sooner have beer. All I’d say is don’t use people. Not everybody seeks love and that’s fine as well. I am only voicing my opinion on the subject to anyone who is interested, and I’m only doing that because the pubs are closed due to lockdown, and I heard the terrible news yesterday that beer gardens won’t be opening before July after all, so I’m depressed, and it’s raining.

So, having got the sticky subject of sex out of the way, it’s on to what is ths thing called love?

Author:  Beerman [ Fri Jun 19, 2020 1:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

And so to love... I loved my aunt, but she died, and my uncle Lou then he died. I'm searching for something which can't be found but I'm hoping I still dream of dad, though he died. Everything dies.

A good test if you love someone is you want to play funeral doom when they die. Love is what is felt between parent and child assuming the parent has shown love to the child and the child has not rejected it. By parent I mean whoever fills that role not the biological parent. I know I shouldn’t use the term I am trying to define in the definition because it creates a recursion, but that’s the risk with a snappy one-liner definition. Here’s the longer version.

Love starts at birth. The newborn cries out to be held and is held. It doesn’t take long before the baby knows it needs the people who are providing the comfort, and not much longer after that to repeat the names of its providers, mother and father, although perhaps in not so many words. This along with first steps, first potty, smiles and crying/stop-crying encourage the chemicals to flow that secure that parents love. The desire of the parents to comfort and nurture the baby to toddler to child, not only develops them physically, but also mentally and the child starts trust the parents. This trust is tested throughout the formative years and builds accordingly if the parents pass the tests. By the age of 7 or 8 the child is primarily conditioned by the parents and then the school and has learnt how to behave, socially interact, and operate within boundaries. These critical years develop the template for the child’s future personality and character. From then on the environment plays a far greater role in their mental development and the trust is repeatedly tested in different ways throughout adolescence and into adulthood to see if it survives pushing the boundaries further and behaviours that do not align with their parent’s teachings.

From birth to adolescence the parent’s love for a child is biological. During this period a child doesn’t really love its parents, but rather needs them for its physical care and security, and instinctively sends out signals that keep their parent’s hormones pumping to keep them loving the little angel. As the child gets older, and the hormones subside, the parent’s biological bond weakens and it gets increasing difficult to love the child unconditionally if the child does not return the love. In adulthood, the child’s view of the parents should have changed from using them to being grateful for the nurture they have given. Throughout adulthood the relationship between parent and child still has trust at its core and affection has to be reciprocated.

Parents and adult child can fall out of trust, but there have been so many years of nurture unconditionally given and the trust has been proven solid by testing it for so many years, that it would take a betrayal of enormous magnitude to break it. If it is broken, the relationship turns to indifference, if not hate.

There comes a time in an adult’s life when they must leave the nest, make their own way in the world and have children themselves if they so wish. If they don’t leave, or if they come back, the relationship between parent and child often becomes obsessive. The parent treats the adult as a child and the adult can become content to be treated as such. If this happens, when the parents die, the dependent child is left alone unable to cope.

Assuming the child finally leaves to make their own life, whoever they meet out there, and whatever influences they have on them, will not diminish the child’s love for the parent and although others may take pride of place as number one in their life, the parent will always be the one they ultimately trust. The love they feel for their parents and the trust they place in them is the love and trust they seek with their future life partner, but before two people seeking the mindset of love, hook up for life under love’s sweet umbrella, some questions need to be asked by both of them.

What is love?

Why be in love?

How do you trust each other?

How do you maintain love until it reaches its use-by date?

Does having sex with someone you love mean you have an Oedipus complex?

Author:  abigail [ Fri Jun 19, 2020 9:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

Author:  Beerman [ Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

:D Hi Abigail . If ever two people met on Plenty of Fish and videoed their first date. But she is right, for her love is just 3 things of importance; respect, admiration and trust. She needs them from him. Whether forcing a guy to say his needs are also respect, admiration and trust or he’s not getting any, would probably work on PoF. It’s quite fun trying to work out if he’s a player or an indifferent. Getting him to jump of something to certain injury is a great way to find out. The dreamer makes a great mark though doesn’t she?

As endemoniada_88 said only 7 years ago;

You can develop trust, affection, respect, compromise, understanding - all those things that actually make a partnership work, over time.

If you want a list of things that might define love for you, just think back to what your parents gave you materialistically and emotionally (or maybe didn’t give you), and that would be a good starting point for what defines love for you. Whatever is on your list, it needs to be prioritised because no one is going to be able to give all the things on it, and probably not be willing to put the effort in to meet more than say half a dozen. Plus, if you have that many holes in your psyche you probably need a therapist more than a lover. How you prioritise is up to you but a simple essential/desirable, priority/non-priority, needs/wants is probably good enough.

Here’s a list I’ve come with of the material/physical things you might need to assess;

Sex, job, status, prospects, income, pension, assets, debt, house, living arrangements, sex, health, appearance, housekeeping, cleanliness, hygiene, physical habits, sex, dependents, spending, money management, sense of humour, sex.

Here a list of emotional holes that might need filling;

Closeness, care, empathy, recognition, respect, communication, attraction, intimacy, passion, making love, contentment, history, reputation, morals, ethics, self-esteem, confidence, power and control, stimulating conversation, staying in, going out, interests, fun, excitement, seriousness, having the time, energy and inclination to do things together, having your own space, tolerance of Doom Metal.

