Do You Need To Be "In Love" To Be Happy In Life?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

The question is simple. Does one need to be "in love" with someone to have a fulfilled life? Can one live without it? Yes or no. Why or why not?

[JACK-2]

Honestly, I doubt it. Because love is a lot more messy url than in the movies. People often do things you don't want them too or are just plain obnoxious. I often find being alone is a lot more fun 99% of the time. Friends are useful and fun of course, but I think there are other ways to satisfy your life. Granted they might change your outlook on life. Love and other people are vastly overrated.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 18, 2015 17:36:59 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Honestly, I doubt it. Because love is a lot more messy url than in the movies. People often do things you don't want them too or are just plain obnoxious. I often find being alone is a lot more fun 99% of the time. Friends are useful and fun of course, but I think there are other ways to satisfy your life. Granted they might change your outlook on life. Love and other people are vastly overrated.

I of course don't think you do. I don't even think "love" exists in that way. People are looking to fulfill themselves and many want to fulfill a psychological need. They're lonely and don't know how to do things for themselves, or they're needy in some other way like sharing expenses. Many times people are scared to be alone or seen as "weird" if they do things alone so they find someone so they can fit in. Being with someone doesn't mean you're not lonely. In fact you can be even more lonely.

People need to learn to be introspective and take care of themselves first. They want to "love" others when they aren't in gear themselves.

[Great Dark Hero]

That depends. In relationships, it's more along the lines of simply enjoying being around them. A high-functional friendship.
"Love"... like "Happily Ever After"... is some irrational bullshit codified from Fairy Tales and/or badly done Hollywood movies/cliché anime shows.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 19, 2015 2:50:22 GMT -5 Great Dark Hero said:

That depends. In relationships, it's more along the lines of simply enjoying being around them. A high-functional friendship.
"Love"... like "Happily Ever After"... is some irrational bullshit codified from Fairy Tales and/or badly done Hollywood movies/cliché anime shows.

Well you're just enjoying their company. Seeking out a woman's company for sex is no different than psychological fulfillment. I just think people should be honest about it. If it weren't for sex and reproduction I highly doubt the vast majority of men would bother with women anyways tbh.

[JACK-2]

If you mean, love with a women then no. I don't even believe women are capable of love outside of parental love.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well it's all self fulfilling. Women stay with badboys who treat them like crap and won't even turn in pimps. What about younger siblings? Women use children to get things from men and the government, and then guilt trip children into taking care of them as well.

So what is this "love" stuff really? It seems like romanticized self fulfillment. People saying they're "sharing" something when they're really satisfying themselves. There's nothing wrong with it.

[JACK-2]

Well, women use men for survival and protection. I have no problem with that, but then when they start using government which in turns use men for their devices things get bad. Women are more opportunistic then men.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 20, 2015 18:10:30 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Well, women use men for survival and protection. I have no problem with that, but then when they start using government which in turns use men for their devices things get bad. Women are more opportunistic then men.

Men want sexual pleasure and they see women as the means to that.

I agree that women take more, but this "love" isn't some magical "selfless" act. I mean why are there so many old women alone eating cat food while women in their youthful prime have men "loving them"? Because they're going after what they want. Much of this is hardwired, which is why men aren't going after grannies and women despise betas so much.

[JACK-2]

Jun 20, 2015 18:14:16 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Men want sexual pleasure and they see women as the means to that.

I agree that women take more, but this "love" isn't some magical "selfless" act. I mean why are there so many old women alone eating cat food while women in their youthful prime have men "loving them"? Because they're going after what they want. Much of this is hardwired, which is why men aren't going after grannies and women despise betas so much.

Well, that's because women seldom offer anything besides sex. They're also emotional and require special treatment. Outside of sex, why would anyone bother?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

That's what I was just saying.

Women have been carried through life because of their reproductive capacity. Many men have been fooled into thinking they're in "love" and they forget what it's all about and then get upset when they learn the true nature of a woman's "love" in divorce courts.

Without the reproductive capability you just have a smaller, weaker, and dumber "man". What's the point?

