Perdition Catch My Soul But I Do Love Thee

Ah - I was going by your post - parthogenetic. Did the OP mention pathogenesis, I didn't notice.

So how many permutations - patho, partho, partheno?

Greek to me.

If u r referring to the Xenogenesis book, there were three sexes- where one was asexual. The one that was fascinated by the protagonist's cancerous tendencies was male, yes. The world lost a great author when Ms. butler died- her novels were insightful and mind expanding.

It's education day!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis

http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/Parthogenesis

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6385

Pie (No quotations from Othello, but more relevant)

Thanks - that honestly wasn't a prob to read.
But let's not all quibble - otherwise this whole thread will collapse.

It absolutely was no problem to read! I am sorry if it seemed I was complaining even mildly- my point was more in response to this above- where u said u started hating correcting yourself Not that u needed correcting- hope that is clearer.

ya know, firefox has a built in spellchecker... plus that fun little script of strife's makes the forum infinitely more readable.

I can see some people making a leap to the social possibilities (not just romance) that are available virtually, but I can't see it being more than a poor supplement over the long term. Humans are by nature social creatures, and we like to touch and be touched, hold and be held. while it remains only virtual we will always question whether it's 'real' (although I can see the questioning being reduced in importance in future generations.) memories and feelings are great, but you can't curl up next to them at night and know they're there, or feel that sense of presence... and we still need that as a species.

Elora said it so well that I can't match it. QFT!

Check out "Dandelion Wine" by Ray Bradbury, specifically "The Swan," a story about a younger man who falls in love with an older woman.

"Thee" means the same as "tehe", right?

"Thee" means the same as "tehe", right? Or would it be "tehh"?

eh?

Or "Harold and Maude"!

Is there really a need to keep on about the way I type? Since I suspect I am ignored by many regular posters, and I am trying to correct my writing, it is a little redundant.

Octavia Butler is one of my favorite authors.



I haven't noticed any problems with any of the posts of yours that I've seen. My sense is that what you say is worth reading.
This is an interesting subject. I've been in a happy rl marriage since before there was an internet and my ideas about what romance should be for me were probably formed when my parents were reading fairy tales to me in the fifties. But relationships, sexual and otherwise can take so many different forms... How valid each one is can only be determined by the people involved and even for them it's bound to be changing somewhat as it goes along.

And, as what society in general expects and demands from individuals relaxes, what the individuals themselves feel they need from each other is bound to be more flexible too.

'you', poetically, archaic usage

as in the Elizabeth Browning verse
How do I love thee, let me count the ways...

(seriously, did you not know the reference? or were you being purposely obtuse to poke a stick in a sore spot? If so, not cool, I thought better of you)

That's the trouble with "cyber" love.. no matter how much you poke, the spot never really gets sore.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second... what proof do you have that we "need" that sort of thing? We can have children without it, so it's not essential to the survival of the human race. One might argue there are innate psychology urges hard-wired into us that make us crave such closeness. I'd be curious to see if anyone has done research on that. Not everyone likes to be close with other people either. For instance, people with schizoid personality disorder tend to shy away from such intimacy. Some argue that they secretly crave intimacy, even though they can't bring themselves to pursue it, but I doubt it's so cut and dry. I often think that what we label as a personality disorder is simply a variant in the organization of the mind—different, but not necessarily "broken". That's just the musings of an amateur though... I'm not a psychology expert.

So....back to the topic.....

Interesting ideas for sure.

I don't think, as it has been said already, that there's any substitute for the real thing. My fiancee is once again working away from home......and during the days I am fine....I actually prefer more alone time......but every night, going to bed is a struggle because I hate going to bed alone. I almost dread it. There is a deep and satisfying comfort in having that other human being physically close. I think it is very much a part of our humanity.....our desire for contact......for companionship. Sure there's a good amount of true loners out there (I borderline sometimes) but by and large.....we seek one another out.

Now.....the form that 'love' takes......is as varied now as it ever was. Each of us will seek out what we are comfortable with.....what we think we need. Sure we have evolved in our acceptance of the many forms that romantic will take......but it doesn't alter the fact that it's always been. What I don't believe, however, is that human beings are a monogamous creature by nature. I don't think that we are..... I think we strive to an ideal, because it is a convenient set up.....and it works well in the society we have developed. But....even tho I also adhere to it and desire it.....I don't think it's natural to humans.

So.....that being said......certainly there are any number of possible satisfactions drawn from relationships formed in a virtual world. At the very cerebral level (which is where I remain, I don't do romance in SL) there's no limit. I have had many wonderful and enlightning conversations with people thru SL......I have made genuine friends who matter to me the way anyone else in my life matters to me.

What I cannot wrap my head around is the chemistry aspect with regards to romance. I'm a realist......way way way in the core of who I am.....I can't fake it. I gotta KNOW that real chemistry and physical desire exists or I absolutely am repulsed at the idea of any kind of intimate role play. That is just me.....but I'm being honest here. What I get out of SL is different from what another gets out of it. But it will never be romance. And there probably eough people on the planet like me......that want/need physical closeness with a desirable companion......that we are not in any danger of becoming a totally isolated and detached society. We might rely more heavily on our technological connections with others.....but we will NOT replace each other in the flesh.

You make very good points. Many people with psychological issues do find it difficult to bond with others in person. People with certain disorders, particulary with SPD, they may tend to be standoffish and find it hard to form long-term partnerships, but many are capable of being loving and intimate.

There is always a scale in which every psychological disorder operates, and several forms of this particular one exists. Unfortunately, most people are only familiar with the most severe level of the disease and not aware of the other ones which make daily living less problematic and the possibility of viable relationships does exist. It comes with it's own challenges at times, but no more than any other relationship since everyone has their own peculiar shortcomings, no matter how mentally healthy they consider themselves.

"Different" in that case, would be a better way to describe the way the mind works, than "broken". Thanks for pointing that out, even if you weren't aware that you had done so

Human Relationships 101 (with no apologies to Lindal)

1. Men are driven instinctually to spread their seed to propagate themselves.

2. If they appear to be romantic or to seem to want physical proximity outside intercourse then it is because they have worked out that it is likely to offer continuity of service.

3. By preference, once they have impregnated one female, men want to move on to another one.

4. Women, on the other hand, are instinctually driven to perpetuate the species by caring for their offspring.

5. Women and children are comparatively weak and defenceless, so women want men to defend them.

6. Women therefore offer recreational intercourse, underwear-ironing etc as bribes to suitable men to get them to hang around.

7. Men accept these offers but exploit any other opportunities as well.

8. Kids grow up, women get infertile, men die.

Call these generalisations, and I will admit that they have been modified by "civilisation" and "culture" but they underlie male-female bahaviours in rl, and the astonishing thing (in the absence of an instinct to perpetuate) is that similar behaviours occur in sl. Habit I guess.

Pep (Note that nowhere in my description is love mentioned at all)

That is because "LOVE" has nothing to do with any of the above, Pep.

QFT!!!

Pep (an ex post facto justification of an apparently irrational set of behaviours caused by chemico-instinctual stimuli)

To vouch this is no proof
Without more wider and more overt test
Than those thin habits and poor likelihoods
Of modern preening ...

Don't forget cookie baking. Mmmmm. It makes us men fat, slowing us down and making it easier to catch us when we run.

I believe actual studies have shown that babies fail to thrive when they don't receive a certain amount of physical contact with other humans. http://whyfiles.org/087mother/2.html