₦airaland Forum

Omolola1: Depending on the kind of love he feels for that person

What are the kinds of loves you have in mind?

carefreewannabe: There is nothing FUNDAMENTALLY wrong with WANTING to leave if you aren't happy. How can you make your partner and your relationship happy if you aren't happy? (rhetorical question ) Apart from that, committment is a FREE choice and so is a relationship. You're not a slave nor a prisoner, you are free to get out of it WHENEVER you want to. I consider it a better chocie to leave than to pretend or even take it out on your partner that you are NOT happy. Your partner has the right to seek happiness, release him / her if you think you can't contribute anything to his / her happiness.

A person is not only free to be selfish, a person is more or less selfish by nature.

However, romantic love is not the only form of love.

I never said if you aren't happy. I said if you can get better happiness somewhere else.

You might still be happy but you can be happier or is already happier with someone else.

So there must be nothing fundamentally wrong to want to leave when that happiness ends (even if temporarily), subsides or a better one can be found with someone else?

Since if is built on a foundation of selfishness, one should be free to be selfish?

stillwater: I don't live on probabilities, or what if's. I take what I have and run with it. I always think I make good decisions. All the analyzing is done before making a decision not afterwards.

Maybe you should try that, Sagamite.

I am still analysing.

So you have a potential to end up with someone that is not your optimal? Not your soul mate, just (at best) fantastic enough for you?

Omolola1: This is why there are different types of love. LOVE generally is an emotional feeling. But when it comes to the kind of love you feel towards someone, it could be plural and it could be singular!

So you argue someone can love more than one person.

stillwater: No it doesn't apply to anybody. For example, I am attracted to any fine, tall man, but it's impossible to have a passionate affection, or care for such a person, unless I get to know the person better, and the relationship is defined.

So you can get to know someon better and the love them but there may be someone out there if you got to know better, you would love more?

carefreewannabe: Yes, i would recommend that people get into it because for some time it will make them very happy. And people who are "in love" are very friendly and peaceful.
They can also be annoying but that's a different topic

It differs how committed people get, it's a question of personality and choice. Many people are (unconsciously) opprtunistic and invest as much as they get out of it or a bit more or a bit less ... It depends on the person. I can't tell how committed someone SHOULD be.

If you ONLY want to sleep with someone (I hope I got your question right here) and the other person wants commitment, then you are faced with an encounter that will MOST LIKELY end very soon. Commitment is a choice and requires effort and energy. If sleeping with the person is worth this effort and energy, go on, it MIGHT work but I doubt it will.

Everyone is selfish. This is not bad per se but I believe in honesty and as you ALREADY know fair play

So there must be nothing fundamentally wrong to want to leave when that happiness ends (even if temporarily), subsides or a better one can be found with someone else?

Since if is built on a foundation of selfishness, one should be free to be selfish?

jennykadry: I don't think it is plural and i am speaking for myself. I can only be in love with one person at a time

So it is duplicable?

There is no "soul mate"?

Do you think love is a choice?

cheddarking: Sagamite you keep trying the same old tricks.

Stick to the Topic.

You claim to be a 'intellectual god' but you are really just a person.

Your Grandfather is/was probably a Polygamist.

Does it make sense to you that he would be a Criminal in America?


But you know this already, and you're trying to beat around the bush.

Stick to the topic or go home.

That is all.

I am sticking to the topic!

The topic of why govennments can not legislate on how its citizens behave.

Why are you struggling to defend your own state.

ANSWER ME: Why did you say governments should have the power to decide who can contribute to the gene pool?

Omolola1: Before anything I am not married! The comment am about to make is based purely on what av noticed around me!

Love is a strong emotional feeling between two people. .we feel love everyday, we share love everyday! BUT love is not sustainable in marriage and in a relationship!
Most of the people that gets divorce this days or break up their relationships didn't separate for lack of love, they did because they just could not live with each other.

If you ask someone divorced today on reasons he or she separated, answers would be "I love him but he's a beast! "I love her but she nags a lot" this isn't because they don't love each other, its because they can't live together, no understanding and there is no patience.

Love alone is not enough in a relationship!

Hmm. You took the opposite end from Tgirl. You feel love is more of a feeling than a commitment.

Can love then be plural? Can you have it for multiple people?

stillwater: Passionate affection towards someone exhibited through the acts of romance. This definition is specific to my relationships only.

So it can be anybody you are attracted to? Not really a special one, just any of the special people that come your way?

carefreewannabe: You're very polite

What a coincidence you have just opened this thread. I discussed the question with a friend JUST yesterday.
I told her what I have just said to you.