People are biologically hardwired to care for their kids much like animals are. This is called "bonding" and is nothing special. This "mother's love" or "love for children" isn't magical. If parents didn't "care" about their kids they'd have a much lower chance of survival. People don't want to see those they "love" die because it will hurt them badly. Which is in their own self interest to avoid.

[JACK-2]

Jun 20, 2015 18:27:15 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That's what I was just saying.

Women have been carried through life because of their reproductive capacity. Many men have been fooled into thinking they're in "love" and they forget what it's all about and then get upset when they learn the true nature of a woman's "love" in divorce courts.

Without the reproductive capability you just have a smaller, weaker, and dumber "man". What's the point?

People are biologically hardwired to care for their kids much like animals are. This is called "bonding" and is nothing special. This "mother's love" or "love for children" isn't magical. If parents didn't "care" about their kids they'd have a much lower chance of survival. People don't want to see those they "love" die because it will hurt them badly. Which is in their own self interest to avoid.

The bolded is hilariously true.

What's worst is that when men bond and have bromance it's considered "gay" or "A sausagefest" Basically, only when you love these dumber, weaker and smaller men called women. Is the love considered legitimate. Our culture is a vagina worshiping pisshole.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 20, 2015 18:41:59 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Jun 20, 2015 18:27:15 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

That's what I was just saying.

Women have been carried through life because of their reproductive capacity. Many men have been fooled into thinking they're in "love" and they forget what it's all about and then get upset when they learn the true nature of a woman's "love" in divorce courts.

Without the reproductive capability you just have a smaller, weaker, and dumber "man". What's the point?

People are biologically hardwired to care for their kids much like animals are. This is called "bonding" and is nothing special. This "mother's love" or "love for children" isn't magical. If parents didn't "care" about their kids they'd have a much lower chance of survival. People don't want to see those they "love" die because it will hurt them badly. Which is in their own self interest to avoid.

The bolded is hilariously true.

What's worst is that when men bond and have bromance it's considered "gay" or "A sausagefest" Basically, only when you love these dumber, weaker and smaller men called women. Is the love considered legitimate. Our culture is a vagina worshiping pisshole.

Men can't be around another men or kids without it being seen as weird unless they are direct family. Old shows had men stuff all of the time without women being thrown in for "diversity".

[gstar]

Love can be great if you find thst person that meets all your expectations...do u need love to be happy?? Not really...but companionship is always cool

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 30, 2015 7:39:55 GMT -5 gstar said:

Love can be great if you find thst person that meets all your expectations...do u need love to be happy?? Not really...but companionship is always cool

I believe having people around can make certain things more enjoyable, but I don't think a person should be miserable without it. I don't think "love" exists in any special way other than a person fulfilling themselves by finding a person for companionship. People fall in love because something about the other person makes them feel good.

[JACK-2]

Didn't want to make a new thread, but:

Human nature seems to indicate that all relationships are based on need. And that when people can mutually sate each other’s needs, a relationship is formed. The relationship will generally last until the one person can no longer fulfil the need of the other, or the need no longer exists. Once this happens to one of the people in the relationship, it will begin to die. It may stagger onwards for a little longer out of loyalty. But it’s pretty much run it’s course.

The act of fulfilling a need in the life of a relationship partner, is something I’ve started calling “Paying the rent”. Because despite what people believe, no relationships are intrinsically permanent. You can’t buy a relationship. The best you can do is rent one.

Now, there are a hundred and one ways you can pay the rent in relationships. It’s really just dependant on how lazy or how proactive the individuals in it chose to be.

Think of it like being a valuable employee. You can go to work, only do the minimum. Stick to your job description. Never diversify or expand your influence. And then one day your particular position becomes redundant due to some company restructuring or cutting back on the number of people in a particular position.

If you’ve made yourself invaluable. Your employer will make sure you are one of the ones who get to stay. If your position is gone completely, they will be moving you into something new. If you’ve been the bare minimum employee. You’ll be out the door.

Now let’s take this concept and apply it to interpersonal relationships.

Let’s take a look at a random guy. Let’s call him Geoff. Geoff is ruled at a base level like all of us are, by biology. Biology tells Geoff that he needs a mating partner. It tells him his mating partner should possess youth and beauty. So Geoff meets Mandy who possesses youth and beauty. Mandy is looking for a mating partner. Biology is telling her that she needs a mate who possesses wealth and strength. As Geoff drives a nice car, has a good job, and goes to the gym three times a week, Mandy is as happy with Geoff as Geoff is with Mandy.

