Venting I've never been loved

[EG1141]

I went down a rabbit hole the other day all about the importance of experiencing romantic love during your teenage years and how it literally changes your brain. I'm 19 now and have never been in a relationship. I've had my fair share of "crushes" and liked a few people, even asking some of them out. Of course, I was rejected, one of them even going on to date my best friend. I feel like I'm undesirable. I don't want to sound like an incel, but while I guess you could consider me that, I am far from their ideology. Now that I've been diagnosed with cancer, I understand why no one would want to be with me. I'm just an ugly suicidal idiot. This is one of the main reasons that I wanna CTB. I have my SN, I just don't know when I wanna use it.

 

[KillingPain267]

Don't sweat it. The concept of romantic love is a human construction, there is no proof that it is natural and in the brain. It didn't exist before the Middle Ages when troubadours made songs and poems about a new concept of love (today it still exists in movies, books and culture).

Before that, only the other two aspects of love existed: 1. Pure bodily arousal and 2. Duty to provide and bring forth children to continue the lineage or religion (that too is a societal construction). And throughout history, teenage "love" didn't exist either. Just a 100 years ago, girls were not even developed until age 17 up to 19. While girls were often married off as soon as they were developed in some cultures (not even all), boys had to build a career first or receive their inheritance.

So at least 20-25 years of age was when they even were allowed near girls. Tacitus, around 98-99 CE, noticed that Germanic tribes married late.

Even the concept of a teenager is no more than 80 years old.

 

[EG1141]

Don't sweat it. The concept of romantic love is a human construction, there is no proof that it is natural and in the brain. It didn't exist before the Middle Ages when troubadours made songs and poems about a new concept of love (today it still exists in movies, books and culture).

Before that, only the other two aspects of love existed: 1. Pure bodily arousal and 2. Duty to provide and bring forth children to continue the lineage or religion (that too is a societal construction). And throughout history, teenage "love" didn't exist either. Just a 100 years ago, girls were not even developed until age 17 up to 19. While girls were often married off as soon as they were developed in some cultures (not even all), boys had to build a career first or receive their inheritance.

So at least 20-25 years of age was when they even were allowed near girls. Tacitus, around 98-99 CE, noticed that Germanic tribes married late.

Even the concept of a teenager is no more than 80 years old.

It still doesn't change the fact that it is something we all yearn for.

 

[lamargue]

brutal. it's true that adolescent experiences which entail sexual exploration are beneficial for developing desirable social characteristics later. but i like to think that it's not as common as initially thought, and that the pamphleteering of adolescent wiles in current society is an inherited delusion that we buy purely due to its saturation in media

 

[EvisceratedJester]

It isn't necessary to have romantic love during your teens. I don't know where you saw this claim, but it's false. Everyone moves at their own pace and some people don't start experiencing romantic love until near the end of adolescence or up into adulthood. I didn't start experiencing true romantic love until I was 20 and I didn't get my first bf until 21 (which is how old I am mot, lol). I've heard plenty of people talk about not experiencing this stuff until even later in life. It's not a big deal and you shouldn't feel shitty over this.

 

[KillingPain267]

It still doesn't change the fact that it is something we all yearn for.

Yes, that is true. Since we grew up with it as a culture, we yearn for it. But, knowing this, it does give us a chance to undo it in our culture and media and we may also be able to be un-brainwashed from romantic love. I know for myself that when I got older I stopped having the classic crushes (limerence) on members of the opposite sex.

 

[Reflection]

Don't sweat it. The concept of romantic love is a human construction, there is no proof that it is natural and in the brain. It didn't exist before the Middle Ages when troubadours made songs and poems about a new concept of love (today it still exists in movies, books and culture).

Before that, only the other two aspects of love existed: 1. Pure bodily arousal and 2. Duty to provide and bring forth children to continue the lineage or religion (that too is a societal construction). And throughout history, teenage "love" didn't exist either. Just a 100 years ago, girls were not even developed until age 17 up to 19. While girls were often married off as soon as they were developed in some cultures (not even all), boys had to build a career first or receive their inheritance.

So at least 20-25 years of age was when they even were allowed near girls. Tacitus, around 98-99 CE, noticed that Germanic tribes married late.