I said: 'I love you' is a sentence that begins with the personal pronoun 'I' and in fact it is all about 'I' and 'ME'. I, in the first place, you follow but you're just " a means to an end".
People say they love others because they get something out of it or at least hope to get something and even expect to get something.
Ask people why they love their partners and you'll get answers like:

"He / she takes care of ME."
"He / she makes ME smile."
"He / She takes ME places I have never been to."
"He / She satisfies ME in bed".
"He / She completes ME."
"He / She makes ME a better person."

The list goes on and on and on.
Note: That people have a combination of the reasons mentioned above.

Now, what is even more interesting is that people love their partners AS LONG AS they meet / fulfill their expectaions and needs. BUT what happens if the partner stops doing so? The person you called baby, honey, boo becomes a b.itch, an a.sshole and so on and in many cases bitter feelings and hatred evolve.

Bottom line: We love people because they do something for us, something we want and / or need, something that makes us feel good. Take it away and love will die, sooner or later.

Hmm! Good point.

So, considering love is selfish, would you recommend people get into it?

How committed should they be to the selfish concept?

Also, should they get into it even when all their desire at that point is to bed the other person and the other person wants commitment?

The other person is being selfish because they "love", so why can't they be selfish back to get laid?

cheddarking: Again I refer you to my earlier post where I said NO GOVERNMENT Has the right to criminalize Polygamy.

Again I ask you - Do you believe Polygamy is a criminal offence?

WHY DO YOU THINK GOVERNMENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHO CONTRIBUTES TO THE GENE POOL?

cheddarking: You asked why the Government is against Incest.

And I answered because they have to regulate the gene pool.

But this is out of topic.

Stick to the topic.

If you are unable to discuss, please go home.

Yep!

You said government should not decide who is intimate with each other but should be able to decide who contributes to the gene pool?

Why (for the latter)?

Defend your statement.

donedy: Please Sagamite stop arguing with these deluded soul. The problem with them is that they are ridden with inferiority complex. You see, none of them can answer why Westerners ban polygamy if they believe in human rights of adults consenting to marry. However, these deluded souls will be happy to pitch their support when their supreme leader (Whites) try to promote gay culture in Africa.

Please don't waste your time arguing with them.

Westerners have not told them it is funky enough and progressive to defend polygamy.

When they get the instruction, they will follow without questioning.

What ever rubbish they are fed, they vomit.

cheddarking: As a Gay relationship cannot contribute to the gene pool, that question is out of topic.

Stick to the topic and answer the question I asked you.

Do you believe Polygamy is a Criminal Offence? Yes or No. No B.S.

No, you answer the question I asked you.

Why did you say governments should have the power to decide who can contribute to the gene pool?

That was your argument, defend it.

stillwater: Huh, delu-wetin? How did you come about that?
To me, love and romance are intertwined. No need to specify it as romantic.

Okay, describe what love is then. Feel free to mix the description with romance.

carefreewannabe: Romantic love is most times a selfish form of love.

Sorry I have not replied to that your last post. I have it in mind but kinda busy. I want to reply academically. So I will get to it soon.

Anyway, why do you see it as selfish?

Ujujoan: Sagamite interested in love

I'll be damned!

Huh?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5vulA50tyI&list

cheddarking: Why what?

Why can the government decide who contributes to the gene pool?

stillwater: Don't worry, sooner or later I'd be getting an invite from you. Sagamama weds Sagabobo.

As for your topic. Personally, that is a tautologyyyyyy!!! Romantic love? Can they exist without the other in my dictionary? Impossible!

So, to you, love is a delusion?

cheddarking: Yes the Government has the right to regulate its gene pool

When you fucck that girl with big nyash in your room, it is NOBODY's business.

When she gives birth...It is the Government's business.

The question is "Why"?

Tgirl4real: lol

Well, the glow can be sustained with the right stuff. U can always keep the flames of ur love burning. Love should be nurtured, tendered cared for, fed...u just name it.

The commitment part is so not to jump out each time u feel do don't love ur partner no more. When u are committed to loving someone, it's all u wanna do. U do things to please the person. U are willing to go the extra mile to make it work. It will only turn sour if your partner is no longer committed. It takes two to tango.

What about if you love someone else?

What about if the timestamp of the first dies and you found a new flame?

What about if you never really loved the first person before, you just love the way they loved you, the person you really love is someone in your past?

stillwater: Hehehe, Sagamite e be like say you wanna marry. . .

GOD FORBID!

I REJECT THAT IN THE NAME OF JESUS!

FFFFIRE!

cheddarking: What part of the ''The Government' don't you understand?

When it comes to Sexual Preferences, No Government under the sun should decide who you may or may not fucck as long the parties involved are consensual adults.

Procreating however is a different issue, and the government can legislate on who is allowed to contribute to the gene pool.

Why can the government decide who contributes to the gene pool?

