What do you get out of a relationship? - Page 3

Mental · #21 (**permalink**) 08-30-2008, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeruda

Also, I can't help but notice that most replies are somewhat sterile about the subject. o_O

Agreed.

'It's just a chemical reaction innit, nothing special'. Maybe so, but that's a bit...heartless. Surely?

Slash · #22 (**permalink**) 08-31-2008, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeruda

This is probably the closest answer I believe. I feel the same way, but not because of religion. I do believe that a relationship gives you your other half. You get intimacy, trust, devotion, protection, and the ability to share everything without being judged from a relationship. Note that when I use the term relationship, I don't mean a simple childish fling- I mean a real relationship. You find somebody to protect, and likewise, somebody to protect you. You find somebody with whom you can share your interests as well as your differences. Basically, you get a soul mate out of a relationship, and the reason people choose to seek a sole partner is because they get more out of it than they would get out of multiple partners. Giving and receiving exclusive love is something special.

I like both giving and receiving. Yoink!

Sorry for that. Now onto the real, serious post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeruda

...Also, I can't help but notice that most replies are somewhat sterile about the subject. o_O

First, this is not one of those subjects that most (young) people can easily answer, given that the overall age on this forum is quite low (lots of young folk around) and the that chances these 'youngsters' have already found 'true love' is quite small. For the record, I count myself among these 'youngsters'.
Second, with the overall attitude change in the world from 'religious' to 'scientific', answers like Desifier's (concerning Adam and Eve) but also like your own (the soulmate) keeping getting more 'out of fashion', in that most people nowadays like clear-cut answers that can be proven with chemicals (neurotransmitters and -receivers), weird experiments (the photographs-in-an-MRI-experiment, in which different parts of the brain become active when a pic of the/a partner is shown) or other theories ('my' evolution theory). And yes, I count myself among these too.

Sephiroth_22 · #23 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mental

Agreed.

'It's just a chemical reaction innit, nothing special'. Maybe so, but that's a bit...heartless. Surely?

I agree, there's definitely more to it.

Reelblnd25 · #24 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash

Getting a baby costs 9 months in the life of a woman. One child will verily impair the ability for a man to sow his seeds with a woman. So, he doesn't want his woman to lay with another man.
When a man cheats on a woman, the woman has the risk of losing her bodyguard and easy-food-acces.

Reflectively, when one is cheated upon, the first question a man will ask, is 'have you had sex yet' and the first question a woman will ask, is 'are you in love with her'.

Easy Food Access??? That's the most archaic thought yet. Aside from the fact that most women are responsible for procuring and preparing of the food, many women hold down jobs to help pay for said food. *shakes head*

Now, what do I get out of a relationship? Much like Desifier, I am religious. I believe that God made Eve as a "compliment" to Adam. She was to complete him and be a companion for him. I feel a sense of completness with my husband. When you are in a good relationship, you seek to please your partner, not yourself...and vice versa. In my mind, it's not really "give and take" so much as it is "give and give."

Slash · #25 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reelblnd25

Easy Food Access??? That's the most archaic thought yet. Aside from the fact that most women are responsible for procuring and preparing of the food, many women hold down jobs to help pay for said food. *shakes head*

That's evolution for you, an 'archaic' thought.

Fyi, I do realise things have changed, but Life did not begin with skyscrapers, aeroplanes and equality for all. If men and women ever had the same 'roles', we would be much, much more alike in appearances - muscle growth and shape, the way we use our brain, (facial) hairgrow too. Just look at society now; most constructionworkers are men, just as most secretaries are women. It's because we are, in fact, physically different.

If you can't life with that, I dare say you're ignorant.

Reelblnd25 · #26 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 06:11 PM

I never said we weren't different. Neither did I say that we had the same roles. Did you even read the rest of my reply? You've taken what I said and turned it into something completely different in order to make me look like an idiot and to somehow make yourself look more intelligent at the same time. You Lose. Look, I just think it's ignorant (or, possibly the more correct term is stupid) to say that men work for the food and women do not.

Btw, it's "if you can't live with it," not, "if you can't life with it." And I am in NO WAY ignorant. Thank you.

HylianHitman · #27 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash

Just look at society now; most constructionworkers are men, just as most secretaries are women. It's because we are, in fact, physically different.

Wasn't it always like that? What are you trying to get at?

Slash · #28 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reelblnd25

I never said we weren't different. Neither did I say that we had the same roles. Did you even read the rest of my reply? You've taken what I said and turned it into something completely different in order to make me look like an idiot and to somehow make yourself look more intelligent at the same time. You Lose. Look, I just think it's ignorant (or, possibly the more correct term is stupid) to say that men work for the food and women do not.

I did read the rest of your reply; it was about Adam and Eve and how people in a relationship work to make their better half feel good. I bet they do.
Anyway, I think we both misunderstood each other. The post you quoted earlier is all in a evolutionary point of view; women may have always tended for our (men's) food, true, but what I meant was that 'we' men shot and brought in the animals.

Anyway, I want to appologize (one or two ps?) for my post, I get way and way too enthousiastic/aggressive when people don't see what I'm saying. I'm sorry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HylianHitman

Wasn't it always like that? What are you trying to get at?

It was, what I'm getting at is that men and women are different.

Reelblnd25 · #29 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slash

I think we both misunderstood each other.....Anyway, I want to appologize (one or two ps?) for my post, I get way and way too enthousiastic/aggressive when people don't see what I'm saying. I'm sorry.

Apology accepted. I tend to get "enthusiastic" when people say I'm ignorant. hehe

BlackZero · #30 (**permalink**) 09-09-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reelblnd25

I never said we weren't different. Neither did I say that we had the same roles. Did you even read the rest of my reply? You've taken what I said and turned it into something completely different in order to make me look like an idiot and to somehow make yourself look more intelligent at the same time. You Lose. Look, I just think it's ignorant (or, possibly the more correct term is stupid) to say that men work for the food and women do not.

Btw, it's "if you can't live with it," not, "if you can't life with it." And I am in NO WAY ignorant. Thank you.

I must say this is the most potentially volatile I have ever seen Reel get. *slowly backs away*

As I explained far earlier in this thread, religiously, Reel is correct: Eve is Adams partner and helper. Speaking from an evolutional standpoint, procreation is the purpose behind a relationship.

Why are there male construction workers and female secretaries? Well, the best way to explain it is muscular concentration. Anatomically and physiologically, men have more muscular strength in their upper body and torso (arms, back, shoulder etc.) A woman's muscular concentration is in the lower body: hips, waist, legs. However, it's easier to build up lower body strength than upper, because simply walking does this whereas upper requires more effort. This is why women do not commonly (if at all) serve in combat roles in the US armed forces: a man's muscular concentration is better suited to the physical demands of the service. Of course, there are other reasons that I will not go into, but that is a major one.

Simply put: men and women are put together differently. Men are more built for physical work. Women are more built for caring for children. That's why. Not that one is better than the other at any given task, but rather the physiology of the genders lend themselves to different roles.