Falling in love at first sight

[reasonemotion]

I was about to correct Platontic to "Unconsumated love", but you beat me to it!
Yes, it was love at first sight. We looked into each other's eyes and there was a recognition. It was powerful. It got us into a great deal of trouble over time, as we both married different people. People were certain we were lovers in the physical sense. Which never happened.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Here's some more:

Biological basis of Love: "Biological models of sex tend to view love as a mammalian drive, much like hunger or thirst. Helen Fisher, a leading expert in the topic of love, divides the experience of love into three partly overlapping stages: lust, attraction, and attachment."

I guess that sums it up!!! The sum of .13 seconds, that is.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The sum of .13 seconds, that is.

Probably Less.

That's not what she said.

But seriously, I'm not some cold individual that only sees love as sex. I 'deeply' care for my wife well beyond that, but I'm not afraid to acknowledge the initial 'thrust' of love as the lust that it initially is, if only for a split second. He he he!

[reasonemotion]

"There is a misunderstanding of the nature of the Platonic ideal of love, which from its origin was that of a chaste but passionate love, based not on lack of interest but on spiritual transmutation of the sex force, opening up vast expanses of subtler enjoyments than sex. In its original Platonic form, this love was meant to bring the lovers closer to wisdom and the Platonic Form of Beauty. It is described in depth in Plato's Phaedrus and Symposium. In the Phaedrus, it is said to be a form of divine madness that is a gift from the gods, and that its proper expression is rewarded by the gods in the afterlife; in the Symposium, the method by which love takes one to the form of beauty and wisdom is detailed."

■This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.■Gould, T. (1963). New York: The Free Press.

This was it, exactly!

[The Voice of Time]

SpheresOfBalance, I didn't have love at first sight. It was the second scenario where she sat herself next to me and we started talking and I became pursuingly impressed and interested.

Science dudes think that because some people are in a way they can generalize it. We philosophers are here to tell them that people are different and that even sex itself is an arbritary thing as people have crazily varrying associations to the word and with the word. Heard about Tantric sex? Now that is some weird stuff.

No, sry but that "animale"-perspective of sex and love is a complete misinterpretation and evidence not good enough. It may be fitting for some people but let it be for those people in their own situations and I'll deal with myself and my situations, evidence that I experience is at least absolute in its subjective sense.

And sexual arousal is also something weird. I used to get a boner from my math homework without looking at any person, teacher or thinking any naughty thoughts (and without needing to pee... at least not until afterwards). It sometimes gave me problems about rising from my seat in class. And I didn't even like math! I've also felt that stimulative touch of objects you experience in sex by just touching a tree! Now please do tell me why that should mean I'm sexually attracted to trees? Or some Freudian thought that I thought the tree looked like my penis?

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance, I didn't have love at first sight. It was the second scenario where she sat herself next to me and we started talking and I became pursuingly impressed and interested.

Science dudes think that because some people are in a way they can generalize it. We philosophers are here to tell them that people are different and that even sex itself is an arbritary thing as people have crazily varrying associations to the word and with the word. Heard about Tantric sex? Now that is some weird stuff.

No, sry but that "animale"-perspective of sex and love is a complete misinterpretation and evidence not good enough. It may be fitting for some people but let it be for those people in their own situations and I'll deal with myself and my situations, evidence that I experience is at least absolute in its subjective sense.

And sexual arousal is also something weird. I used to get a boner from my math homework without looking at any person, teacher or thinking any naughty thoughts (and without needing to pee... at least not until afterwards). It sometimes gave me problems about rising from my seat in class. And I didn't even like math! I've also felt that stimulative touch of objects you experience in sex by just touching a tree! Now please do tell me why that should mean I'm sexually attracted to trees? Or some Freudian thought that I thought the tree looked like my penis?

All I'm saying is, as to the almost instantaneous nature of 'love at first sight,' it is more closely related to the reason there are two sexes in the first place, that of sexual reproduction or more appropriately, the mating ritual of the two sexes, which is all about procreation, biologically speaking, as it is impulsive.

