The Conspiracy Against Lovers: The Real Truth They Don't Want You To Know

With Valentine's Day just around the corner, I've been doing a lot of thinking about romance. It seems to me that the central mystery of our existence is perfectly expressed when two become one in love.

And yet, the common concensus seems to be that romance is a cruel neurochemical joke; nature's way of duping us into having kids we don't want or need. Further, there is a profound dissonance in how the genders are taught to perceive one another. We are told on the one hand that there's no difference between men and women, and that to assert such is tantamount to sexism. On the other hand, we are told that men want to be indiscriminately promiscuous, and that women are superficial gold-diggers. We are told that the two sexes are genetically predisposed to want mutually incompatible things, and will trick one another to get what they want.

Above all, we are told that men want sex, and women want love.

But is it true?



Dr. Fisher's work indicates that romantic love is a drive so powerful, it outbids libido. Even in men. There's more on that here.

Ashley Thompson is a UNB psychology student who authored the paper, called Gender Differences in Associations of Sexual and Romantic Stimuli: Do Young Men Really Prefer Sex Over Romance? Her testing of subconscious responses from 182 UNB students proved surprising results. By showing study participants both images of couples engaged in various sexual activities as well as images associated with romance, what was discovered is that both men and women were unreservedly drawn to the romantic images over the sexual ones.

So why are we told a different story every day on the talk shows and in the men's mags? The one where men want to screw everything that moves and women just want shoes? Are there inherent differences, and is it all as simple as estrogen vs. testosterone, as the trashy self-help gurus would have us believe?

Are the things we are told to want the opposite of the things we truly need to be happy?

Men and women must understand where we begin in our relation to one another, or progress as a species is not possible. So what is preventing us from understanding eachother? And whom might it profit to keep men and women forever on opposite sides of the room?

Take us out, Moneypenny:

This is what happens when we listen to others and not to ourselves. Everyone is different and love, sex, commitment, etc. means different things to different people of both sexes. AND at different ages. Throw Cosmo and Maxim out the window and look into yourself. One doesn't need someone else to tell you what is right for you. In fact it keeps you from being the person that you are.

Even more division i suppose.
I know i like romantic things over sex, i enjoy sex of course, but romantic things are much more important memories to me.

But really, if we think about it for a moment, considering some factors. I would assume its to keep men/women from truly uniting. I mean, look at the divorce rates these days. Marketers and advertisers have really manipulated men and women since their conception.

See all the womens magazines? All about sex, how to look prettier or lose weight, bunch of random crap pretty much. But lots of girls read those magazines and start believing what the magazines say. If the mag says that all men want is to get laid, then that is what they will think. Repetition is a form of mind control, eventually if something is repeated enough it becomes fact. We could delve into this even deeper.

And its no different for men, its just done in different ways. We get the same subliminal messaging that women do throughout our lives. Just in different ways. They essentially teach men and women to judge eachother in the relationship, my girlfriend is really bad for assuming that i am judging her. When really i am not, or not taking some things i say serious. She is a big cosmo fan too (go figure), and is into american idol, xfactor, dragons den, etc etc etc. I try not to get too far into it with her, she knows what i do on here, i talk to her about it all the time, and she gets it, but she just ignores it because she has to feel in control at all times. ANYWAYS. A lot of people are like that, too many.

I wonder what relationships were like back in like, the early 1900's. What has changed since then, I wonder if love had more of a play in it then that of today, I also think religion had a lot to do with it back then as well, though,

reply to post by Eidolon23

Dear Eidolon23,

I think you have an important point here, Brava!

With Valentine's Day just around the corner, I've been doing a lot of thinking about romance. It seems to me that the central mystery of our existence is perfectly expressed when two become one in love.

I'm becoming more convinced that the conspiracy is to persuade people there is nothing greater than the individual, except the State.

I'm not trying to get political or religious, just trying to play off your idea above. Christianity says that a husband has to be willing to sacrifice everything for his wife, and a wife is to love her husband above everything else.

A lover will say "I am more than I used to be because of my love, and lover." This is something the State (or Society) can't control. It leads to poetry, music, art, philosophy, mysticism and prayer.