Note that I haven’t included trust as this is a building block for a love relationship rather than a need as it kind of goes without saying that if you don’t believe a word the other person is saying, then you won’t believe their pledge to give you any of the things you ask from them.

Let me give an example of what I mean. Let’s assess his and hers strengths and weaknesses, needs and don’t need, in the areas of income and communication. All characters portrayed in this example are fictitious and no identification with actual persons, living or deceased is intended or inferred. No animals were hurt in the making of this example.


What do I need? To live the life of a millionaire playboy like Richard Branson or Bruce Wayne.

What I can offer in return? Half of my unemployment benefit.

What can I tolerate from the other person? Anything as long as she owns a brewery.

What can I not allow? No shared bank account.


What do I need? Peace and quiet

What I can offer in return? Pretend to listen.

What can I tolerate from the other person? Talking less than 50% of the time.

What can I not allow? Refusing requests to shut the fuck up.

If one person’s need for incomes outweighs their need for communication, and the other persons need for communication outweighs their need for income, then voila, you have a match in these two areas. Indeed, the need for income maybe such a priority that the person needing it might reassess what they are not prepared to tolerate and settle for a pair of earplugs instead.

To answer the question, What is love?

Love is being able to share part of your mental makeup with another to support them without making yourself less, and being willing to put in the considerable effort to do so. It is a person trying to recreate the love they were given by their parents or rectify what they weren’t given, with a stranger.

To answer the question, Why be in love?

The bottom line is; building your pile, having a decent house, a job that brings in enough money to allow you to do stuff you want to do, keeping your family safe and secure, sharing the workload etc., when added to all the personal stuff like being respected and cared for, shown affection, killing the stress etc, will make you happy. Obviously not all the time, but even when you’re not happy, being in love relationship means no one is going anywhere, so being unhappy for a bit is ok and you can sort it out. If you are unhappy all the time then you’ve probably picked someone who doesn’t love you.

Clearly being in a love relationship is a lot of work. The motivation to do this is you get help and support with the deficiencies in your mental makeup, and together as team you will achieve more than individually in a sex relationship because each covers the shortfalls of the other in a lifelong commitment. All the hard work that love involves is no bad thing, it forces you to look at yourself and interact with another on an intimate emotional level. You learn to rely on and trust another person and enjoy having someone always there physically and emotionally in your life, someone to turn to when someone dies or your child drops out of school to live in their bedroom, or to share the joy of getting the thing you always wanted..

Author:  Beerman [ Mon Jun 22, 2020 2:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

So, how do you trust each other?

Trust is the foundation of love and is broken by betrayal. Betrayal can take many forms, sexual, financial, power and control, just go through the list I’ve put up of things you may need from your partner, pick out the most essential and if your partner betrays you in any of those things then it’s over. You cannot be betrayed by someone who loves you, nor can you betray someone you love.

Betrayal should end any infatuation, if it doesn’t then you truly are hormonally smitten. It will definitely end the post-infatuation trial period of checking your partner out. Betrayal may feel horrible at the time, but it’s a good thing in that it is a test of love and you should be thankful for it, you could have ended up with that person for years before you realised they never loved you. You cannot repair broken trust; nothing is ever forgotten or forgiven. Like Jacob Marley’s chains, we carry our sins and our regrets to the grave. You cannot betray someone by making a mistake, or slipping up, or it just happening, or with one thing leading to another, it is deliberate, and it is a declaration by the betrayer that they do not love you. The betrayer cannot restore trust by admitting the betrayal, apologising for it, or demonstrating they can be trusted from now on. Betrayal is a painful thing to do to someone, some never get over it. If the person in genuinely looking for love and their partner is not the one they seek, then just tell them, don’t stick a knife in them and twist it. The predators don’t care of course; some actually get a sexual kick from the pain they cause.

If you forgive a betrayal and you don’t end it there and then, well, you can look forward to years of misery and a union that will eventually self-destruct anyway. Forgiveness in the context of betrayal simply means you have stopped caring about the pain they have caused. You can only be indifferent to a betrayal if you are indifferent to the person that did it to you. Forgiveness in this context means the betrayer is put inside a bullet-proof cell in their mind, where they can’t hurt you anymore and when it’s time to check out the next potential partner, you calmly promenade down this ‘silence of the lambs’ corridor, reminding yourself of the lessons learnt from the inmates behind the glass, so that you recognise the red flags in the future.

So, how can you trust someone you have known for a fraction of the time you have known your parents? They never raised you, nurtured you, or help define you. The trust you have in your parents has been built and demonstrated over many years, and rigorously tested. Your test-drive life partner has done none of this. The answer is of course, you can’t, trusting a relative stranger requires a leap of faith, so the question becomes when do you take this leap? Obviously not until the infatuation is over and you can see the person as they truly are, and not so long that neither considers the other to be taking the relationship seriously anymore, commonly known as the ‘put a ring on it’ syndrome. Enough to say that it should be measured in years rather than months.