A lot of people fear this as they believe that somehow it cheapens the bond, I see this as the fearful warped sense that was responsible for the fig leaf in the garden of Eden story, our unfounded fear of nudity, and generally anything pertaining to sex talk and is the well founded reason for Freud's psychology. This is not to say that he was 100% correct or incorrect in his assertions. But one is a fool that tries to dismiss the fact that for any being to be fearful of a truth that is so absolutely fundamental to its existence, that they try and avoid talking about it, or displaying it, or admitting it, or even going so far as to making it a crime, has some serious, "very serious" issues as to understanding it for what it is. I can see why for some, it is the reason they are sick, as how can you deny something so fundamental to the existence of your self.

Now as to you, TVoT, I still see that there is great probability that at it's core, sex and thus procreation existed, if even for an instant. Question, why wasn't it a male? Why the distinction of it being a female, that you are referring to.

[chaz wyman]

Again I see that you're talking of mindfulness, I'm referring to the fundamental biological nature of the organism and mans sex hormone, testosterone.

If food were primarily biological then why do the culinary arts exist?
Understanding eating as nourishment says absolutely nothing about this complex social practice.

But this is after the biological fact.

No it is not. We had culinary arts long before we have biological sciences. Why would you choose to privilege this way of looking?
We has social and moral taboos and institutions concerning sex long before science also.
[/quote]

[The Voice of Time]

Now as to you, TVoT, I still see that there is great probability that at it's core, sex and thus procreation existed, if even for an instant. Question, why wasn't it a male? Why the distinction of it being a female, that you are referring to.

Feeling of naturalness I guess. The closest I've ever felt attracted to a guy was a drunk Australian in Munich who I for some weird reason just wanted to kiss for fun. I'm sure I'm bisexual at bottom, but in general I like women and prefer their company over men and like their bodies as a display of an idea that is strictly recognized in women. Like motherhood and the way their bodies are built smooth and boobee instead of muscular and hairy. It all got to do with associations.

I watched lesbian porn movies since I was something like 10-11 years, as a cause I have problems seeing the logic in fucking. I prefer being one of the girls (that is, playing the role of licking) or watching two girls. Simple cause and effect to me. Nothing to do with *nature* as such.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Again I see that you're talking of mindfulness, I'm referring to the fundamental biological nature of the organism and mans sex hormone, testosterone.

If food were primarily biological then why do the culinary arts exist?
Understanding eating as nourishment says absolutely nothing about this complex social practice.

But this is after the biological fact.

CW: No it is not. We had culinary arts long before we have biological sciences. Why would you choose to privilege this way of looking?
We has social and moral taboos and institutions concerning sex long before science also.

You're talking about it's understanding or it's intellectualization, I'm talking about it, in and of itself. Biologically we needed food long before we got fancy with it!

So what you're saying is, that you'd rather choose that triple creme french dessert that the culinary arts affords, that may kill you with colon cancer, over the natural granola bar, full of fiber, that the science of aging nutrition has found, to lessen this possibility?

Food and sex are basic human animal needs. Fancy food and fancy sex are extraneous human animal luxuries. Oh don't get me wrong, pheasant under glass with truffles in an orange/saffron glaze are quite exquisite, but when push comes to shove, some maggots or grubs will do the job quite sufficiently, so says biology! I should know, I've eaten wild grub infested pea pods, mustard greens and lizard tails with store bought potatoes, carrots, and onion soup before. It wasn't necessarily pleasing to the palate, but was sufficient to sustain life.

I'm saying that, in that instant (.13 secs) of "love at first sight" it's more to do with the basic animal needs, initially, than it is the luxury of a room whose entirety is a huge bed with every lovely color, shape, and size, of nude, ready and willing women, that you consider beautiful, just waiting for you, in the ultimate male sexual fantasy of a culinary smorgasbord.
Man, if only I were younger, I'd now have a Hard-Iron I could mine gold with.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Now as to you, TVoT, I still see that there is great probability that at it's core, sex and thus procreation existed, if even for an instant. Question, why wasn't it a male? Why the distinction of it being a female, that you are referring to.

