Nobody is entitled to a relationship

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

No, nobody's entitled to a relationship. Relationships take work and in my eyes you both have to earn it.

Yes.. oh my yes. Both.. have to earn it. Each needs to do the work.

I'd agree in some ways, but a lot of people just let one person do the work, and they have all the fun.

A friend of mine had a boyfriend like that. He was reclusive, withdrawn, and spent a lot more time with his friends than with her. And he would put her down in public. Yet, she kept on going back to him, despite me telling her to ditch him.

She finally did, and now she's happy, but there are people out there who use and abuse others, and then say, "But...but...but...you love me, right?"

I would never do that, yet I sometimes don't think it is possible for a girl to love me back.

 

[ardour]

Of course no-one is entitled, however we're entitled to feel sad about the fact.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

Which goes into the argument that someone who is miserable, and complaining about it, isn't being hateful.

I am generally a positive person. But, honeysuckle, sometimes life just sucks. I know people who are happy don't want to hear life sucks, but I don't want to hear about how happy they are when MY life sucks.

And my life doesn't suck in every way, but in the ways it does, I don't want to hear about how I don't have the right to share that.

 

[petrovchanka]

It's not so painfully obvious.

Since love, sex, and relationships are on the bottom of Maslow's pyramid, then you would assume that they are part of what makes a human being healthy.

True; social relations whether platonic or romantic are important for a healthy wellbeing. But you didn't ask about the value of love and relationships, you asked if people were entitled to one. So I answered accordingly.

I get what you're saying MT, but I also see where LITM is coming from, too...I mean, don't the theorists say Maslow's basic needs are a basic right that we should all have? Should, being the operative word I guess...I guess I am spitting semantics. While a lot of people get what they want in life without putting forth a lot of effort, no one is entitled to anything. Right? Je ne sais pas :club:

---

Which goes into the argument that someone who is miserable, and complaining about it, isn't being hateful.

I am generally a positive person. But, honeysuckle, sometimes life just sucks. I know people who are happy don't want to hear life sucks, but I don't want to hear about how happy they are when MY life sucks.

And my life doesn't suck in every way, but in the ways it does, I don't want to hear about how I don't have the right to share that.

I think even happy people acknowledge that life sucks...shitty things happen to happy people...I think they look at life differently, in general.

Yes! Life sucks! When I am asked to "make a wish", I usually wish that all people all over the world find happiness...live happy lives. Geeky, maybe. But true.

On the flipside of life sucking, I could never understand how people who have been through horrific, devastating, life-changing ordeals can still be hopeful and positive...and maybe even say "life is beautiful". They are bigger than me...they are more evolved, I guess...and they are operating on a higher frequency. Dizzzzaaaaaaamm.

 

[ardour]

If you strip a human down to just the bare mammal that we are then no we are not entitled to a relationship. We're on the earth with the program to mate and reproduce then move on... then we became 'civilized' and had an uprising of 'society' who helped man make things such as relationships, marriage etc. It is only through 100's of years of evolution that we have come to accept things like being in a relationship is the norm when really it goes against our very genetic make-up.

Thus my point is no we are not entitled to a relationship but through society's eyes that's what they expect of us.

(Just my thoughts anyway)

No offence intended, I don't know where you get your ideas from, but that's just wrong. Early humans did not "mate then move on", children would not have survived. Monogamy is part of our anthropological history. Human beings as a species have k selected traits (along with apes and some other mammals) involving fewer, slower maturing offspring that require high parental investment. Sexual dimorphism would have meant distinct (and necessary) parental roles for men and women in early hunter-gatherer societies.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

Not everyone is adept at mating, rdor. What about gay people and asexuals?

It is biologically proven that being gay or asexual is not a biological oddity. It's actually normal, it happens across animals species.

What is abnormal is when you're straight, and you can't find someone of your own gender to find you attractive enough to date. And then everyone says, "Oh, you're gay or asexual", and you say, "No, I'm not!"

 

[Susana]

Agree or disagree?

Well, I must agree. Although it defies the law of natural beings...

---

Agree or disagree?

I think everyone is making a huge fuss about this... it should be simple..

 

[*Sammy*]

Yes its not as black and white as i put in my post rdor but i am not completely 'wrong' as LeaningIntoTheMuse explained much better then i every could. Plus it was only my opinion i wasn't trying to state it a gospel fact.

 

[ardour]

Sorry but you are wrong. Pre-civilization hunter-gatherer groups consisted of 'couples', with the male as the primary provider. Survival of offspring absolutely necessitated this. Homosexuality is irrelevant because it occurs in a minority of a population.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

Homosexuality is actually a bigger part of evolution than you assume.

And the statistics of men and women who have never had sex or been in a relationship is also really low. It's actually more common for someone to be in a homosexual relationship than to be straight and never been in a relationship.

 

[*Sammy*]

There was also hunter gather groups where there would be one main male that would sleep with all the females and impregnate them. Doesn't mean he was 'coupled' to any of them... but i am really in no mood to argue over my own opinion which i am entitled to whether you think its wrong or not.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

That still happens. There are even male porn stars that are sold out to companies because they have, say, a big penis, and they get to sleep with all sorts of attractive women.