Even the concept of a teenager is no more than 80 years old.

I dont think that romantic love is just some kind of modern construct or brainwashing, we do feel it strongly when we bond and connect with a special someone, if that's not natural then what is? And what about the pain that comes from losing that someone?
There have also been stories and poems from different cultures about it throughout history.
I do agree though that the concept of teenage love being "absolutely intergal" to one's development being false and a recent thing...and to be honest I've only ever saw it being pushed in incel-like circles and such.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Don't sweat it. The concept of romantic love is a human construction, there is no proof that it is natural and in the brain. It didn't exist before the Middle Ages when troubadours made songs and poems about a new concept of love (today it still exists in movies, books and culture).

Before that, only the other two aspects of love existed: 1. Pure bodily arousal and 2. Duty to provide and bring forth children to continue the lineage or religion (that too is a societal construction). And throughout history, teenage "love" didn't exist either. Just a 100 years ago, girls were not even developed until age 17 up to 19. While girls were often married off as soon as they were developed in some cultures (not even all), boys had to build a career first or receive their inheritance.

So at least 20-25 years of age was when they even were allowed near girls. Tacitus, around 98-99 CE, noticed that Germanic tribes married late.

Even the concept of a teenager is no more than 80 years old.

I agree. Romantic love is constantly pushed in the movies and TV and media like many other things.imo most of these are false learned addictions.

I don't have any desire nor need to get a romantic partner nor romantic love.

Other addictions are I don't have any desire to have children nor friends

When I was younger i was brainwashed before to think I needed and or wanted a girlfriend and also friends and then children... Not anymore I don't need any of that . Especially me wanting children now to me is the Most horrific abomination .

The wanting children is easiest to see that is not natural as birth rates are declining rapidly in many countries.

Someone posted here on this thread we all yearn for it . I don't .

You Become What You Think About

www.myfreedlife.com

I think the thousand brains theory of the brain is correct..

A New Theory Of Intelligence: Review of “A Thousand Brains” by Jeff Hawkins

To me, the most interesting observation in the book is not about brains – it’s about how an intelligent species could make its presence known across the vast distances of space.

www.forbes.com

New AI Project Aims to Push Beyond Neural Networks

The Gates-funded Thousand Brains Project will mimic the human neocortex

spectrum.ieee.org

 

[KillingPain267]

I dont think that romantic love is just some kind of modern construct or brainwashing, we do feel it strongly when we bond and connect with a special someone, if that's not natural then what is?

Racism also felt "natural" before, but when the laws and system changes, suddenly the "natural" feelings disappear. Now only few people feel disgust at an interracial couple.

And what about the pain that comes from losing that someone?
There have also been stories and poems from different cultures about it throughout history.

That is not romantic love necessarily. It may overlap with it, but it's no different than the feeling of losing a mother or sibling. You wouldn't say someone mourning the loss of a sister is because the living sibling had a romantic love relationship with her.

I do agree though that the concept of teenage love being "absolutely intergal" to one's development being false and a recent thing...and to be honest I've only ever saw it being pushed in incel-like circles and such.

Exactly, they spew a lot of pseudo-science.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Racism also felt "natural" before, but when the laws and system changes, suddenly the "natural" feelings disappear. Now only few people feel disgust at an interracial couple.

Romantic love is a concept that has existed throughout a large chunk of human history. The concept of race as we know it today, however, is fairly recent. The two aren't comparable.

Based on what I know, romantic love seems to be universal as it has been observed within almost all human societies and there does seem to be a neurobiological basis for it (here is a meta-analysis looking at it). It likely evolved in conjunction with pair-bonding. From a more anecdotal perspective, I can say that the love I feel for my bf is very distinct from the love I feel towards my family and my past friends. By comparison, the concept of race can change depending on where you live and the time period. There isn't any genetic basis for it as there are more differences within racial groups than between them. It's a social construct that seems to have been created back when Europeans were exploring the world and colonizing different countries.