When you and your partner finally trust each other, that is when the love relationship begins, that is when your first declarations of love should be made, it’s a red flag if one makes it too soon. You know when you are ready to commit to each other, when you are able to make yourselves vulnerable, emotionally, physically and materialistically for the next 30 odd years, or however long the love relationship takes to run its course. This is why it is so important to get the timing right, the narcissist feeds off the emotions, the player feeds off the physical, the leach feeds off the material, and the sociopath will just take everything and leave you alone if you are lucky. Tell either of these sorts that you love them and it’s feeding time.

I think learning to trust someone is a good thing. It means you believe in yourself enough to make a decision to believe in someone else. Some people I’ve known have never loved and said they regret it. They never had to compromise, had someone to rely on. Others I’ve known seem quite happy having never committed to anyone, they are self-contained, they don’t share, they touch no one and no one touches them, they are a rock, they are an island and a rock feels no pain, and an island never cries. You can spot them a mile off.

If I cut off your arms and cut off your legs, would you still love me anyway?
If you're bound and you're gagged, draped and displayed, would you still love me anyway?
Why don't you love me anyway? Cutting with the knife, blood is spilling everywhere, she will be my wife, secondary spine.

Got to love a Sociopath, especially if they don’t cut off your arms and cut off your legs.

Author:  Beerman [ Tue Jun 23, 2020 9:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

How do you maintain love until it reaches its use-by date?

First a bit about marriage.

Marriage is about swearing an oath to your partner that you will always love them. Unfortunately, some regard swearing an oath as not being worth the paper it is not written on (joke about verbal contracts there). If it means nothing to the bride and/or the groom then what’s the point? I think marriage means little now to the Millennial and Zoomer generations, they see too much association with religion and treating the woman as property and they don’t see any benefits. Divorce use to be difficult and expensive. On one hand this stopped people breaking up every time the going got tough, but on the other hand, it trapped people in toxic relationships they couldn’t escape. Divorce now is as easy as filling a form in, which means you can get out as easy as clicking your fingers, but that can now be at the first sign of difficulty. Possibly the last great advantage of marriage is it grants fair division of wealth in the event of divorce, giving rights under law to both parties.

But the point I want to make about marriage before putting it to bed is its vows are based on that list of needs I mentioned earlier, rolled up into big stuff that covers groups of needs, that way the ones you pick are covered in the vows somewhere, under the umbrella principle. The marriage vows go something like this; I take thee to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part and thereto I plight (swear) thee my troth (faithfulness, fidelity, and loyalty). With this Ring I thee wed, with my body I thee worship, and with all my worldly goods I thee endow.

The vows are basically saying; I’ll always be there you, never let you down, pick you up if you fall, we’ll take life on together, we’ll get through the bad times and celebrate the good times together. And although it doesn't say it explicitly, it kind of infers that each will be the mother and father to the other when they need them to be. I’ve left out the bit about the wife obeying the husband (like that's ever going to happen).

Many do not believe in marriage because they feel it doesn’t add anything and that’s fine, but the point I want to make is most of the vows are based in the things that love is all about. As 42% of marriages in England and Wales end in divorce, I suspect those that took the vows didn’t get that, but more importantly, it suggests most didn’t do the work before the marriage to make sure their future spouse passed all the tests for love in the areas they needed to.

Right, now I’ll shut up about marriage.

Author:  Beerman [ Wed Jun 24, 2020 8:41 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

How do you maintain love until it reaches its use-by date? Here’s three ways;

Support your partner through your actions in that big bad world out there. If your partner lacks confidence, then let some of yours rub off on them, if they need a little fun out there, then make it fun for them. The 3 L’s of Love... Lust, Laughter and Loyalty, if they float your boats then you’ve cracked it.

Assign meaning to sex, turn it in to making love, something that starts in the morning with affection and finishes at night; with a meal and some of those 3 L’s thrown in there. Make love when the time is right, and I ain’t talking about sex.

Have as much meaningless sex with your partner as they need. If you don’t fancy it then fake it, or get them on a porn site.

And the one thing you do not do is betray them, it pops love like a balloon and you can’t un-pop a balloon.

Love’s end of the road, as inevitable as being hit by a train, chained to a railway track. If love is getting through life together by supporting each other physically, emotionally and materialistically, then it’s inevitable that over the years you will learn to help yourself. If you can’t do the physical stuff, you’ll get someone in, you’ll mature emotionally and become more self-reliant, resilient, confident, and you’ll probably have enough money in later life to afford your own place. So you don’t need your partner like you did at the beginning. Then there’s growing apart, fun becomes boring, conversation becomes old, interests change, and you change over the years. But the big one is when the sex stops, nature’s cruel joke, the sexual life expectancy, on average 66 for men and 61 for women. Some go on to 75, but just as many stop at 45. When the sex stops, the making love stops, the connection dies, and the love dies. A sexless relationship goes one of three ways; you become resentful and then indifferent to each other until you go your separate ways, or, your love dies and is replaced with a mother/father-child relationship and one becomes dependent upon the other, or, it becomes a brother/sister/friend relationship.

Author:  Beerman [ Thu Jun 25, 2020 2:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

The question remains, does having sex with someone you love mean you have an Oedipus Complex?

