♥Crusher's Club IV♥

xDD When does she not? Alas....

I agree. And I like your choice of smiley.

Hm.... I don't actually know on that one.... I guess I won't know 'til I experience it, then I'll contact you when I'm 50, like "MADDIE! I FIGURED IT OUT!" xD
I would agree to that. But, as to why our hormones do that, I have no clue, but I'd like to know, and if you find out, tell me, so I can give mine a talking to.

I know, it's kind of weird, if you really think about it...

You're quite right, Eileen, it's kind of weird.

One wonders if even the married know the answer . . . Do neurochemists know? Nobody knows. . . or they would have told us. It would be breaking news! Newspapers everywhere would have kids running around in old-timey clothing selling papers with the headline:
"WHY HORMONES DO FLIPS WHILE PLAYING THE VIOLIN."

What is the probability of a boy and a girl (or man and woman) fancying one another simultaneously? Why does it occasionally so happen that their feelings are mutual? And other times, why does that not happen? Nevertheless, it's all very awkward, I'm sure.

For both of you, Lauren and Eileen, how long did the longest crush you've ever had last?

That would be a fantastic headline. xD But, yeah, I wonder.... I don't really have an answer to that, because, as you said, nobody knows.

The probability of that is slim, but does seem to happen more than one would think. Or, I guess it happens for such a short period of time, that someone moves on, and then you have a break-up or divorce. It's all extremely awkward.

Well, I guess that kind of depends on how one defines the line between a crush, liking someone, and loving someone... I guess about a year, or a year and a half, about that. I would say Lauren's was about two years, around that, too. But again, some of that may have been liking someone or loving someone, which is slightly unknown. 'Cause at the time you think so, and then you look back, and you can't be quite certain.

Hahaha, I agree. Hormones are completely ridiculous. And, I have to agree again. This whole concept of love remains a mystery. Sure, everything is driven by the desire to reproduce, but why do we get the feelings that come along with that?

That's an interesting thought, too. It's kind of strange to think that of the 7 billion something people in the world, you've chosen one that you love. And the odds that of everybody, they happened to choose you, as well... Wow. It's kind of incredible, actually.

My longest... Was actually about 3 and a half years, and would have been longer if said person hadn't hurt me. For me, at least, being hurt is usually where the fancying ends. I'll still have the aching sensation of wanting to love/like them, but it won't be true, because I'll be forever scarred by what that person has done to me...

I know, other species don't mate for pleasure, so what happened to make us?

It's really incredible, and really strange. And confusing.

Interesting. That doesn't happen for me, they just kind of fade out of my consciousness... It's strange.

What's even stranger, is that this whole thing is driven by the desire to reproduce, and yet people take pills etc. to avoid having children, or after conceiving abort the child--even though the whole process from an evolutionary standpoint was for the sake of having that child and repopulating the race. And what about those who attracted to someone they know is infertile? Richard Dawkins says it's just a "blessed, precious mistake." And homosexuality definitely doesn't repopulate the human race.

Lauren, being scarred by a crush is not cool. But then marriage has to be a thousand times worse. If you got married, your husband would hurt you "seventy times seven." Unless you have a perfect marriage! But that's astronomically improbable.

Well, the thing about that is that humans mate for pleasure, not just for the advance of the race. So, that's also kind of strange.

I think that having a perfect marriage isn't astronomically improbable, as you say. It can happen sometimes. And it's not necessarily improbable, even though it might seem that way. Positive outlook.

Is it possible that animals turn things that are meant for survival into pleasurable things? Like a dog playing fetch, or a cat playing with its food. Dogs chase frisbees and ball because it's built into them to chase prey, but is their playing a reflex of the survival mechanism or really meant for "fun"? If animals can "have fun." If they could, maybe you could argue that humans "mating for pleasure" is just them turning a survival mechanism into a "pleasurable thing." And yet, what enables animals or humans to "turn" something into something it isn't originally for?

Alright, maybe perfect marriages are possible--they can happen. But is it likely that you have a perfect marriage? Supposing that a "perfect marriage" is a marriage in which no troubles arise. But will you really never argue with your spouse? Disagree? Annoy one another? Offend one another? Fuss over dirty dishes? I can't think of an example of an actual perfect marriage. Not that it can't or doesn't happen. It just means that if you get married, in all likelihood you will have an argument etc. at least once. So the probability of a perfect marriage is less than the probability of an imperfect marriage--an imperfect marriage just being, well, a marriage in which you don't disagree sanely on everything. The positive outlook, I think, might very well be "just don't get married or bother with such things as relationships with the opposite sex that are 'beyond friendship.'"--which is, no doubt, the Crusher's Club motto. Not that the motto is "positive," at any rate.

Good question. Domestic-ized animals do so, but wild ones don't really. Maybe it's just because humans have helped them do this? I dunno.

I disagree with your definition of perfect marriage. To me, it would just simply be a marriage in which no affairs occur and no divorce, and you're both happy. Little arguments are going to happen, it's not possible that they won't, but if your marriage after that is still strong, and you're still happy and love each other, then there's nothing wrong with it to make it imperfect.