I don't think that romantic love is something that we are brainwashed into believing. In reality, the issue is that we are pushed to treat it as inherently better than other types of love, treating it as a milestone that everyone is meant to experience. We put it up on a pedestal and we treat those who've never experienced it with pity, even though it shouldn't really matter. The issue is amatonormativity, which is the assumption that everyone is better off in long-term romantic relationships, typically monogamous ones. We tend to overlook the value of other types of relationships because we are taught to overvalue romantic ones. This is part of why we have so many people on here who specifically want to ctb because of a lack of luck when it comes to finding a romantic partner.

 

[F@#$]

Love is a lie

 

[Reflection]

The issue is amatonormativity, which is the assumption that everyone is better off in long-term romantic relationships, typically monogamous ones. We tend to overlook the value of other types of relationships because we are taught to overvalue romantic ones. This is part of why we have so many people on here who specifically want to ctb because of a lack of luck when it comes to finding a romantic partner.

I dont think that it is an issue though but rather quite normal, given how it more or less falls in line with many other living creatures, so I doubt it is just something we came up with and are being taught, especially given how it is how the vast majority humans operated throughout history, and most do find utmost joy and fullfillment in having a family with someone whom they love even if they do recognize the value of other relationships, after all it's also the healthiest and most natural way leading to reproduction, without which we wouldn't even exist, and the implications of which include passing on one's genetic information and ensuring the survival of their bloodline, something that not just humans are hardwired to do.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I dont think that it is an issue though but rather quite normal, given how it more or less falls in line with many other living creatures, so I doubt it is just something we came up with and are being taught, especially given how it is how the vast majority humans operated throughout history, and most do find utmost joy and fullfillment in having a family with someone whom they love even if they do recognize the value of other relationships, after all it's also the healthiest and most natural way leading to reproduction, without which we wouldn't even exist, and the implications of which include passing on one's genetic information and ensuring the survival of their bloodline, something that not just humans are hardwired to do.

Actually, it is an issue. The emphasis that we put on romantic relationships is largely shaped by culture rather than just biology. To add onto this, amatonormativity directly feeds into discrimination against those who are aromantic. There are a lot of instances of people reporting things, such as feeling more hurt by friendship breakups in comparison to romantic breakups and even cases of people deciding to marry their friends as opposed to getting a romantic partner due to how strong their relationship is. In reality, romantic love isn't any more special than any other type of love out there. It's just a feeling that evolved from our need to reproduce and raise our offspring. Other types of life also evolved because in some way they benefitted our survival and chances of reproduction. Trying to use bioessentialist arguments to further push something that is largely shaped by culture is dumb and just feeds into the exact type of bullshit that has led to the mess we see today. Romantic love isn't some magical special thing. It's just a certain type of love, just like maternal love, platonic love, etc. How special your love is to someone is based on the depth of the relationship, not on the type of relationship. You can find queer platonic relationships that are just as, if not, even more loving and fulfilling than romantic ones.

 

[KillingPain267]

Romantic love is a concept that has existed throughout a large chunk of human history. The concept of race as we know it today, however, is fairly recent. The two aren't comparable.

Based on what I know, romantic love seems to be universal as it has been observed within almost all human societies and there does seem to be a neurobiological basis for it (here is a meta-analysis looking at it). It likely evolved in conjunction with pair-bonding. From a more anecdotal perspective, I can say that the love I feel for my bf is very distinct from the love I feel towards my family and my past friends. By comparison, the concept of race can change depending on where you live and the time period. There isn't any genetic basis for it as there are more differences within racial groups than between them. It's a social construct that seems to have been created back when Europeans were exploring the world and colonizing different countries.

I don't think that romantic love is something that we are brainwashed into believing. In reality, the issue is that we are pushed to treat it as inherently better than other types of love, treating it as a milestone that everyone is meant to experience. We put it up on a pedestal and we treat those who've never experienced it with pity, even though it shouldn't really matter. The issue is amatonormativity, which is the assumption that everyone is better off in long-term romantic relationships, typically monogamous ones. We tend to overlook the value of other types of relationships because we are taught to overvalue romantic ones. This is part of why we have so many people on here who specifically want to ctb because of a lack of luck when it comes to finding a romantic partner.

It all depends on how you define "race" and "romantic love". If you broaden the definition of race or romantic love, obviously you will find it everywhere. In "Love in the Western World", Swiss writer and cultural theorist traced the evolution of Western romantic love from its literary beginnings in the 1200s as an awe-inspiring secret to its commercialization in the media.