The Oedipus Complex was Sigmund Freud’s interpretation of commonly observed behaviour in children. It’s basically a child’s jealousy towards a parent they perceive as being a rival for the attention of the parent that gives them the most of what they need. Because Freud noted this happened at the time the child first identifies themselves as belonging to their gender, between 3 and 5, he thought it was sexually related, even though at that age the child wouldn’t have a clue what sex was. I don’t see it myself, but I’m not a psychiatrist, but from my layman’s logic point of view, a child not wanting to share their favourite parent in case they lose them, is no different from the child not wanting to share anything else, from their best friend to their favourite toy. Not sharing is normal at this age, it’s when the child learns the value of what they have and has to be taught the bigger rewards that come from sharing. That’s a million miles from saying the child is having sexual desires towards the things they value. This sexual approach guided Freud down the path of saying boys covet their mothers and are jealous of their fathers, and girls covet their fathers and are jealous of their mothers. The natural course of events is the child sorts this internal conflict out and ends up embracing both parents equally. The problem comes when it isn’t resolved in childhood and is carried over unresolved into adulthood.

Here’s what the psychiatrists have to say on the subject

As adults, when we look for love we try to recreate the love our parents showed us when we were young. This doesn’t mean everybody has an Oedipus Complex, it just means you are recollecting the love your parents gave you, and are using it as a template for the love you seek from your partner, and your partner is doing the same. This is why daughters tend to focus on their fathers and sons on their mothers, not because they are sexually attracted to them, but because the love the parent of the opposite sex gave the child, is a big part of the love they now seek from their partner.

Adults with an Oedipus Complex need to covet their partner as they did their parent when they were a child. They see their partner as their parent and they form obsessive and jealous relationships with them. I don’t know if I’d go as far as to say they imagine their parent when they have sex, but I would say they have issues. The character Norman Bates in the Hitchcock film ‘Psycho’ was a psychopath with an Oedipus Complex. He would dress up in his old dead mum’s clothes, put on a wig and keep her body in a rocking chair to have long chats with. You might want to add them to the list of predators to avoid.

Author:  Beerman [ Sun Jun 28, 2020 4:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

Done sex relationships, done love relationships, on to rock and roll relationships, which is basically friendship, but Sex and Love and Rock and Roll sounds better than Sex and Love and Friendship, plus I can put a Ian Dury and the Blockheads video to it.

Let’s start with perhaps the most controversial, what I think are the two distinct relationships between parents and their children, and how it changes from a care-based relationship to a friendship-based relationship when the child reaches an age of adult independence, or to use my terminology, becomes an adult child of the parent.

The care-based relationship from birth to adulthood for the parents is driven by hormones. The hormones create the bond, which creates infatuation for the child, which ensures the child is cared for. It’s nature’s way to ensure babies born unable to survive on their own, survive with the help of a parent. From the child’s point of view, they do not love their parents as such; they need them and they make the right signals to ensure the hormones keep flowing and the bond remains strong. This is instinctive, the child does not consciously plot to manipulate their parents. Displays of happiness and affection are shown when the child gets what it wants so that the parent keep giving it, and sadness and heart-string-tugging crying when it doesn’t get what it wants, and if evoking pity doesn’t work, then the big guns of annoyance, screaming and anger come out.

As the child becomes an adult, the parent’s care-based relationship changes to friendship based on pride, expectations and trust. The parents have invested their hopes and dreams in this future family torchbearer, who one day will continue the family with their children, preserving its reputation and legacy. They have raised this child from birth to adulthood and have moulded someone to achieve the things the parents never did. They have handed over the responsibility and accountable they once had for the child to this adult child with a sense of pride and expectation, and they trust them to get it right. Friendship is demonstrated by showing affection and respect, and by supporting the adult child’s life choices. For the adult child, the relationship changes to friendship based on gratitude and trust and is also demonstrated by affection and respect.

Sounds great if each party lives up to what is expected of them, however, this friendship can be damaged should either party fall short, and like love, be destroyed if either feel betrayed. For example, if a parent continually interferes in their adult child’s life, to the extent that it undermines their self-confidence, deflates their ambition, or devalues their achievements, this would be betrayal. Similarly, if the adult child’s life choices were deemed by the parents as not likely to achieve their expectations, the parents may regard that as a betrayal. This forms a bit of a paradox, which is resolved by parents not letting the adult child know, or admitting to themselves, just how much of a disappointment they are to them, and adult child not letting the parent know, or admitting to themself, just how much of a disappointment they are for meddling their life. . This resolution of pretending neither has betrayed the other may not be ideal, but it means the friendship relationship is only damaged not destroyed. But like sexual love, once betrayal is recognised, the relationship is over, so keep calm and carry on pretending for as long as you can.

Sometimes a parent can succumb to the romantic memories of pre-adult child days, often if the marital relationship didn’t survive the transition of child to adult child. Sometimes an adult child can yearn for the days of being a child again, to be wrapped in cotton wool and oochy woochy coochy coo’d again, perhaps because they couldn’t find love or make it in the big wide world. If both parents and adult child agree to pretend the present is the past, and chose to lose themselves in the pleasures of these memories, then there’s no betrayal, but it is going to produce a dependent adult baby, and parents who live for their big baby instead of for each other. It’s common, it’s getting worse, and it’s sad to see this fantasy relationship play out with parents destroying their children’s lives with fantasy love.

