What does love have to do with it?

What does love have to do with it?
What does love have to do with it?
Anonim

The idea that people love for their virtues, and not just like that, came from somewhere.

Where is love here?

Somewhere came the idea that people love for virtues, and not just like that. As a result, love becomes something like an order

Where do you think the idea came from that young beauties are loved more than older ladies? Why is everyone so convinced that it goes without saying? From what does this so undeniably follow?

No, you can, of course, say that this is justified by biology: after all, it is young women who are potential successors to the family. When a woman enters adulthood, she is still ready to become a mother, but will she have enough time to raise her late-born children? And at some point, she completely loses her reproductive function…

So be it. It is useless to argue with nature. But what about love? At best, we are talking about which women are more likely to start a family. And at worst - about what kind of women they want more often. And what about love, I hesitate to ask?

When it comes to creating a family, everything is also very ambiguous. After all, the family, too, can be understood and imagined in different ways. You can, of course, decide that the family is such a thing that is specially designed for the birth and upbringing of children. The question is whether such a family can be happy. If procreation is the only thing that is required from the family, then this cannot but leave the most serious imprint on the relationship between dad and mom. Firstly, they themselves do not represent a separate great value for each other: their advantages and disadvantages are determined solely from the point of view of their usefulness, uselessness or harm to future (or already existing) offspring. This means that a lot of their own desires are bound to remain unsatisfied - simply because they have nothing to do with raising children. I have no right to want this, because my strength, time and money will be spent on myself and, therefore, not given to the children. But it's still okay! But I, in addition to everything else, also believe that you do not have the right to want anything for yourself - for the same reason! And dad and mom, devoutly observing the interests of their own offspring, find themselves simultaneously in the position of both victims and executioners in relation to each other.

But it is also important “secondly”: why did such dad and mom take that it will benefit the children? If they understand from childhood that dad and mom do not have any independent significance, but were born into the world solely in order to ensure the welfare of their children, then what do you think they will grow up to be? And even if they somehow manage to escape the fate of the "navels of the world" in some mysterious way, what can they get from parents who are not interested and unimportant in their own lives?

And in all other cases - that is, when the birth and upbringing of children is not the only function of the family - the age of a woman does not become such a catastrophically significant fact. Yes, of course, one can object: even if all of the above is true, men have the right not to think about it and still choose women precisely according to the criterion of their ability to bear children. I totally agree. They, of course, have this right. But why are you sure that you will lose so much if these are the men who will not marry you? What terrible thing will happen if a man does not want to marry you, for whom a woman is ultimately an incubator and a nanny?

Move to the second explanation for the benefits of a young girlhood: Men are more likely to want younger women. Again, I will not argue. Probably more often - with the exception of those who for some reason (here are perverts!) And in bed prefer mature women. So what about love?

We women are mysterious creatures: first we make an incredible amount of effort to acquire (or increase) sexual attractiveness - and then lament that we are not loved, but wanted. Where is the common sense?! After all, sexual attraction, by definition, refers to purely physiological mechanisms of perception, which are not too subject to conscious control. A poor man sees an irresistible female in front of him - and the famous phrase of A. Kolmogorov begins to act: "If Q follows from the statement P, and Q is pleasant, then P is true." In other words, if she is so good, then she certainly has all the other virtues. After all, a man wants to respect himself. And how do you order to do this, if you admit that he chooses a woman solely according to the degree of her sexual attractiveness? So he begins to endow the beauty with the whole list of possible perfections - they say, it was for them that she was loved.

More funnier. Since from somewhere in the human mind came the idea that people love for virtues, and not just like that, someone's love for me automatically begins to mean that I have some unearthly virtues. As a result, his love becomes something like an order for me, and the loss of this love, accordingly, is a collapse of self-esteem. It was more convenient for me not to admit to myself that they just wanted me, and all the other perfections were invented …

I, of course, do not mean at all that only a woman who is as ugly and unkempt as possible is suitable for love. I'm talking about something else: what I emphasize in myself, then, most likely, in the first place, will catch the eye of an interested observer. If I am wearing a blouse that exposes my upper advantages and a skirt that emphasizes my lower advantages, then these advantages are most likely to make a man prefer me to all other women. After all, if I emphasize all this, it means that this is what I want to make noticeable. Why should I make it visible? Of course, then, to get an adequate - that is, sexual - reaction of a man. That is, a man - consciously or unconsciously - decides that in the end I need to be exactly wanted. No one said anything about love…

But when a woman knows for sure that she no longer fits into any social standards of beauty and is clearly unable to withstand competition in the market of sexual objects, she starts - finally! - look for what her own attraction is. And when she discovers this attractiveness, she already emphasizes it. Note: it emphasizes not the degree of its compliance with the standards, but the degree of its difference from them. And only then can she be sure that if a man liked her, then it was she who liked her, and not her resemblance to a magazine picture and not her readiness to procreate.

Of course, it remains to please a man… But in this case, we are talking simply about how interesting a woman is in itself. And this, you see, depends only on her…

Popular topic