Feeling of naturalness I guess. The closest I've ever felt attracted to a guy was a drunk Australian in Munich who I for some weird reason just wanted to kiss for fun. I'm sure I'm bisexual at bottom, but in general I like women and prefer their company over men and like their bodies as a display of an idea that is strictly recognized in women. Like motherhood and the way their bodies are built smooth and boobee instead of muscular and hairy. It all got to do with associations.

I watched lesbian porn movies since I was something like 10-11 years, as a cause I have problems seeing the logic in fucking. I prefer being one of the girls (that is, playing the role of licking) or watching two girls. Simple cause and effect to me. Nothing to do with *nature* as such.

Who knows, maybe the human animal shall one day reproduce asexually, once we are mixed thoroughly. Of course that won't be much fun will it? I, like you, absolutely love soft and sweet.

It's true, that what I've outlined probably doesn't hold true for gays, this could already be the evidence that humans are in fact starting to evolve into an animal that reproduces asexually. Only time will tell, what gay is all about.

[chaz wyman]

Now as to you, TVoT, I still see that there is great probability that at it's core, sex and thus procreation existed, if even for an instant. Question, why wasn't it a male? Why the distinction of it being a female, that you are referring to.

Feeling of naturalness I guess. The closest I've ever felt attracted to a guy was a drunk Australian in Munich who I for some weird reason just wanted to kiss for fun. I'm sure I'm bisexual at bottom, but in general I like women and prefer their company over men and like their bodies as a display of an idea that is strictly recognized in women. Like motherhood and the way their bodies are built smooth and boobee instead of muscular and hairy. It all got to do with associations.

I watched lesbian porn movies since I was something like 10-11 years, as a cause I have problems seeing the logic in fucking. I prefer being one of the girls (that is, playing the role of licking) or watching two girls. Simple cause and effect to me. Nothing to do with *nature* as such.

You are right about fucking - it does not make the best sex.
Trouble is that SoB thinks sex is for reproduction.
Fucking is about the most boring thing you can do - all that grunting and exercise.
It's must better to enjoy all the senses - including talk, smell, taste, touching, snuzzling ...ad infinitem...

[SpheresOfBalance]

Now as to you, TVoT, I still see that there is great probability that at it's core, sex and thus procreation existed, if even for an instant. Question, why wasn't it a male? Why the distinction of it being a female, that you are referring to.

Feeling of naturalness I guess. The closest I've ever felt attracted to a guy was a drunk Australian in Munich who I for some weird reason just wanted to kiss for fun. I'm sure I'm bisexual at bottom, but in general I like women and prefer their company over men and like their bodies as a display of an idea that is strictly recognized in women. Like motherhood and the way their bodies are built smooth and boobee instead of muscular and hairy. It all got to do with associations.

I watched lesbian porn movies since I was something like 10-11 years, as a cause I have problems seeing the logic in fucking. I prefer being one of the girls (that is, playing the role of licking) or watching two girls. Simple cause and effect to me. Nothing to do with *nature* as such.

You are right about fucking - it does not make the best sex.
Trouble is that SoB thinks sex is for reproduction.
Fucking is about the most boring thing you can do - all that grunting and exercise.
It's must better to enjoy all the senses - including talk, smell, taste, touching, snuzzling ...ad infinitem...