The relationship doesn’t really die until the last one in it dies. Should the parent die first as is expected, the grief comes from memories of unconditional love, even if it was hormone induced infatuation, and the regret that they will never again feel that warm glow of having their gratitude acknowledged, and receiving their parents gratitude back for things they have done for them as an adult child. Then there’s the child-like fears of being alone, having no one to fall back on if things go wrong, losing the one you trust the most, being the new head of the family, being the one others in the family turn to for help. Scary stuff before you get use to it.

Should the adult child die before the parent, the grief feeds on the memories of the baby they cared for, the child they raised, the pleasure they got from making their child smile and hug them, and the dashed hopes they had of their adult child being there after they have gone to carrying on the family. In both cases the grief never really goes away until the day you die, it dies down for the surviving adult child, but the unfairness of losing a child I think keeps a parent’s grief raw to the end.

Author:  Beerman [ Fri Jul 03, 2020 2:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

We are social animals, we need friends. We are taught in those first steps of toddlerhood independence, the need for friends and how to make them. Even the most independent of people need some company, someone to talk to, someone to hear them, someone to laugh with. Friendships can be placed in 3 levels in a pyramid structure with more people at the bottom than at the top. At the top are the close friends, in the middle are your regular friends, and at the bottom are your casual friends which I’ve called acquaintances because if they are friends, then they are only just. Friends can move from the bottom to the top as you get to know them, and the other way as you grow apart or squabble, and they can be chucked out of your pyramid altogether if you really fall out.

As I said before, you can’t betray someone you love, and you can’t be betrayed by someone you don’t love. You don’t love friends, at the top of this pyramid are friends you may think of as a brother or sister and you may have intense feelings for them, but it’s not love. They can’t betray you, but they can let you down and be relegated down the pyramid in your eyes. In the middle you have those you have meet over the years, had a great time with, maybe gone your separate ways but you still meet a couple of times a year, maybe you still have great times every month or so. Friends make new friends and so do you, it’s a many to many relationship, so it’s likely you and your friends exist in groups of other friends. At the bottom of the pyramid, the slightest little thing can get a casual friend struck off your friendship list. At the top friendships are treasured, at the bottom they are disposable.

My view is that sex and sexual love relationships are mutually exclusive to friendship. You can of course have sex with any consenting adult you want, but if you do, then you’ll lose that person as a friend. The notion of throwing a friend away for sex is ridiculous, a friend is worth a lot more than someone to have sex with, so having sex with anyone that isn’t in the acquaintance layer just doesn’t make sense to me. To start a sexual love relationship with someone in the top layer is downright incestuous. So, I am just going to talk about on having a sexual love relationship with a friend from the middle layer, bearing in mind your friendship ends the moment you kiss.

It is my experience that when two friends embark on a sexual love relationship, that relationship rarely works out, because they assume that because they were friends, they can be sexual lovers living together happily for the rest of their lives. But friendship and sexual love are two completely different things. A friend is a listener, adviser, and confidence builder, someone to confide in, just how much depends on how close your friend is of course, but if anything, friendship is a sanctuary from sex and sexual love. Friends provide company, fun, conversation and in general, satisfy fewer of your needs and more of your wants. Sexual love relationships involve needs like sexual fidelity which is a test for loyalty. You probably wouldn’t have judged your friend too damningly on what they got up in the meat market; you may have even given advice on their various encounters. It is going to be difficult to be believed when you promise to be faithful from now on, if the other person knows what you really think and have done, and needs like financial security don’t even come into friendship. Sexual love relationships that start between friends fail because they haven’t checked each other out as if you weren’t friends to begin with, and even if they did check each other out, there are no guarantees, so you friendship is being risked on long odds. OK, losing a good friend is painful, but bear in mind the middle layer includes people from fledgling new friends one step above acquaintance, to old friends you absolutely do not want to lose, so maybe you take a chance on a new friend. You make a choice and live with it.

At the bottom of your pyramid it doesn’t matter if you choose sex or sexual love over a casual friend because they were only acquaintances anyway. In fact, this layer provides the main route to finding someone for sex, or a sexual love partner. In this bottom layer go work colleagues, casual drinking buddies, casual conversationalists, casual gig mates, friends of a friend, fair-weather friends, virtual friends, imaginary friends. You use them as they use you.

But this layer is not just about sex or finding Mr or Mrs Right. As you get older and you learn to meet you own needs, acquaintances add to the quality of your life, as you flick between them like a butterfly from flower to flower having fun. I’d go as far to say that this acquaintance layer becomes the most important layer in old age as it fights isolation and loneliness. No matter how self-contained you are, you need someone to talk to, and the less self-contained you are, the more you need. Friends die, you don’t see them as often as they get older, they have their own commitments, but this ever changing bag of casual fair-weather friends remains. A visit to a micro-pub where an old guy can say hello to a group of drinkers without getting arrested for speaking to strangers like in a regular pub, is often enough.