Is that really what you want? Sure, I'd like to bang a hot porn star, but I'd rather have just one girl who was a friend who I'd sleep with and be in a relationship with.

This was addressed to rdor, by the way. If you are having trouble attracting dates, maybe consider that you're the problem instead of them? There's probably a woman out there who is in the same position you are, complaining about men, and both of you would be really happy together, if you let go of your prejudices.

---

And another thing, that I wanted to address:

Why is it that people assume you are a valuable guy because of relationships? They see one guy who's single, never been married, and doesn't have kids, and think, "There is something wrong with that dude." Then they see another guy who's married, has 2-3 children, and think, "Oh, this guy has got it together."

The first guy could be a wealthy bachelor who has tons of friends, but hasn't found the right woman yet TO have children. And the second guy could be a drug addict or alcoholic who hits his wife and emotionally abuses his children.

What is wrong with this picture?

 

[ardour]

There was also hunter gather groups where there would be one main male that would sleep with all the females and impregnate them. Doesn't mean he was 'coupled' to any of them... but i am really in no mood to argue over my own opinion which i am entitled to whether you think its wrong or not.

To argue you would have to have some knowledge to argue from. Polygamy was only possible after humans settled into larger scale farming communities with the beginning of social hierarchy. In small mobile groups that would have meant inbreeding, and one male would not be able to provide for that many children .
I was supposed to respect your opinion even though it’s based on ignorance? This information is readily available, just pick up ‘history of the world’ / human pre-history text or even just an encyclopedia.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

Whoa, calling her opinion as based on ignorance is a personal attack. And in case you don't realize, you're the only one who is saying what you're saying. Everyone else, including me (and I am a 30 year old virgin, remember?) is disagreeing with you.

You are a generally unpleasant person, or you come across that way on forums. Perhaps that's why you have trouble getting women to like you? Just a thought.

 

[EveWasFramed]

Whoa, calling her opinion as based on ignorance is a personal attack. And in case you don't realize, you're the only one who is saying what you're saying. Everyone else, including me (and I am a 30 year old virgin, remember?) is disagreeing with you.

You are a generally unpleasant person, or you come across that way on forums. Perhaps that's why you have trouble getting women to like you? Just a thought.

Your post wasn't much better, Muse. And maybe even a little hypocritical.

I know "ignorance" an be seen as an insult, but when taking the meaning at face value (and considering user intent) look at it like this...

Ignornace is lack of knowledge, education, or awareness on a certain subject. Im "ignorant" on doppler weather radar - don't know a **** thing about it. Ignorance about something isn't the same thing as being stupid. Im not 100% sure that rdor meant that as an insult.

EDIT:
Also, unless any of us are anthropologists, none of us are really experts on origin and evolution, now are we?

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

Yes, but how do we know if he is educated?

Sammy gave key examples for her points. Rdor threw out a book reference, and then called Sammy ignorant and uneducated.

Who was insulting who, and who is uneducated?

 

[ardour]

Whoa, calling her opinion as based on ignorance is a personal attack. And in case you don't realize, you're the only one who is saying what you're saying. Everyone else, including me (and I am a 30 year old virgin, remember?) is disagreeing with you.

You are a generally unpleasant person, or you come across that way on forums. Perhaps that's why you have trouble getting women to like you? Just a thought.

"generally unpleasant person" for calling an opinion ignorant. Really? I don't think I'm unpleasant, I'm polite most of the time. If someone's statements are at odds with just about everything I've read on the subject I'm going to say so.

---

By the way, Muse, if you ever encountered the people I grew up around you'd get a REAL idea of what unpleasant is.

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

Getting back on track:

I've often wondered about the double standards regarding virginity. When you're young, you get told to wait...and then it's too late. Not only is it too late, but you find out that everyone who was also told to wait, didn't, and so you are an oddity...even though you would have been an oddity if you had had sex when you were told to wait...right?

It's this, more than anything, that gets me. I am not entitled to sex, but I should have had sex...therefore I am a freak. Even though I have a B GPA in college, have worked, have lived on my own, and have three successful career paths...I am a freak of nature.

Of course, I know people will tell me that I'm not...but just go to any forum that is not based on circumstances that would lead to adult virginity, and ask this question, "I am an adult virgin...am I weird?" Prepare to have your head messed with by all the 'normal people'.

 

[Felix]

Getting into a relationship can be tricky. That's why I make myself entitled to one by paying for it

 

[LeaningIntoTheMuse]

Paying for a relationship? Or just sex?

You see, I would be open to that, except for two reasons. One, I am a Christian and I find it immoral to do that (even though part of it excites me.) And the second is, I equate sex with love, and I would have a really difficult time trying to separate the two; most likely, I would fall in love with the hookers, and be emotionally devastated, and who wants that?

If I turn 32 and I still am a virgin, I am paying for it. Although there is a valid 3rd reason, and that is it is illegal around here; there are news stories all the time about guys going to hookers and getting busted, and going to prison. I have managed to keep my record clean, so I'm not going to dirty it up by paying for something that I should be getting for free, anyways.