So Geoff and Mandy start their relationship.

Geoff pays the rent on their relationship by buying Mandy dinner, nice things, driving her around in a nice car, letting her stay in his nice apartment, and making her feel protected when he holds her tight, or fucks her right. Mandy pays the rent on their relationship by being young and hot. She looks just right as Geoff fucks her, and looks pretty when they go out. And at a basic level, they think they have got their bases covered. As long as they don’t fight too much, the relationship will last till the status quo changes.

If Geoff gets comfy and stops hitting the gym, then he’s not paying the agreed rent. If he gets laid off at work, loses the car and the apartment, and can no longer buy nice things, he’s not paying the agreed rent. And Mandy will decide Geoff and her are no longer working. If Mandy lets herself go, or gets old, then Mandy can’t pay her rent, and Geoff will start looking for a new relationship tenant that possesses youth and beauty.

The other thing that upsets the relationship status quo is that as people grow they will often develop new needs. Once Geoff might have only wanted youth and beauty. But now he needs someone to inspire him and encourage him to broaden his horizons. Mandy might have only wanted wealth and strength. But now she wants someone to listen to her fears and help her move past them. If Geoff or Mandy can’t pay the increase in rent, then relationship eviction is imminent.

It all sounds rather shallow doesn’t it? But if you don’t believe me, just look around the world and tell me if I’m wrong. However, all is not lost. There are ways around this inevitable pitfall.

Be a proactive relationship tenant. Don’t pay the minimum. Pay what’s fair. Keep the place in good order. Look after the relationship. Look for new ways to pay the rent. Because relationships exist in a volatile and ever changing market.

Pay the rent by being a great listener, by being a trusted friend, by being a great lover and an adventurous life partner. Find the million other ways to pay your relationship rent.

Because things like wealth and strength, or youth and beauty are incredibly fleeting. And if you’re relying solely on them to pay your rent, don’t be surprised when you find yourself relationship homeless.

godsbastard.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/paying-the-rent-on-relationships-by-james-davis/?fb_action_ids=10207723793876081&fb_action_types=news.publishes

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 5, 2015 14:36:12 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Didn't want to make a new thread, but:

Human nature seems to indicate that all relationships are based on need. And that when people can mutually sate each other’s needs, a relationship is formed. The relationship will generally last until the one person can no longer fulfil the need of the other, or the need no longer exists. Once this happens to one of the people in the relationship, it will begin to die. It may stagger onwards for a little longer out of loyalty. But it’s pretty much run it’s course.

The act of fulfilling a need in the life of a relationship partner, is something I’ve started calling “Paying the rent”. Because despite what people believe, no relationships are intrinsically permanent. You can’t buy a relationship. The best you can do is rent one.

Now, there are a hundred and one ways you can pay the rent in relationships. It’s really just dependant on how lazy or how proactive the individuals in it chose to be.

Think of it like being a valuable employee. You can go to work, only do the minimum. Stick to your job description. Never diversify or expand your influence. And then one day your particular position becomes redundant due to some company restructuring or cutting back on the number of people in a particular position.

If you’ve made yourself invaluable. Your employer will make sure you are one of the ones who get to stay. If your position is gone completely, they will be moving you into something new. If you’ve been the bare minimum employee. You’ll be out the door.

Now let’s take this concept and apply it to interpersonal relationships.

Let’s take a look at a random guy. Let’s call him Geoff. Geoff is ruled at a base level like all of us are, by biology. Biology tells Geoff that he needs a mating partner. It tells him his mating partner should possess youth and beauty. So Geoff meets Mandy who possesses youth and beauty. Mandy is looking for a mating partner. Biology is telling her that she needs a mate who possesses wealth and strength. As Geoff drives a nice car, has a good job, and goes to the gym three times a week, Mandy is as happy with Geoff as Geoff is with Mandy.

So Geoff and Mandy start their relationship.