Acquaintances live in groups and one acquaintance can belong to many groups, behaving differently in each of them depending on the rules of the group. If you don’t obey the rules on behaviour, interaction, conversation, conformity, you can get chucked out, ostracised. An Internet community is an example of a group, so is the amateur dramatics get-together at the village hall. Groups are often run by inner sanctums with a power structure, which the majority don’t get involved with, they are just there to use the group to hang out in. A lot of people don’t realise that the best way to meet a person is through the group. If you can get into the group and be accepted, you’ll have access to the people in it for sex, sexual love, acquaintanceship, or future friendship. People after sex tend to choose groups based on the physical attractiveness of the people in it. People seeking fun and company tend to pick a group with people in it they can relate to and enjoy being in the company of. It is a lot harder to meet people on their own than in a group, which is why going into a pub on your own to meet people never works unless you want to meet a predator.

Let’s say you go to gigs and you bump into others you’ve met before, you join a gig group of buddies. You don’t need Doom Metal conversation, or the head-banging fun, or the company, but it improves the quality of your life and you want it. Each time you turn up to this group you meet a different sub-set of Doom Metellers. If you don’t get on with one, then fine move on, there will be other people there to mix with. You may have drinking buddies in a drinking group, and metal buddies in a metal group and in amongst all these buddies you may have a friend in each group. Buddies and friends don’t mix; in fact they are mutually exclusive. If you take a friend along to the group, you will be obliged to hang out with your friend, and your acquaintances will resent you for it. You and your friend will feel guilty for not mixing and you risk being ignored next time you turn up. If you take your Doom Metal friend to the drinking group then you and your two friends will flock together and you’ll both be resented by the drinking group. So, the moral is, don’t take friends to acquaintance groups, at least, not too often.

And so ends my views on sex and love and rock and roll. I hope I wasn’t too brief.

Actually, I haven't done family, but then again the pubs open tommorrow, so family may have to go and screw itself

Author:  Beerman [ Tue Jul 07, 2020 10:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e


They say the difference between family and friends is you can’t choose your family, and your friends don’t ask you for money. Anyone who has hosted the family for Christmas knows family has got nothing to do with love. The joy of family staying over rarely lasts more than a week, but ‘duty calls’ as they say, ‘blood is thicker than water’. What a ridiculous statement that is, you probably don’t even have the same blood type as one of your parents. Family hey, can’t live with them, can’t hide under the table with the curtains drawn and the lights off when they come calling.

Family relationships are based on duty, loyalty and kinship. Families used to be the luxury of the rich and criminal classes, which are often indistinguishable from each other. Family wealth was easier to secure long term than individual wealth, and keeping shading activities in the family meant less chance of an outsider blowing the whistle. These families of old, some of which still live on today in the shadows, were like organisations with a godfather-like CEO at the top of a family tree with families below obliged to acknowledge and respect the high table. Like organisations, you can get thrown out if you misbehave or don’t follow the protocols, excommunicated, but enough of John Wick.

Families now are much more modest and centre around the family home. There’s still a pecking order, but it’s within the family home, not between your home and a relation’s home. Each family home is its castle. The modern role of the family is to bring up children that fit into society, and for people who control society, to control the people in it. Consumerism, debt and eviction are so much more effective weapons when used against a family than an individual.

The only love in a family is between a parent and their pre-adult children. You can be friends with any family member as a person, whether they are in your family home or not, but rivalry, power and control amongst siblings in the home, and the infrequency of meeting family members who live in their own family units, with their own circle of friends, means most friends will only be acquaintances.

The family home is normally headed by the parents who are responsible for the family unit, its safety and security, as well as the education and morals of their children. The children need to acknowledge their parents authority to do this and allow themselves to be taught by them. Parents can’t teach their children about life if they refuse to accept their parent’s authority to do so. But this is what has been happening since the birth of social media. Millennial and the Zoomer generations have grown up with social media peer pressure and the cynical selling of an ever increasingly rebellious youth culture that is destroying the family unit. Children now seek education and morals from the internet, acquaintances and fashion multinationals. The result is when the child reaches adolescence they become uncontrollable.

I know adolescence half-child half-adult people have always been a challenge, that’s part of the boundary testing and breaking free rites of passage, but now it is more like the children declare themselves adults and divorce their parents. They have moved from being a family member in a family home in a family hierarchy, to being co-residents in a rent-free landlord’s house. Love for a child only exists whilst they are pre-adult, then it turns to friendship. This declaration of adulthood is hard for a parent to deal with because the child’s behaviour is turning off the hormones that make you love them, and it’s making the child someone you don’t want as a friend either. All that is left is the family bond and your feeling of duty to support them, but with them divorcing you, and maybe seeking to redefine the family hierarchy with them at the top, or with you not in it at all, then that bond is destroyed as well. The trouble is this is happening earlier and earlier and the parents are still responsible in the eyes of the law for the child who thinks they are an adult, and this chaining together of parent and child that neither wants to be around further destroys any relationship between them.

We have always had broken homes where the parents have not done their duty and the children have suffered. In Victorian times, broken homes amongst the working class was the norm. Kids never expected to be loved, they were expected to bring money in for the family to survive. The majority of broken homes still come from the poorest in society, but now we are seeing homes broken by the children and it’s happening as much if not more in middle class homes.

