>>34449343
I don't know and don't care, what I know is if I want the relationship to be a certain way that's what I always get because I don't date disrespectful women or women who have personality disorders.

>>34449343
If you are in a relationship and you're not having sex, you are from a hyper religious community. The definition of "relationship" for normies involves sex-having, otherwise there is no relationship.

>>34449364
What's funny is hyper-religious people have more sex than non-religious, even more satisfying sex too. Turns out actually loving the person you are having sex with is some kind of cheat code or wizardry

>>34449343
Always have been

>>34449385
And they scream Jesus.

We know these hyper-religions people irl. Their kids get absolutely wasted. They have crazy amounts of sex with other people. They're annoying. I wish they loved each other and stopped causing everyone else problems.

>>34449398
You don't wish they loved each other, don't pretend now. And how do you know who they have sex with? Do you sit and watch them?

>>34449343
Would

>>34449343
To me yes but not to most people. And i have never been in a relationship anyway

>>34449504
How? The lights in her eyes are gone. She's dead inside bro, I've seen corpses with more life in them.

>>34449510
Don't kinkshame necrophilia.

>>34449385
Being morally obliged to be exclusive to someone isn't the same thing as love

>>34449765
It's not an obligation, it's a choice. Parents are obligated morally to love their children. You are not obligated to love your girlfriend/wife/boyfriend/husband. But if you aren't mentally ill or have some kind of spooky personality disorder and are mature you understand that love is a choice that you freely choose and that person chooses it in return, that's love. And marriage is when two people decide to make that choice and eternal one: A vow. And in religious ceremony, specifically in Christianity (excluding protestants) the priest or bishop will assess the relationship between the engaged and check to see if both are of sound mind and their free will is not under pressures to marry (marrying for money, marrying through coercion, marrying someone who unknown to them is an adulterer or some such). And if it's found out someone's free will is being deceived or pressured, the marriage is denied. Precisely because love has to be a free choice. So your idea of religious people being "obliged" is extremely inaccurate. If one is obliged into it, it's not a valid vow.

If they were I would never have been in one.

>>34449786
When you make a decision and then 10 years later, things change and you feel differently, it's an obligation. People change.

>>34449786
>Precisely because love has to be a free choice.
Love is not a fucking choice, you clueless dweeb. Have you ever even dated anyone?
*Commitment* is a choice.

Love is an emotion.
Only the mentally ill believe that they can choose their emotions.

>>34449831
>Feel differently
Love isn't a feeling in and of itself. Have you ever loved someone, like a parent? Mom or dad? Kind uncle? Sweet little grandma? Okay now remember that one time they made you upset or angry? And your feeling of 'love' swapped to 'anger' or 'disappointment'? Can we say you never loved them for feeling different? The answer is no that's be ludicrous.

So it follows if you are dating and you 'feel' different about your partner some years later, and you think that feeling = you never loved them or have stopped loving them then it means you'd have a child-like attitude towards love and bad forgotten to just choose to do loving things for that person. Or maybe it's the other way around and they are the ones who got their wires crossed and forgot the fact. (It's often both people in a relationship that hits a rocky obstacle).

This usually happens to people who both started the relationship for immature intentions and rather than grow together they stagnate each other.

>>34449839
Love isn't an emotion, are you mad? Love is a choice, intention, action. And out of that emotions are produced, lots of them:
Admiration, respect, fealty, infatuation, passion, amorousness, fondness, warmth. It also includes frustration or sadness or grief or pain. (Example your love for someone causes you hurt because they have died).

People who only assume love is a singular emotion have the emotional depth of someone less than adult.

>>34449839
>>34449873
Also commitment and love are two separate things entirely. A man can be committed to a job he hates, there is no love there. He is committed because he wants money. The only time commitment enters into love is when two people choose to commit to marriage.

If two people are unmarried and they act as though they are committed, they end up with what OP has. 9 years living together no marriage and just headaches. People need to choose love before choosing to commit. Those who choose to commit before the actual love get it backwards and then their relationships always implode at the end and they're doing surprised Pikachu face lol

>>34449883
>they end up with what OP has. 9 years living together no marriage and just headaches.
Sorry my bad I thought I was in a different thread when writing this. I assumed I was in that one dudes thread about his breakup. Multi-tabbing is a bitch. Point stands though: people who get it backwards have messy results

>>34449864
Loving isn't a feeling, it's a great amount of feelings.

It's entirely possible to stop loving someone. And "choosing to do loving things for them" won't necessarily bring those feelings back. Love is not a choice. You can't choose to be in love with someone.

You're right they failing to do them can cause a loss of love though.
Pragmatically you're not too wrong and aren't giving bad advice. You're simply wrong about love being a choice.