I believe the Troubadours got a lot of their inspiration from the Arabs also (as a lot of stuff came to Europe from the Arabs), so it traces further back.

The problem with saying romantic love is universal/global is that it may be based on surveys of cultures around the globe that live TODAY. Today's Chinese people, Japanese people, Uzbeki people and even Native American peoples may seem culturally very different from western peoples, but they are in fact all exposed to and influenced by western culture and media due to the west's global dominance. Anthropologists fear that almost no culture is untainted except for yet undiscovered/uncontacted tribes. So you'll of course find observations about "romantic love among Native Americans" by surveying currently living Native Americans, all of whom have been influenced by western thought and media (which can of course influence neurobiology), which came from Europe, which is where romantic love was developed by the Troubadours since the 1200s, which is a different kind of love than familial duty or erotic love.

 

[Reflection]

Actually, it is an issue. The emphasis that we put on romantic relationships is largely shaped by culture rather than just biology. To add onto this, amatonormativity directly feeds into discrimination against those who are aromantic. There are a lot of instances of people reporting things, such as feeling more hurt by friendship breakups in comparison to romantic breakups and even cases of people deciding to marry their friends as opposed to getting a romantic partner due to how strong their relationship is. In reality, romantic love isn't any more special than any other type of love out there. It's just a feeling that evolved from our need to reproduce and raise our offspring. Other types of life also evolved because in some way they benefitted our survival and chances of reproduction. Trying to use bioessentialist arguments to further push something that is largely shaped by culture is dumb and just feeds into the exact type of bullshit that has led to the mess we see today. Romantic love isn't some magical special thing. It's just a certain type of love, just like maternal love, platonic love, etc. How special your love is to someone is based on the depth of the relationship, not on the type of relationship. You can find queer platonic relationships that are just as, if not, even more loving and fulfilling than romantic ones.

While I agree that how special the love is based on the depth of the relationship rather than the type, it's also essential to acknowledge that most people generally don't go on to build a life with people that they just see as nothing more than friends but rather a person they invite to be part of their life as a significant other, who shouldn't be just an object of lust or fixation but rather a best friend first and foremost, I think people not recognizing that and romanticizing it in unhealthy ways is the biggest issue here;

It is also recognized that romantic breakups do lead to severe pain and even suicide as well, so anything with feelings involved can have devastating effects regardless of the type of the relationship, and recognizing that it being important doesn't diminish the importance of those types.

 

[EvisceratedJester]

It all depends on how you define "race" and "romantic love". If you broaden the definition of race or romantic love, obviously you will find it everywhere. In "Love in the Western World", Swiss writer and cultural theorist traced the evolution of Western romantic love from its literary beginnings in the 1200s as an awe-inspiring secret to its commercialization in the media.

I believe the Troubadours got a lot of their inspiration from the Arabs also (as a lot of stuff came to Europe from the Arabs), so it traces further back.

The problem with saying romantic love is universal/global is that it may be based on surveys of cultures around the globe that live TODAY. Today's Chinese people, Japanese people, Uzbeki people and even Native American peoples may seem culturally very different from western peoples, but they are in fact all exposed to and influenced by western culture and media due to the west's global dominance. Anthropologists fear that almost no culture is untainted except for yet undiscovered/uncontacted tribes. So you'll of course find observations about "romantic love among Native Americans" by surveying currently living Native Americans, all of whom have been influenced by western thought and media (which can of course influence neurobiology), which came from Europe, which is where romantic love was developed by the Troubadours since the 1200s, which is a different kind of love than familial duty or erotic love.

Many anthropologists have already come to the conclusion that romantic love is universal and is not just a social construct created by the West, at least to my knowledge. This includes studies analyzing and dissecting folk tales from a variety of cultures over different historical periods, meaning that Western influenced can't as easily be argued to be the main reason for it.

From what I know, most reasrchers today believe romantic love to be near-universial and to likely stem from pair-bonding. While aspects on how we view romantic love, like how much emphasis we put on it, might be cultural, I feel like reducing it down to just culture as a whole isn't very accurate.