The result of this is increasing numbers of young adults, alienated from one or both parents, going out into the big wide world unsupported, educationally and morally unprepared, naive in the ways of the world, with many unable to form relationships because they haven’t allowed their parents to show them what a relationship is. The irony is the multinationals that have done this, are destroying the system that controls the people they, and the rest of the multinationals use. If those that run society decide they need to be controlled by force, then the bigger irony will be the multinationals would have undermined their own consumerism control system which saved so much money on bullets.

Author:  Beerman [ Mon Jul 20, 2020 9:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

Here are the lyrics I've written for a new Heavy Goods Vehicle song called 'Bitter Proverbs'. I've got some riffs in mind, see what Dave comes up with. We shall merge our heaviness into one in a way that only friends of 50 years can do.

It's based on my parent's story as seen through my eyes as a child. All their love was spent on my brother, sister and I; they left none for themselves and the vacuum created by the absence of love for each other was filled with contempt.

Bitter Proverbs (lyrics for a new Heavy Goods Vehicle song)

Hatred is a bitter fruit, sweetened by love, soured by betrayal
Disguised with deceit and hidden behind smiles,
They spat words at each other, like bullets from a gun.

At their wake they told tales of how they had lived their lives
Of how the years had turned each into an adversary of the other
Of the mischief they did, that poisoned the well of their love.

Of how like a man who had murdered a father’s daughter
He had fled for his life, lest the avenger of the blood pursue him,
To make him pay for the love he has killed.

Of how he ran with a heavy heart, this slayer of love,
Hot with fever, down an endless path,
With fear that someone might slay him, as he had slain her.

And how as a woman scorned, her passion to hate him,
Had grown greater than the love with which she had loved him.
Until at last she said to him, be gone.

Of how she ran with a heavy heart, this slayer of love,
Hot with fever, down an endless path,
With fear that someone might slay her, as she had slain him.

Not being worthy of death, each had to bear their hatred in life,
A punishment from their children for the crime of killing love,
Such a waste of love, such a waste of life, such a waste of time.

Neither now will ever play a part in this world
And all that hurt and anger, all those words and tears
Served only to turn those who once loved them, to wait for them to die.

Author:  firebird [ Mon Jul 20, 2020 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

‘blood is thicker than water’

Ha ha.

´friends are the loving family you choose´.

Ha ha.

´In good times as in bad times.´


Author:  Beerman [ Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e


Polygamy is a man being married to more than one woman, Polyandry is a woman being married to more than one man, Group Marriage is where multiple men are married to multiple women. I’m going to use ‘polygamy’ a general term regardless of who’s married to who, how many of them there are, and whether they’re married or not. Polygamy is often used to land, produce loads of children to do the chores and grow up to bring in some money, and provide some sort of security, often to women, who have little prospects or choice. From a love perspective, theoretically it attempts to satisfy person’s needs through multiple people where each person gets a subset of their needs met by one or more of the others. I say theoretically as I don’t think polygamy has anything to do with love, but let’s start at the beginning not jump to the end.

According to a 1998 survey which looks at 1,231 countries, only 186 were completely monogamous. Interestingly polyandry was found in only 4 countries. It’s not that uncommon in the third world; in fact it’s widespread in West Africa and can be found in many Hindu and Muslim societies.

Have a look at this video;

It’s all about body language and I encourage you to pause it frequently, particularly when one of the women drops their fake smile, and especially when the interviews says to the man “you’re having your cake and eating it”; the smug smile on his face is worth a million words as it confirms his self-perceived manly self-worth, and his motivation for having this relationship.

No one talks about their needs, what they are and how the other two meet them. They do not explain why they don’t feel betrayal, which comes from love, when their man has sex with the other woman. Instead they talk about why they do not feel jealousy, which as about loss of power and control, and someone else enjoying something instead of you. They don't feel jealousy because they are taking turns like waiting to use a waterslide at a theme park. The man comes across as completely indifferent; Mr Numbnuts doesn’t care who or what he has sex with as long as he gets his sex.

The relationship is built on sex. The alpha woman who we’ll No,1 Woman, wanted to have sex with other people, in particular she wanted a homosexual relationship, so it wasn’t just about sex, it was also about thrill seeking. Later in the video they talk about their polyandry friends who say how unfair it is that they are getting all the attention. Again, loads of fake laughing, but again, the body language tells the motivation; they are pushing taboos for thrills and attention, and here they are, on national television getting their 5 minutes of fame, and loving every second of it.

No. 1 Woman claims it all started as an open marriage with one other person, but instead of continuing with the open marriage they decided to formalise it in a polygamy relationship by making the date No.2 Woman. The man was like, ‘let me think about this for a second... duh yeah’.

So we have a pattern emerging of predator, indifferent and dreamer, the classic make-up of a polygamous relationship.

No.1 Woman is the initiator and seeks power and control over the man and No.2 Woman, and probably gets more kicks outside the relationship as well. She’s even suggested bringing in more in to feed her ego.

The man is the indifferent and just wants sex and the occasional peace and quiet break from the other two, and probably gets his kicks in and out of the relationship.