>>34449873
>Love isn't an emotion, are you mad?
No. I'm an expert.
Have you ever even dated someone?

>Love is a choice, intention, action.
No. That is dating.

>And out of that emotions are produced, lots of them:
Love does produce other emotions. That much is true.

>People who only assume love is a singular emotion have the emotional depth of someone less than adult.
Love is an extraordinary emotion. It is persistent, patient, and powerful. I am beginning to think that you've only ever read about it in nonfiction books. Possibly pamphlets.

>>34449883
>Also commitment and love are two separate things entirely.
Agreed.
You were describing commitment.
Many, many people committed to marriage and then later found love. Many societies have been based on that paradigm.

You can choose to commit.
You can choose to pursue love and act in a loving manner.
You can't choose to love.

>>34449904
>Loving isn't a feeling, it's a great amount of feelings.
Thats an oxymoron statement that can be fixed if you apply what I had said: Love is a choice that generates a great amount of feelings.

To say the contrary implies that you think love is an impulse and not a choice. And adults don't operate on impulse, animals and children do.

>No. I'm an expert.
You certain?
>Have you ever even dated someone
Yes several times and I am married and have kids.

>No. That is dating.
What? If you choose to show love to your grandad, you intend to express it in the form of a gift, and you give that gift to him, are you dating him now?

>I am beginning to think that you've only ever read about it in nonfiction books. Possibly pamphlets.
I'm beginning to think you may be on the autistic spectrum disorder or something.

>>34449911
>You can't choose to love
Yes you can. I'll give you a simple example. You can choose a feeling, and I'll prove it to you. Do you want to feel sick? Go and eat your weight in chocolate, make the choice. And then tell me what feelings you just chose preemptively for yourself. Do you want to feel jovial, humorous, or enthused? Choose to go watch a comedy. Do you want to choose to receive love from someone? Go and choose to do something loving for them.

Have you ever heard of the word "reciprocation" before?

>>34449904
And hold up, you think I read it from nonfiction? As opposed to what? Fiction? Fantasy? Would you be implying your view of love comes from fantasy and not reality? That would explain a lot anon lol

>>34449918
>Love is an emotion that generates a great amount of feelings.
FTFY
Listen anon, a lever and fulcrum is a machine. So is a Honda Civic. One is slightly more complex and involved than the other. Savvy?

>operate on impulse
What?
See, you're talking about actions again. A person can experience an impulse and not act on it. That doesn't mean that the impulse never existed or wasn't an impulse.
Your logic is flawed. An impulse isn't the opposite in this case. I don't think "impulse" is correct anyway Love is an emotion that creates feelings and compulsions.

>You certain?
Yes.

>I am married and have kids.
I'll believe you and say that I pity them.
When did you choose to start loving your children? If love is choice, could you choose to stop loving them? If they stop treating you with love, how long will it take before you no longer love your children? If one day you've chosen to stop loving your children and they die, would you attend their funeral? There's that obligation anon was talking about.

>are you dating him now?
Doting then. One letter off.

>I'm beginning to think you may be on the autistic spectrum disorder or something.
Eh, I lack most of the key traits of autism but I'm spectrum adjacent.
I've clearly thought about love far more than you ever have. You seem to have constructed and are baselessly adhering to this philosophy that Love Is A Choice. It makes sense since it's been said that "Love, love is a verb. Love is a doing word."
But the emotion of love can grip someone beyond their choice. It's obvious. And many are in relationships where they aren't in love but wish they were. They can't make themselves fall on love.

There are things in heaven and earth not dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.
Have you never heard of unrequited love?

>inb4 "unrequited love can't exist because I haven't experienced it!"

>>34449931
>can choose a feeling, and I'll prove it to you. Do you want to feel sick? Go and eat your weight in chocolate, make the choice.
Dude.
That's ACTION.

You're choosing an action that will likely *lead* to a feeling. You aren't just choosing to have the feeling.
Like choosing to date, and dote, can lead to the feeling of love.
Holy shit.
In other news, a painting of a pipe is not itself a pipe.

>Do you want to choose to receive love from someone?
"Receive love"? Which moved goalpost was that graffitied onto?
We are talking about "feeling" love, not feeling loved by someone else.
You really don't understand the difference, do you Cartman?

>>34449940
>As opposed to what? Fiction? Fantasy? Would you be implying your view of love comes from fantasy and not reality?
No. I'm saying that your description of love reads like stereo instructions. Literally every song ever written on live is more accurate than "just choose to love, bro!"
You are expressing the passionate love of a slice of dry white toast.

>>34449996
>Car analogy
Not going to accept that, that's cars, not people.