I hope you are in love and that someone loves you. It opens the door to the world God wanted us to have from the beginning.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Eidolon23

And yet, the common consensus seems to be that romance is a cruel neurochemical joke; nature's way of duping us into having kids we don't want or need.

I have been very discouraged myself, Eidolon23, by the idea that seems to be catching on lately that Love is the product solely of neurochemistry. I am surprised that folks seem so ready to add Love to the pile of other human mysteries that we have 'figured out'. We don't need to worry about that anymore; it's just chemicals. I wonder how many people said to themselves, "I knew that all along"?

But please consider this,

Love one another. It is a biological reality, at least as best as we can tell, Brain science has only in the last decades been able to describe the regions of the brain that work as a complex system to generate what we experience as love.

Neurobiology has also identified the specific chemicals that are involved in the 'falling in love process', phenylethylalanine, and oxytocin. But let's not make the mistake of thinking that is love.

Now leap with me here,

The Troubabdours seemed to persuade by popularity. The idea of 'courtly love' is called that because it took place in Royal Court. amongst Noble people and that was the foot in the door because the Nobility had everyone doing it. Romantic love was disseminated quickly across the country side. Were the Troubabdours introducing people to their new wet ware? Wet ware only now confirmed by neuroscience during the last decades?

Love is not just a bunch of chemicals. Whether these newly identified regions of the brain have always been with us or not is besides the point that we need to learn how to use them.

I would like to suggest that what we are experiencing is a coming online of new ways of being because we are learning to use more of the wet ware we have been given. I feel that any conspiracy leveled against Lovers must have its basis in trying to prevent this from happening.

And I laid traps for troubadours

Who get killed before they reached Bombay

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah

The Rolling Stones. Sympathy for the Devil.
www.lyricsfreak.com...

X.

Good post ..After nearley 60 years of experiance I see much truth in it all ..at the end of the day I think it will come down to who we chose to love ....peace and thanks again for this

Originally posted by intrepid Everyone is different and love, sex, commitment, etc. means different things to different people of both sexes. AND at different ages.

How very true. Every love truly is a unique thing. Still, there are many dynamics that we share in common in our relationships that might be obscured by the variations. I think there's a lot of similarities from person to person when it comes to why we're able to stay happy together, and also in why our unions fail.

Unfortunately, no one seems to be comparing notes.

Throw Cosmo and Maxim out the window and look into yourself. One doesn't need someone else to tell you what is right for you. In fact it keeps you from being the person that you are.

Bingo! If you had a friend who told you what to wear, that you are a crap lay, that you need to lose weight, and gave you advice that never worked; would you continue to hang out with that person?

Originally posted by AzureSky
They essentially teach men and women to judge eachother in the relationship, my girlfriend is really bad for assuming that i am judging her. When really i am not, or not taking some things i say serious. She is a big cosmo fan too (go figure), and is into american idol, xfactor, dragons den, etc etc etc. I try not to get too far into it with her, she knows what i do on here, i talk to her about it all the time, and she gets it, but she just ignores it because she has to feel in control at all times. ANYWAYS. A lot of people are like that, too many.

Very strong work, AzureSky. Thanks.

I wanted to address this chunk, as I think it is characteristic of one of the things we all share in common when it comes to why our relationships flounder.

There is no problem with a couple having separate interests. It is healthy and normal, I think we can all agree.

But there is a problem when we find our partner's interests lessen our respect for them. And that is all about judgement. I think we find that schism lies between a lot of us.

The one where men want to screw everything that moves and women just want shoes?

I really enjoyed your post.

Really well written and the line above is a classic.

Thanks for giving me something to think about....

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Eidolon23

 

I'm becoming more convinced that the conspiracy is to persuade people there is nothing greater than the individual, except the State.

You'd be in good company, thinking that. I'm hoping a certain someone will happen by and expand on that excellent point.

A lover will say "I am more than I used to be because of my love, and lover." This is something the State (or Society) can't control. It leads to poetry, music, art, philosophy, mysticism and prayer.

Potent stuff indeed. Maybe the most powerful lever there is.