The government should be able to say you can fck but don't get pregnant?

Talk Hoha: Louis Crompton's being gay does not mean he came up with questionable evidence. His book is profound and well researched. He didn't just make allegations. Scholars have been battling over Shakespeare's sonnets for centuries, based on their own unease. There are 154 of those sonnets, if I remember, and the first 126 are addressed to a man,Mr WH and 28 to a woman, the Dark Lady. Many of them are passionate declarations of love. They are available for you to read. Louis Crompton didn't write Shakespeare's sonnets. They were published centuries before Louis Crompton was born!

Talk Hoha: Man, you love that 8 letter word that starts with f. A man of your unsurpassed intellect should have better vocabulary. Incidentally, Isaac Newton, was alleged to be gay. Two great Caesars, Julius and Augustus, were gay. Curio the Elder called Julius Caesar the wife of every man and the husband of every woman. Julius Caesar was said to have been lovers with Nicomedes King of Bythania. Augustus Caesar was lover to Marcus Agrippa. I mention another Roman Emperor Hadrian who was openly gay. For a big part of the Roman era, and in the Greek era before that, homosexuality was considered normal. Many great love affairs were same gender. I mentioned Alexander the Great and his Haphaestion. I'd still repeat the greatest known genius, Leonardo da Vinci, who anticipated the aeroplane in the 15th century. And Michaelangelo, and Francis Bacon, and King James who sponsored the King James Bible edition. Dickens may not have been gay, although certain situations and characters of his have gay intimations - Pip and Steerforth. However, Dickens' great contemporary Alfred Tennyson wrote impassioned gay poetry. His IN MEMORIAM to Arthur Hallam, neutralized sometimes by nervous editors, sounds like a widow mourning her husband. I won't even talk about the famous Oscar Wilde, and Alfred E Housman who adored Moses Jackson for many years. You mention several sports people who are not gay, then dismiss my mention of our son, John Amaechi. I'd add late Justin Fashanu to my list. And writers like James Baldwin and Virginia Woolf and Auden.. Even the current poet laureate of England, the first ever female laureate, is a lesbian. It comes down to what the four great men I mentioned say essentially, 'Live and let live. Stop gay-bashing.' Nobody has the right to throw stones. I must say, despite your avowed intellect, your arguments sound like a screaming market brawl. Manners and courtesy matter even for intellectuals.

You are a proper person!

You are way too stewpid for me to be cutting into this! It is a waste of my time.

You are fcking reetarded!

Tgirl4real: I was just being cheeky.

I won't really put it that way. The 2 should go hand in hand. But, when the feeling fades, commitment should keep u going.

So you kind of agree love (or the feeling part of it) normally has a timestamp?

Tgirl4real: First, is there anything like romantic love? lol

The term "romantic" was to delineate between parent/sibling/offspring love and partner love.

Tgirl4real: I see love as commitment between two people. It goes beyond the mushy mushy feeling. It's deep, it's sacrificial. It's not selfish and it certainly hurt.

What is what? Didn't u just ask that up there?

Well, this is where the different personality comes to play. I believe love is expressive; not only in words, but in actions.

How it should work depends on the individuals involved. Ideally, true love should be built on trust, truth, sincerity, mutual respect and understanding.

You should love yourselves enough not to want to choke the other person. Be considerate. Acknowledge your partners feelings, aspirations and preferences too.

Yes. I believe it is. Some can do without it though.

As the saying goes. . . love conquers all

I believe we need more to sustain a relationship, but with true love one can get by.

Well, people marry for different reasons. But, it is better if/when love is the foundation.

So, to you, love is more of a commitment? Less of a feeling?

[quote author=Okija_juju]Isnt Polygamy part of our 'culture'?!

Incest on the other hand has medical recpercussions hence my support for its ban.. You dont wanna have r`etarded inbred fucktards running around the plce fhucking things up, do you?![/quote]Did I say it was not part of our culture?

Did you read my post?

How come you gave an answer that did not answer the question?

cheddarking: The Government has no right to determine sexual preferences amongst consensual Adults...

Simple.

But the government in the West have a right to determine sexual preferences amongst consensual Adults when it comes to polygamy or inc.est?

wildorchid: mumu. Is this what you asked him?

You are a person!

Tell me how you twisted it?

And the obligatory check on so-called "academics" that always come up with questionable evidence to support homosexuality reveals that Louis Crompton is himself gay.

http://scarlet.unl.edu/?p=2230

person, so why would he not likely twist info to suit his aims? Why would he not twist Shakespeare's sonnets to imply Shakespeare was gay? Why do you think I said above: "Apart from me being suspicious that some of those listed men might not be gay but Louis Crompton just claimed they are gay"? You think I am as dumb and gullible as you are?