>A person can experience an impulse and not act on it. That doesn't mean that the impulse never existed or wasn't an impulse.
And love isn't an impulse. If that were true it means you would love the cute co-worker because you had impulsive feelings of attraction or admiration or what have you even though you are choosing to love your girlfriend at home. So you got three options: You love both, or you don't love the co-worker only your wife, or you love the co-worker and not your girlfriend. Which is which if we say love is an impulse? And if it's not an impulse and you say you'd love the girlfriend, then congratulations that means you'd have chosen girlfriend over coworker. Which means love is a choice.

>I don't think "impulse" is correct anyway Love is an emotion that creates feelings and compulsions.
No it is correct to describe your definition of 'love'. Which I do not recognise as the correct definition. What you call love and what I call love are two separate things and from your description it just reads as you think love is a feeling that 'just happens'. And what we call feelings that 'just happen' we call those impulses.

>I pity them
I didn't ask for your feelings on my family.

>When did you choose to start loving your children?
Before they were born actually, I'd decided that's what I was going to do before becoming a father.

>Could you choose to stop loving them?
No, for my children it is unconditional.

>Have you never heard of unrequited love?
I have, it's when one person chooses to love someone else and the other person doesn't choose them in return.

>They can't make themselves fall in love.
That's because falling in love is an immature notion that describes the state of infatuation. Specifically when it's two people doing it on impulse. What people call "puppy love" aka immature love.

>>34450029
>Literally every song ever written on live is more accurate than "just choose to love, bro!"
Those are songs, anon. For entertainment. For exaggerations and for inspirations. Are you actually basing your perspective of love off of media and fantasy?

>>34450042
>Not going to accept that, that's cars, not people
Obviously?
The point is that one term can be applied to two things varying wildly in complexity.
How stupid are you that you missed that?

>And if it's not an impulse and you say you'd love the girlfriend, then congratulations that means you'd have chosen girlfriend over coworker. Which means love is a choice.
No. Actions are choices.
Your logic is non-existent. There's no reason to argue love has to be either an impulse or a choice. It's neither.
I don't think you understand what the word "impulse" means.

>it is correct to describe your definition of 'love'.
You definitely don't understand what"impulse" means. You're using it as if anything that isn't a choice is an impulse. That's not even close to correct. A choice can be made in response to an impulse.

...are you thinking of the dichotomy between voluntary and involuntary?
Fucking hell.

>>34450042
>That's because falling in love is an immature notion that describes the state of infatuation. Specifically when it's two people doing it on impulse. What people call "puppy love" aka immature love.
Aha!
You believe that someone feeling emotions they haven't previously decided to feel is simply being "immature" instead of being a normal human being.
See, normal human beings feel emotions regardless of their choice. Sometimes people feel sad and don't even know why.

I suspect that you have repressed yourself in the pursuit of maturity and see the immature behavior of others in response to their emotions that aren't repressed. And so, you've managed to conflate "feeling involuntary emotions" with "acting thoughtlessly in response to emotions".

Actions are not feelings.
Emotions are not chosen by your conscious mind.
A person simply feels how they feel.
When someone feels a certain way, they aren't being immature. They are feeling how they're feeling.

Unless your wife takes charge, you are going to raise emotionally repressed robots for children and they are likely to resent you for it as adults.

But that's okay, you can console yourself by telling yourself that they're just being immature to choose to feel that way.

For the record, the first woman I fell in love with was my friend, it was unrequited, and it definitely wasn't my choice. It fucking totally sucked and realizing it was one of the most painful experiences of my life. I would have gladly chosen not to be in love with her but human beings don't work that way.


>>34450049
>every song ever written on live is just exaggerating bro!
You really believe this stuff, don't you?
No. Everyone else is not wrong. You are wrong. You don't understand love.

>>34450107
>The point is that one term can be applied to two things varying wildly in complexity.
No they can't. When two things vary wildly in 'complexity' what's being said, really, is those two things are not the same thing at all. That's why it's not an acceptable analogy.

>There's no reason to argue love has to be either an impulse or a choice. It's neither. I don't think you understand what the word "impulse" means.

No that would be you. I can tell where you are making your mistake. When I say "impulse" you are thinking a spontaneous action yes? Acting without thought, lacking discipline or self restraint and acting on a sudden.. what, a sudden feeling. An impulse. Definition: The sudden or strong impulse to act without premeditation.
Key words: Without Premeditation

And I am saying if you love without premeditation, your love by definition is on impulse.

>That's not even close to correct. A choice can be made in response to an impulse.

YES and if you make that choice in response to an impulse, it's called acting on impulse! Then what you achieve is an adjective to describe yourself: "Impulsive". Someone who acts on impulses. Please tell me you can understand this.