I hope you are in love and that someone loves you. It opens the door to the world God wanted us to have from the beginning.

Thank you, and I hope you are in love too.

Originally posted by Eidolon23
Every love truly is a unique thing. Still, there are many dynamics that we share in common in our relationships that might be obscured by the variations. I think there's a lot of similarities from person to person when it comes to why we're able to stay happy together, and also in why our unions fail.

Sex is pushed on us by society damn near every way you turn. TV, movies, print, advertising, etc. They are telling us that is what is important and how to achieve it. And many fall for this bunk. Why do unions fail? Because we are looking for the wrong things in these unions. I've come up with a chestnut or two in my time and I truly believe this one, "Sex without intimacy is just another form of masturbation." Sex should come from intimacy, not the other way around.

Originally posted by Xoanon
reply to post by Eidolon23

 

I have been very discouraged myself, Eidolon23, by the idea that seems to be catching on lately that Love is the product solely of neurochemistry. I am surprised that folks seem so ready to add Love to the pile of other human mysteries that we have 'figured out'. We don't need to worry about that anymore; it's just chemicals. I wonder how many people said to themselves, "I knew that all along"?

Here's my take on that: the chemicals are the messenger. Not the message, and certainly not the Sender.

Put another way: If I were God, and I wanted to talk to Paul of Damascus, I might use a frontal-lobe seizure to do it.

But please consider this,

Love one another. It is a biological reality, at least as best as we can tell, Brain science has only in the last decades been able to describe the regions of the brain that work as a complex system to generate what we experience as love.

Precisely. This is all happening in the newest part of our brains. What does that tell us? Perhaps that our capacity to experience love is central to our being what we are, and not just hairless apes.

reply to post by charles1952

I'm becoming more convinced that the conspiracy is to persuade people there is nothing greater than the individual, except the State.

charles1952,

Thank you for throwing that down so plainly. I agree with you, that seems to be the central conspiracy that Lovers contend with; a fundamental drive by 'unknown' forces to keep them from becoming united and powerful. The effort seems so strong to me that it causes me to believe that maybe there could be nothing more powerful in the world, or more Good, than a couple in love and free from the destroying forces generated all around them.

As the OP has pointed out, and I hope to paraphrase accurately, we have to be aware of the destructive messages that are being hurled at lovers from everywhere. Destructive stories and memes have to be sorted out; it really may be best to get away from the television. I say that gently because it is really aimed at the ladies, they seem especially susceptible to stuff like Sex in the City and Top Model and all that.

I really think it comes down to taking control of the narratives that we choose to believe in. And re-storying them if they are found to be destructive.

X.

Originally posted by Xoanon

And I laid traps for troubadours

Who get killed before they reached Bombay

Pleased to meet you

Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah

The Rolling Stones. Sympathy for the Devil.
www.lyricsfreak.com...

Check out those chains. They look loose enough, don't they?

reply to post by intrepid

"Sex without intimacy is just another form of masturbation." Sex should come from intimacy, not the other way around.

intrepid.

Thank you, Brother.

It is a rare man that has realized this and even more rare that will say it. I know you are going to have a killer St. Valentines Day.

X.

P.S. Everybody; you definitely want to play the song in the OP and then adjust your browser so you can watch intrepid's .gif dance.

reply to post by Eidolon23

This is all happening in the newest part of our brains. What does that tell us? Perhaps that our capacity to experience love is central to our being what we are, and not just hairless apes.

Man alive! We must be drinking from the same magical font of koolaid.

Exactly.

There is a really popular book out right now. Everyone is talking about it. Here,

Sex At Dawn:

Authors, Ryan and Jethá show how our promiscuous past haunts our current struggles regarding monogamy, sexual orientation, and family dynamics. Some of the themes they explore include:

• why long-term fidelity can be so difficult for so many;
• why sexual passion tends to fade even as love deepens;
• why many middle-aged men risk everything for an affair;
• why homosexuality persists in the face of standard evolutionary logic; and
• what the human body reveals about the prehistoric origins of modern sexuality

Ryan and Jethá show that our ancestors lived in egalitarian groups that shared food, child care, and often, sexual partners. Weaving together convergent, often overlooked evidence from anthropology, archeology, primatology, anatomy, and psychosexuality, the authors show how far from human nature sexual monogamy really is. They expose the ancient roots of human sexuality while pointing toward a more optimistic future illuminated by our innate capacities for love, cooperation, and generosity.

www.sexatdawn.com...

