That was... wow... I love you, user

There are very few strictly monogamous animals

People are not monogamous. Cheating and break ups are concepts older than humanity itself.

Would you say that friendship is also just an illusion?

Yes. Truly.

That there are few does not imply that we are not one. Even then, it would only make sense that organisms are a bit of both considering all the millions of years of selection and potential variations of environments. It wouldn't be hard to believe humans have innate wirings for both that are up to the user to dedice how they want to consciously focus on. It's like how there's a system of wiring to be either left or right handed, but depending on what you train up, those are the connections it will mostly build. Of course, anyone could change given proper environment or proper choice just as one can willingly change their dominant hand.

To say humans are one thing or another is inane. There's far too much variation and constant change to not assume many possibilities. Simplifications are for brainlets.

It depends on your definition of "illusion". If you want, everything can be an illusion because we experience reality via a mental mapping. However, that's all assuming an illusion is some negative, terrible thing, but that's how some people choose to view the universe.

Oh please. Everyone talks about how shit marriage is. People aren't meant to be bound for longs periods of time. Even native americans would break up if they got tired of each other. Probably because they didn't have money so financial obligations weren't a thing.

Romance and honeymoon phases don't last.

>Everyone
Citation needed. Again, no one cares about your anecdotes from the degenerates in your degenerate life.

>doesn't understand figurative language

You really do have sub 90 IQ don't you?

Actually, that they don't have "wealth" is reason that they would stay together. The problem with modern society is that most bonds serve no purpose. Emotional bonds are survival mechanisms designed to encourage cooperation amongst nuclear families and extended tribesmen. Take away the struggle to survive and you lose the necessity for pair bonding.

It's not up to me to interpret your figurative language if you're attempting to make a point. If you're not going to communicate directly, it's not up to the listener/reader to understand what you're saying. It's a manipulative tactic to make a weak argument that can be shifted and formed as it is made and then can use ad hominem when anyone actually tries to understand what you actually are trying to communicate. Speak directly. Take a clear stand. There's no need to be a coward.

It's genuinely amazing when that happens.
My ex before we got together complained no guy could ever ever make her cum.
When we got together and fucked and I made her cum, she was like "OH MY FUCKING GOD I LOVE YOU", best feeling ever.

Then a couple of years later she sent naked pictures to multiple of my close mates.

Well, just because we experience our reality subjectively, doesn't mean that objective evidence of friendship between two people can't be found. Like I get the whole chemicals in the brain argument but I think a big reason people click is because they have similar ideas and common experiences.

I get that even if someone does something really nice for you like buys your meal one night, you can argue that they did that only because the subjective pleasure that they feel by making you feel good outweighed the costs. But still why would giving to a friend feel good if its all just an allusion.

Nah, you're just a retard. I literally and directly think you're very stupid and not worth speaking to any longer.

I agree completely, user. The problem is people are talking about Platonic concepts as if they are not, eo ipso, not real. Then they get all tortured soul because their ideals aren't real which is absolutely inane considering that's how it was defined to begin with. This comes down to a Plato or Aristotle sort of dichotomy. Personally, I don't care if something is not ideal. I can find enjoyment with what the present is and what actually exists. It doesn't need to be compared to some ideal concept to be appreciated for what it is.

That's great because you only made anecdotal references this whole time in some pathetic attempt to justify your pessimism. Have a good life.

Not that guy but you sound stupid. If this were an argument in real life I imagine right now your face would be turning red and you'd be speaking louder with a high pitched voice, because you quickly become emotional when your baseless and quite frankly vapid arguments get blown to pieces.

>racemixing

gross

And yet his anecdotes about failed relationships are far more true and valuable than yours about successful relationships. Relationships end constantly and if you find something you think will last and are dumb enough to enter into a marriage you're playing with fire considering the divorce rate is about 50%. And in the end far more is lost with a failed relationship than gained with a successful one.

I think you sympathize with that guy and are offended, and would be turning red in the face yourself.

Not really, I only skimmed over his posts. I mostly just read your responses and saw that you act like a pissy woman.

Have you considered that the reason relationships fail is that humans are not in a society that is healthy for them? Most people have poor diets, don't get nearly enough exercise, and are addicted to all sorts of dopamine sources without having to do any real "work" to earn it. There's so much chemical confusion in modern today society that it blows my mind that you instantly assume that some platonic concept is the problem and that there aren't a number of practical, related issues that are solvable.

It's pissy that he can't understand figurative language and is making long winded posts about it?

This. It's an ideal propped up by the media. Humans are a tournament species. We're not meant to be with one person and we literally aren't compatible with long-term monogamy.

Communication is a two way street. If someone misunderstands you, it's not ever completely their fault. That you have such a stick up your ass to not consider your own failed communication says a lot about you. Maybe that's also why you fail to form meaningful relationships. You probably assume everyone should just understand you or else to hell with them.