>>34450113
>You believe that someone feeling emotions they haven't previously decided to feel is simply being "immature" instead of being a normal human being.

This would require me telling you what infatuation is and where that fits into that equation and that's going to take us off the course of the main topic of love.

>See, normal human beings feel emotions regardless of their choice. Sometimes people feel sad and don't even know why.
That's called emotional dysregulation. Being unable to identify your own emotions or the causes of them. Typically due to alexithymia, aka emotional dyslexia if you want to call it that.

>Actions are not feelings.
Never said they were. You assume that because you still cling to the idea love is a feeling.

>"feeling involuntary emotions" with "acting thoughtlessly in response to emotions".

That's a good point. Love is not an involuntarily feeling though, infatuation is, but infatuation is not love.

>Unless your wife takes charge, you are going to raise emotionally repressed robots for children and they are likely to resent you for it as adults.
Not going to engage with you further, you're disrespectful and you cross the boundaries of conversation.

>>34450143
>When two things vary wildly in 'complexity' what's being said, really, is those two things are not the same thing at all.
A mouse is a mammal.
A human being is a mammal.
A human being is not a mouse.
Savvy?

>When I say "impulse" you are thinking a spontaneous action yes?
No.

>Definition: The sudden or strong impulse to act without premeditation.
No. It's an inclination or incitement to act.

>I am saying if you love without premeditation, your love by definition is on impulse.
And you're wrong.
A psychological impulse often lasts only 20 to 30 seconds before the immediate urge peaks and dissipates if not acted upon. Acting on impulse is acting nearly immediately. If you feel love without deciding to feel love, like a broken repressed robot, then your love is involuntary but not necessarily impulsive. If you wait a month to consider your actions first, that's not acting on impulse.

>>34450182
>That's called emotional dysregulation
Holy shit. No. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

>Being unable to identify your own emotions or the causes of them. Typically due to alexithymia
Dude. SOMETIMES a person will get sad and not know why. That's perfectly normal. It's not a chronic emotional impairment.
Sometimes people just feel things. And it's normal.

You are not as educated as you imagine you are.

>Not going to engage with you further, you're disrespectful and you cross the boundaries of conversation.
None of your posts are worth respecting.
You are literally teaching your children by example to suppress and control every emotion they have or else they're being immature. This is likely going to warp them. It happens all the time.
You're insisting that your broken emotional state is correct without ever questioning it or talking to someone more educated than you on it. Does that sound healthy to you?
And you're going to emotionally damage your children, never once questioning yourself. Why? Questioning yourself is how you find your own faults and improve on them.

If your wife is more emotionally healthy, they have a decent shot of growing up just thinking their dad is weird, at least once they realize not all dads are like you. Everyone grows up thinking their childhood is the normal.

>>34449385
>>34449364

And they end up fucking up their children badly, either by being abusive or by being fanatical nutjobs. They only continue existing because they arrange marriages very early on. Some never marry and end up living dysfunctional pseudomarriages with their siblings until old age.

>>34449883
>choose love
Die, moron

It's penis in vagina, coom, baby comes out. Then cheating, divorce, man gets fucked over regardless of anything. Suicide. Kids grow up fucked up. The cycle repeats.

>now
As opposed to... when?

>>34449343
I can smell her and I want nothing more than to suck her titties, go down and suck on her clit, lick and suck absolutely EVERYTHING from the deepest part of her hole, and then fuck her, while holding her skin to skin. Until I cum inside and love her

>>34449385
Yeah that is funny, because it's statistically untrue.
Non religious, also known as "normal people", have the most amount of sex on the regular.

>>34449385
Whats funny (not really) is that you're a liar. 90% of the relationship is looks, at least for men.

>>34454090
Nta
>90% of the relationship is looks, at least for men.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you twelve?
A relationship is not just attraction.

File: 1669952745038651.jpg (383 KB, 955x1467)

383 KB JPG

>>34449343
All the attractive women who would make great wives and mothers are taken in high school and college the latest. Whatever remains is taken shortly after they enter the workforce. There exist very few good looking women that are single and have a good heart, are modest, raised in a decent family, soft spoken and pretty. The window of opportunity when they are single is very very narrow. These are the 2% of women, the highest stock of females this wonderful creation can offer. If you don't frequent their circles or the events they attend you have no chance of meeting them. Women also don't go anywhere alone, so whatever hobbies women have or events they attend it is done with their husband or boyfriend and if they are single with their groups of friends.

tldr; there simply aren't enough single good looking young white women to go around for everybody, they are rare and exist mostly in very niche places where men without social circles (loners) can't get in to