Here is a quote from some media jack ass about why we all should read it.

“The single most important book about human sexuality since Alfred Kinsey unleashed Sexual Behavior in the Human Male on the American public in 1948.”
— Dan Savage

We can tear Kinsey to bits if you would like to, as well. Just say 'go'

The author's of Sex at Dawn like to think of themselves as 'renegade' researchers. I bet they think that they are bringing down fire from the mountain for us all. Finally we will all be free from beating our heads against monogamy. Free sex for everybody! We're just Apes!.

I don't think so. Once I regain my composure I will return to tell you why not.

X.

Originally posted by intrepid

Sex is pushed on us by society damn near every way you turn. TV, movies, print, advertising, etc. They are telling us that is what is important and how to achieve it. And many fall for this bunk.

It does appear that we are no happier 40 years after the sexual revolution than we were before it. And yet the promotion of indiscriminate groin contact is still very much alive in marketing and media. There has to be a middle way between repression and trivialization.

Where men are sold the myth of unlimited sex partners translating to maximum fulfillment, women are being sold a Pretty Princess version of marriage. There are little girls right now who are getting most of their formative impressions of pair-bonding and marriage from Kardashian specials.

Ah, to talk about the muse of love. Poets and writers have been trying to understand and explain love for centuries, along comes modern man, or woman and they have it pegged. One must, first of all, differenciate. Whether you like cold facts or not. The chemical element that is banded about is not love it's lust ie the feelings you feel to initiate sex. It is not love. Love is a spiritual concept between man and woman, man and man or woman and woman. Whether you want to call it being happy with one another or respecting each other or a more deeper reasoning to "love" one another. But please, please differenciate between love and sex. Even though some people say sex is apart of the loving experience and others say sex is minimal or not necessary for a fullfilling loving relationship. One must realise we are all different, with different drives and different expectations, so the meaning of love has infinitesimal combinations. One can say respect for one another or tolerance or any other emotion. But no-one can give you the formula for love else the world would be a better place. I'm sorry if that's to clinical for you but love and sex are 2 different concepts. I do try to love every-one.

Eid: Lovely.

I just love neurochemistry.

Originally posted by Xoanon
I would like to suggest that what we are experiencing is a coming online of new ways of being because we are learning to use more of the wet ware we have been given. I feel that any conspiracy leveled against Lovers must have its basis in trying to prevent this from happening.

The Rolling Stones. Sympathy for the Devil.

X.

Out of my head! I've been thinking about Sympathy for the Devil for several days now.

It is wired in, and therefore it isn't important. That interesting schism in the human mind where we are not ourselves.

Knowing it isn't to reject it. It is to learn to use it, to understand it, to embrace it, to console oneself with, to protect oneself from misuse.

Out of all the primal things being used against people in getting them to reject their human minds, and in this one it is the new wiring that is being harnessed to tie choice and fear to reject Love.

The only times people are being encouraged to use their human wiring, and its to make money and reject intimacy. How sad is that?

Originally posted by Xoanon
reply to post by Eidolon23

 

We can tear Kinsey to bits if you would like to, as well. Just say 'go'

Why not? Like other guys I could mention *cough*Freud*cough* he generalized his own dysfunction to the whole damn population. Sure his theories apply to some: but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes really smart d-bags go to great lengths to justify their flaws rather than rectify them.

The author's of Sex at Dawn like to think of themselves as 'renegade' researchers. I bet they think that they are bringing down fire from the mountain for us all. Finally we will all be free from beating our heads against monogamy. Free sex for everybody! We're just Apes!.

The sticky thing is that they have a point. That is how we used to function, and to a great extent still do. But we've sprouted some new wiring since, and although the old wiring still asserts itself it doesn't mean that we should go back to the cave because it's hard to be Human.