No.2 Woman is the dreamer thinking she can find something with the other two that she hasn’t been able to find with one person and probably remains faithful to them unless they ask her to join in with sex with others. The predator gets more thrill from having snared a dreamer in a polygamous relationship that over an indifferent in an open marriage because she can’t control the indifferent to the same extent.

The hand holding is interesting. No.1 Woman holds the man by the arm as if property, and the man holds No.2 Woman by her hand in fake affection. It’s like a hierarchy with No.1 at the top, the Man in the middle, and No.2 at the bottom. It doesn’t help No.2 who’s pregnant, to hear the man’s respond to the question “is this is for life”, with “We’re taking it step by step”. Just watch No.2 look away and open her eyes wide as if to say ‘What!’ She briefly pulls her hand away and drops her fake smile, but within moments the smile is back and the hands are held again, I suspect initiated by the man offering her the reassurance he knows she need and cynically giving it to her.

As for the presenters, the man presenter adopts this annoying boyish enthusiasm, like he’s a big kid talking about something rude with his mates behind the bike sheds whilst having his first cigarette. The woman presenter behaves very differently. She almost has a motherly empathic connection with the dreamer and the situation she has gotten herself into, whilst barely containing her anger behind a smile at the other two. At the end, after all the talk about all agreeing on what they do together, when it’s clear who’s doing all the talking, and who’s doing all the agreeing, the presenter lets slip a look of disgust.

No one has given any thought to the children in this ‘family’, how they will be treated by other children at school, how the family will be treated by other families. It sounds like they are already just hanging out with other polygamous families in some sort of cult to avoid judgement, and if No.1 Woman gets her way, it’ll all be one big hump-fest with the more the better. As the kids increase, there’ll be rivalry and bullying, winners and losers, some will be neglected, and no doubt the mothers get involved to make sure their children are put first. The things people do for power and control over others, and if the predator or the indifferent decide to leave, which at any time they can, and at some point in time they will, the dreamer becomes a victim.

Author:  Beerman [ Fri Aug 14, 2020 9:14 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Your thoughts about l o v e

Fantasy Island

Let’s take a relationship of three people comprising a predator, an indifferent and a dreamer. Let’s call them Rubber Tittie (a predator with implants), Captain Underpants (a hairy indifferent), and Sideshow Bobby (a needy dreamer);

Rubber Tittie

Needs: Sex, fun, affection, loyalty
In exchange for: Sex, fun, financial security.

Captain Underpants

Needs: Sex, fun, financial security
In exchange for: Sex, fun

Sideshow Bobby

Needs: Financial security, respect, affection, intimacy, attention, company, loyalty.
In exchange for: Sex, respect, affection intimacy, attention, company and loyalty.

The Story so far

Rubber Tittie gets sex from both of them, fun from Captain Underpants, and affection and loyalty from Sideshow Bobby, so she’s happy. In exchange she gives them financial security. She doesn’t get loyalty from Captain Underpants but keeps him tied up with sex and fun, and he’ll do for now.

Captain Underpants is happy drifting along with lots of meaningless sex and no commitment.

Sideshow Bobby on the other hand, with her long list of needs, has to convince herself her needs are being met by the other two users because they’re not. She gets financial security from Rubber Tittie, who along with Captain Underpants, tell her what she wants to hear in exchange for sex.

Happy Ending?

In effect the three of them are ‘Friends with Benefits’ although ‘Acquaintances who have Sex’ is perhaps a more accurate term, like ‘Ladies who Lunch’. The predator and the indifferent feel no betrayal because they do not seek sexual love, and they tell the dreamer there’s no betrayal, because the sex they have with others doesn’t mean anything, and they all love each other so very much, which the dreamer believes, because she’s a dreamer.

A couple of unlikely scenarios

Form a queue. Suppose Rubber Tittie got all she needed from Captain Underpants, but Captain Underpants didn’t get all he needed from her; and Captain Underpants got all he needed from Sideshow Bobby, but Sideshow Bobby didn’t get all she needed from him; and Sideshow Bobby got all she needed from Rubber Tittie, but Rubber Tittie didn’t get what she needed from her. This would mean each would be having sex with one they didn’t love and one they did, and the one they loved would be having sex with them and with the other that they did loved. You’d have a love triangle full of unrequited love and feelings of betrayal each time they went off with the other instead of staying with them.

All rush at once. Suppose Rubber Tittie got everything she needed from Captain Underpants and everything she needed from Sideshow Bobby as well; and the same for the other two. One person in the 3-way relationship is always redundant. You don't need to fill a need twice, it would be like being hungry and eating two meals when all you needed was one. You don't get pleasure from the second meal and you risk making yourself sick and not enjoying either. Being in love with two people means having all your needs met twice and risking feeling betrayal if the other two pay more attention to each other than to you. Don't forget love is not just about filling your needs, it's reciprocal so you would have to have the time and energy to fill the needs of the other two. It's also about what you need not to happen and if the other two express their love for each other, exclusion may feel like betrayal.

It's far more likely when Rubber Tittie says she's in love with the other two, that she is pulling out a sweet line she's had up her sleeve in case one of them looks like leaving. When Captain Underpants says it, it's so he can get his sex on time, and when Sideshow Bobby says it, it's out of desperation to keep the other two.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group