You got me all wrong, I prefer the complete bonding of two people, heart and soul, One time me and my first wife had an extremely satisfying bonding, we had plenty of soft and sweet foreplay, of the caressing, of skin. One of my specialties is that of adjusting the ambient temperature such that during the movement of foreplay, no perspiration is generated, such that my hands would lightly glide across the entirety of her silken flesh, as if a slight tickle. Additionally, light cool soft blowing at various locations across erogenous zones are added. In finally going down on her, while using all parts of my body to stimulate as many of her erogenous zones as possible, the object was to ever so lightly caress the clitoris, indirectly, ever increasing in intensity, just until I could sense that her muscles started to tighten, at which time I would stop, while still caressing all the other parts of her body, once she relaxed I again proceeded, this I used to do several times, until I felt the time was right, by sensing her every breath, twitch and movement. On this particular occasion after I employed the preceding, we orgasmed at exactly the same time, I then collapsed into her arms, and we both fell asleep in a tangled knot of appendages. In the morning we awoke at exactly the same time, in exactly the same tangled web of appendages, we had not moved throughout the night, completely comfortable in our union, our oneness, and we smiled at each other, got up, and began the day. It has never happened again! It was the most magical moment of love play and bonding that I had ever experienced. It was animal, and it was pure and beautiful.

There is something else that i have to share at this time to show you what I'm talking about as to this physical as well as mental oneness. This happened before what I've mentioned above. Before we had ever had sex we had talked of how we thought of certain things related to relationships and having a family. We had found during this talking that we both agreed, that we wanted to have two kids, a boy first, and a girl second. At one time or another we had also discussed some science report that mentioned that some women, can actually tell when they ovulate, they can actually feel the ovary emitting the ovum. Since we had also learned, in sex education class, in high school, that the sperm that carried the y chromosome, much like that of an adult male, swam strong and fast, but died early, and that it would potentially reach the ovum first, and that the sperm that carried the x chromosome, much like that of an adult female, swam patiently slow, and had a much longer life span, thus would potentially reach the ovum after all the y sperm were long dead. Such that when you combined these two facts you could potentially determine when you would have, and the sex of, a child. Because, we figured, that if one could feel the ovary emitting the ovum, in this cyclic female lunar cycle, then surely one could sense the rhythm of when it was just about to happen, so then all one needed to know was the life span of both the x and y sperm and there you have it, birth by design of the parents. We decided that it was possible, and pretty much forgot about it. As it just so happened we never used any contraception, except the rhythm method. After one of our love making encounters where we orgasmed at the same time, my wife proclaimed, I think I just got pregnant, i said it's too soon, not considering our much earlier talks and taking them further. Sure enough, 10 months later, we had our son. Now this is the strange part, later, on anther such occasion, where we had simultaneous orgasms, (this is the weird part,) "I" said, I think you just got pregnant, and she said no way! Sure enough, 10 months later we had our daughter. We divorced and later my wife told both my son and daughter that they were in fact Love Children, and I believe, rightfully so. You can scream coincidence if you'd like, but she and I see it as much more than that.

[reasonemotion]

Voice of time

And sexual arousal is also something weird. I used to get a boner from my math homework without looking at any person, teacher or thinking any naughty thoughts (and without needing to pee... at least not until afterwards). It sometimes gave me problems about rising from my seat in class.

"Men will recall when erections occurred frequently, rapidly and often quite unpredictably. Spontaneous erections at inappropriate times are common among young males. An erection in school or in church has been a source of embarrassment for many young men, but at some point in life these spontaneous unexpected erections cease to occur. "

Quote from Being a Sexual Male

I was sure one of the male participants on the forum would have volunteered some sound advice to VoT. Even a "yes, I remember it well"

[reasonemotion]

Spheres of Balance

There is something else that i have to share at this time to show you what I'm talking about as to this physical as well as mental oneness.

Oh my.... a How to Manual would make you quite a rich man.

You two actually divorced. Even "the act' cant keep the cement in a relationship in tact.

You are quite the romantic. Thank you for your remarkable description.

[The Voice of Time]

I was sure one of the male participants on the forum would have volunteered some sound advice to VoT. Even a "yes, I remember it well"

It has mostly stopped now. Occasionally, but not often, I still get random erections, quite bothersome. The body is not reasonable ^^ That I get!