Geoff pays the rent on their relationship by buying Mandy dinner, nice things, driving her around in a nice car, letting her stay in his nice apartment, and making her feel protected when he holds her tight, or fucks her right. Mandy pays the rent on their relationship by being young and hot. She looks just right as Geoff fucks her, and looks pretty when they go out. And at a basic level, they think they have got their bases covered. As long as they don’t fight too much, the relationship will last till the status quo changes.

If Geoff gets comfy and stops hitting the gym, then he’s not paying the agreed rent. If he gets laid off at work, loses the car and the apartment, and can no longer buy nice things, he’s not paying the agreed rent. And Mandy will decide Geoff and her are no longer working. If Mandy lets herself go, or gets old, then Mandy can’t pay her rent, and Geoff will start looking for a new relationship tenant that possesses youth and beauty.

The other thing that upsets the relationship status quo is that as people grow they will often develop new needs. Once Geoff might have only wanted youth and beauty. But now he needs someone to inspire him and encourage him to broaden his horizons. Mandy might have only wanted wealth and strength. But now she wants someone to listen to her fears and help her move past them. If Geoff or Mandy can’t pay the increase in rent, then relationship eviction is imminent.

It all sounds rather shallow doesn’t it? But if you don’t believe me, just look around the world and tell me if I’m wrong. However, all is not lost. There are ways around this inevitable pitfall.

Be a proactive relationship tenant. Don’t pay the minimum. Pay what’s fair. Keep the place in good order. Look after the relationship. Look for new ways to pay the rent. Because relationships exist in a volatile and ever changing market.

Pay the rent by being a great listener, by being a trusted friend, by being a great lover and an adventurous life partner. Find the million other ways to pay your relationship rent.

Because things like wealth and strength, or youth and beauty are incredibly fleeting. And if you’re relying solely on them to pay your rent, don’t be surprised when you find yourself relationship homeless.

godsbastard.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/paying-the-rent-on-relationships-by-james-davis/?fb_action_ids=10207723793876081&fb_action_types=news.publishes

Bingo, water seeks its own level. People are in such denial. We ALL do what's in our self interest and people want the best they can get.

Women who are beautiful are in high demand as they are attractive and scarce. Men who are attractive and successful are even more scarce and are in higher demand, hence why they get multiple women.

People who say they aren't shallow had to lower their standards and settle. Why would you want crap when you can get the best. Everyone seeks fulfillment and the fact that so many old women have nobody "loving" them just proves my point. Tired of people making up bs to feel better about themselves. That's what this site is expressly against.

[misterlc]

Being in love is definitely not necessary to find happiness. Personalities vary so much and some people will only find true happiness living alone in a cabin in the woods. What will bring a person true happiness has to do with that specific individuals personal desires.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 8, 2015 8:22:38 GMT -5 misterlc said:

Being in love is definitely not necessary to find happiness. Personalities vary so much and some people will only find true happiness living alone in a cabin in the woods. What will bring a person true happiness has to do with that specific individuals personal desires.

Happiness comes from within. No doubt about it. "Love" is about fulfilling oneself and both sides have demands, both sides want something out of it so it's not "love" in the way that people use it. Relationships are a marketplace where you have supply and demand like anything else.

[Maulen]

Jun 18, 2015 12:32:11 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

The question is simple. Does one need to be "in love" with someone to have a fulfilled life? Can one live without it? Yes or no. Why or why not?

I believe that Love will give you happiness and sadness at the same time.

my answer is No, because I, myself don't plan on getting married or something like that, I can't be so sure though but as of now, I don't want any. I want to be loved just like everyone else, but I've seen it. my own opinion, it's not worth it. I have something that my time worth spending and is more better. I don't need love to complete me, I need to be better in life, and no matter how better it is, it can always get better, there is no limit. I have my own definition of "better things" it's not wealth or fame, just not worth telling and sure is hard to explain. I'm sure I'm not the only one, although there are few. this is not just talk, in fact I can't remember since I was with someone. 5-7 years, I don't know.

Look in the bright side, the world is being over populated. I might help extend our world for few more years in the future. say I will have 2 kids, and they will have their own life after years, they'll multiply and multiply, so is their future kids. in the end those 2 kids will be thousand after 200 years or so. needless to say, we are consuming more than we produce resources, and earth will eventually run out of it.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 10, 2015 23:39:56 GMT -5 Maulen said:

Jun 18, 2015 12:32:11 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

The question is simple. Does one need to be "in love" with someone to have a fulfilled life? Can one live without it? Yes or no. Why or why not?