Relationships, like communication, require work on both ends.

See. Long winded posts again.

>talking at all in the afterglow of copulation
Into the trash it goes.

My girlfriend just poured maple syrup around my dick and gave me the best bj ever. Life is good when you're with someone who wants you to be happy almost obsessively.

If we aren't compatible with long-term monogamy, why has the concept of marriage-like pair bond popped up all around the globe amongst people who were otherwise out of contact? Why do certain indigenous people still pair bond?

I'm aware there's possibilities for breaking molds, but you seem completely unwilling to believe in anything more than a blanket understanding of human sexuality and bonding.

kek 666

The society and environment are a reflection of humans and the way they think and act. If there's so much chemical confusion, it's because people created it and caused it themselves. I agree it's not the concept that's the problem, it's that humans just aren't capable of it.

Why is that a bad thing? What would you rather have me do? Would you rather me just agree with you without any effort on your part?

>The society and environment are a reflection of humans and the way they think and act.

Not necessarily. Humans have created an artificial life that is beyond their biology. I would not say modern life is a result of biology, but a transcendence that is misunderstood and warped due to faulty education.

>If there's so much chemical confusion, it's because people created it and caused it themselves.

Or that small, powerful groups, like those involved in sugar for instance, constantly lie so as to make money.

>it's that humans just aren't capable of it.

I don't believe this. I believe humans are capable of it in their biology, but I also believe they are capable of it by willpower alone.

Because it's simply more beneficial and efficient for societies. We purposely restrict ourselves to create a more stable and balanced community so people can live longer lives with less turmoil. That doesn't mean we like it, though, as evidenced by all the strife and problems you constantly see in monogamous relationships. It's like going on a diet; sure, most people would prefer eating junk food, but they're aware that being unhealthy isn't good.

>Because it's simply more beneficial and efficient for societies.

That's a huge key, though! You have acknowledged that this is a selective strategy that is successful, and that's entirely what the theory of natural selection falls on. I would not say that humans have started to "restrict" themselves in the present. These pair bonds have been going on for thousands of years because it's a fantastic selective strategy that works for a number of highly intelligent organisms that have a long gestation period and long maturation period. There's no way you can tell me that polygamy can work when most children are completely incompetent for over a decade and that's IF they don't receive proper influence and training by both parents.

>That doesn't mean we like it, though, as evidenced by all the strife and problems you constantly see in monogamous relationships

Again, that strife is coming from a huge, artificial chemical confusion. Pair bonding is strongly reliant on chemicals, so it's only natural that pair bonding would fail if there is a lot of chemical issues.

>It's like going on a diet; sure, most people would prefer eating junk food, but they're aware that being unhealthy isn't good.

That's because of how the dopamine system works and how most people get things without having working for them because they rely strongly on slavery and not having to acquire their own resources like they're supposed to.

This is, huh... WOW!

RARARARARA

Attached: 1528534780830.jpg (410x368, 26K)

>I knew a guy who's gf of 4 or 5 years left him when her childhood rapist got out of prison.
Holy fuck, this can't be real... please tell me you've made that up.

Attached: 1440214197814.jpg (340x340, 11K)

Now you're acting desperate and neurotic. Go away.

I'll give you this though. If you think moments like in the op image last forever you're dumb and not worth arguing with.

It's not made up. He was short and fat with no job in his 40s.

My friend was living off government too, but at least he was charasmatic, tall, and taking care of his mentally disabled brother.

>I'll give you this though. If you think moments like in the op image last forever you're dumb and not worth arguing with.

I do, but I'm also physically attractive and have a decent personality. ;)

Are you positing that a type of chemical imbalance related to dopamine regulation arrises in humans that would otherwise not occur because humans no longer personally source or produce their survival necessities?

you're just young

Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. Human reward systems have been hijacked by various money-seeking groups from food industry to tech industry to pharmaceuticals to whatever conspiracy industry you want to imagine. Monogamous relationships fail amongst modern humans because they have been artificially made to fail. Strong familial bonds in general are a necessity for self-reliance (or tribe-self-reliance), but they have no use if humans don't have to work and struggle to survive.

Hahahaha holy shit. You went there.

Thanks Dad. I'm sorry you fucked your life up and are now trying to bring everyone down.

My point is that humans will naturally be polyamorous. Monogamy is more successful, but in our natural states, we're not going to give it a shot. We have to actively work and put effort into it, and that's what I mean when I say we're not compatible with monogamy. Our biology simply isn't wired for it.

lol I'm 26, fool. But seriously.

*enlightened tip*

There is a lot of debate amongst biologists regarding this, so I'll give you that.

So am I, actually.