Maybe under the care of humans, animals are less concerned with survival. Then, rather than have their survival mechanisms go unused, they are employed for pleasure! But if this were applied to mankind's use of "survival mechanisms for pleasure," we have the question of What or who cared for humans so that they did not really need to be "concerned with survival"? Aliens, perhaps? Or this potential answer to the question of animals, humans, and pleasure could be a false one.

Your definition makes a deal more sense than mine, Eileen! And so, with this definition, you have made a perfect marriage over 50% probable. Both positive and realistic!

Hm.... I like your answer, but I want to tweak it a little bit to fit humans as well. Once your survival mechanisms become less and less necessary because of changes in your environment that make things easier for you, then, instead of going unused, they are used for pleasure. For animals, this factor would be humans, but for humans, technology is a factor. Do you agree, or think it needs more tweaking?

Yay! Because otherwise, there would be no way of any marriages perfect enough for long enough for families to be formed, which would lower our ability to protect and care for ourselves. Thus, a looser definition was needed.

That's really a neat idea! I take it we mean by technology both "the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes" and "machinery and equipment developed from such knowledge." And it is a factor, as you've said, but it isn't the factor. So, there are several factors and you've figured out one. The history of technology serves as evidence that technology "makes things easier for us." Strangely enough, though, no examples from this history are coming to mind of how technology has helped reduce a survival mechanism to a pleasure-oriented one. Can you think of some sort of example?

Now i have a new idea about this, if you'd like to hear it out. Would you agree that we use some survival mechanisms, even though they bring pleasure, for both survival and pleasure? Like eating. We eat to survive, but for most of us eating is a nice pastime anyway. In the Odyssey, which we and Lauren have had the fortune--or perhaps you guys would say misfortune--of reading, the suitors eat and drink all day. Their feasting is their delight. At times it gets excessive, in which case it has passed from being for both survival and pleasure to just pleasure. Maybe when our survival mechanisms are used beyond what is necessary for survival is when they are used solely for pleasure.

Could technology still be a factor here, somehow? Could it be that technology is a factor that, in making things easier, makes excessive use of survival mechanisms possible? We know that a stranded, starving man can't eat beyond what is necessary. But, because of airplanes delivering canned food, both the results of technology, he is able to get the food he needs and even beyond what is necessary for his survival. The starving man will want to eat because hunger drives him, but there is genuine enjoyment for him in eating. If there were no enjoyment, and only hunger, would we still eat, or want to eat? Is the will to survive just the will to pleasure, and when all pleasure is gone, so is the will to live? Depressed people are often suicidal. Is it because they find nothing pleasurable in life anymore? Nothing pleasurable, therefore die?

According to one kid in my Worldview class, we should question our need to eat and sleep and so on, even if these are pleasurable: Why do we have to do it? To survive, yeah, but doesn't it get old and tedious? Having to stop every 16 hours or so to go unconscious for 8 more, and then every 4 hours stop whatever you're doing to grab a bite to eat. If you stop and reflect on it, it's a chore. For some reason, we put up with it and even enjoy it. We are slaves to our bodies! That's sort of a summary of the class discussion derived from his question.

And there are examples of a survival mechanism perverted. We eat to survive, and it's even fun, but what about the anorexic? She won't eat, and for her, eating can be an absolutely horrible experience. Why won't she eat? Because she'll get fat, she says. Animals sometimes go "anorexic," but not because of a fear of obesity. It's because of having no hunger, or rabies, when they can't swallow. Human anorexics really do get hungry, but still don't eat.

This isn't an organized post, but my basic contention is that when a survival mechanism is used beyond what is necessary for survival, it's being used solely for pleasure. Also, pleasure and survival are interrelated in such a way that if you take away the former, the latter becomes uninteresting or even despicable. What are your thoughts? And do we still want to stick with the previous ideas of our survival mechanisms becoming unnecessary? Can you think of an example in which technology helps to do away with a survival mechanism?

The whole talk of survival and so on is off-topic, though it stemmed from a more on-topic discussion. So, to make it relevant to crushing on people, I'll say that liking a boy is a survival mechanism that is not so much survival-oriented as it is pleasure-oriented, and now it's up to us to figure out why. Does technology play a role here? Or some as yet undiscussed factor? Plus, we know our normal friendships are almost entirely pleasure-oriented. So, your relationship with a husband or boyfriend is basically the same as with any other friend, except for the sexual dimension, or, at least, sexual tension. From here I'm lost and don't know what to argue. But, if it interests you, I'll be studying about this sort of thing--proper relationship between husband and wife, or boyfriend and girlfriend--and from that study might have something more to add.

Oh, okay, yeah, I'd agree with that. I was going to use the example of food, and then I kept reading, and I agree.

Hm... Again, I pretty much absolutely just agree with what you said, so, I really have nothing of great importance to say.

I'd say it doesn't do away with survival mechanisms, it just makes surviving easier. They don't go all the way away, we still use them, they just aren't as instinctive.

Thanks for bringing us back on topic. Liking a boy is still survival orientated, but, for us, it's more about pleasure, because (as far as I'm aware) none of us are far enough into our lives to be thinking about furthering the species right now.