I believe that Love will give you happiness and sadness at the same time.

my answer is No, because I, myself don't plan on getting married or something like that, I can't be so sure though but as of now, I don't want any. I want to be loved just like everyone else, but I've seen it. my own opinion, it's not worth it. I have something that my time worth spending and is more better. I don't need love to complete me, I need to be better in life, and no matter how better it is, it can always get better, there is no limit. I have my own definition of "better things" it's not wealth or fame, just not worth telling and sure is hard to explain. I'm sure I'm not the only one, although there are few. this is not just talk, in fact I can't remember since I was with someone. 5-7 years, I don't know.

Look in the bright side, the world is being over populated. I might help extend our world for few more years in the future. say I will have 2 kids, and they will have their own life after years, they'll multiply and multiply, so is their future kids. in the end those 2 kids will be thousand after 200 years or so. needless to say, we are consuming more than we produce resources, and earth will eventually run out of it.

Well the bottom line is you don't need to "marry" someone and love them and that happiness comes from the individual. We all seek our own self fulfillment at the end of the day and you don't need to commit to some woman to get it.

[JACK-2]

I neve bought into marriage = Love. For me, marriage is for having kids not love.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 11, 2015 6:19:21 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

I neve bought into marriage = Love. For me, marriage is for having kids not love.

Marriage is for trapping men. Women do the rest without marriage anyways.

[JACK-2]

Well, yeah. That's the game now, but I mean't back when society was more honest. Marriage now is a scam to get you in family court and rob you.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 11, 2015 8:24:34 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Well, yeah. That's the game now, but I mean't back when society was more honest. Marriage now is a scam to get you in family court and rob you.

It was honestly a sophisticated form of prostitution. Now it's based on lies.

[JACK-2]

One thing I always hated was how men in the West were always had their options limited [criminalizing prostitution and Monogamy or demonizing masturbation.] Just to keep the gravy train of men marrying alive.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 11, 2015 8:29:58 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

One thing I always hated was how men in the West were always had their options limited [criminalizing prostitution and Monogamy or demonizing masturbation.] Just to keep the gravy train of men marrying alive.

That and to protect the ego of fatties and uglies. We can't hurt their princess feelings either.

[JACK-2]

Ultimately, love like all things can be explained through economics. People need things, and associate with, barter or leech off people who have what they want. Traditionally, Women have always been financially dependent on men's labor to survive. Tbat's why locking down a good man was always important. It's how a woman survived. The man provides food, shelter and a portion of his income for the women and her children. In return a man would get unlimited sex, someone to clean and cook for him. The man also had other privileges such as absolute authority in the affairs of his home. That's the purpose of marriage, people delude themselves into thinking that it is an issue of romance and love. Yet, they never question why would we need to an enforceable contract in these unions.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Aug 11, 2015 14:46:56 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Ultimately, love like all things can be explained through economics. People need things, and associate with, barter or leech off people who have what they want. Traditionally, Women have always been financially dependent on men's labor to survive. Tbat's why locking down a good man was always important. It's how a woman survived. The man provides food, shelter and a portion of his income for the women and her children. In return a man would get unlimited sex, someone to clean and cook for him. The man also had other privileges such as absolute authority in the affairs of his home. That's the purpose of marriage, people delude themselves into thinking that it is an issue of romance and love. Yet, they never question why would we need to an enforceable contract in these unions.

I wouldn't even call that "love". It's an exchange of services from two people that fulfills what they want. Just like any other service. Women are needy and dependent and a man wants to make sure he sires his own children and isn't carrying some other man's garbage. Although nowadays a lot of men do that as well.

This "love" stuff is about people fulfilling some need and feeling good about themselves. They're welcome to do that, but they need to stop acting like they're doing something special. They're not. Do you think it's an accident that men want to get laid, and women want money and babies, and they both together to do just that? This is what people have always wanted. It's no more "magical" than eating.

People are full of it.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Good ol' Leykis.