Forbidden Donut

Doesn't exist. Closest thing is extreme fondness.

If you ever look at your dog while she sleep beside you, you'll know unconditional love.

I believe in love, yes. I believe it takes some time, but there can definitely be a spark at a moment that triggers the start of it.

There is no such thing as unconditional love. Stretch ANY love to a point and it will snap like a rubber band. Case in point: those "christian" mothers who claim that they love their children unconditionally("like jesus does") and then drive them to suicide if they happen to be homosexual or even of different political beliefs.

I am beginning to think that love itself isn't real.

agreed

I can understand the whole parent thing, because if you think about it, it is a natural thing since the child was a part of the parent. But, I don't believe in it with a whole relationship ordeal.

CJ said it best.

closet thing is a dog.

Emotions are a pain in the ass.

If someone could explain to me in biological terms how and why humans could experience unconditional love, I'd probably be much less skeptical about it, but until then I see absolutely no reason to believe it exists. The dog example means nothing to me as it is absolutely impossible for you to know what they are thinking. For all we know, they don't love people at all and would show loyalty to anyone or thing that fed them regularly and gave them attention. By all means though, please tell me how something as inherently hubris as unconditional love could survive evolution.

bring on the mom jokes....

RIP Rocky (my old dog) <3. Enough said.

Court's a robot and does not compute emotions so on his behalf I'll love his mother unconditionally. /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />

Actually, I alluded to the fact that unconditional love is not a practical emotion and therefor would not have survived evolution. It either had to serve a purpose at one point and hasn't had enough time to dissipate or still serves a purpose. At the moment, I haven't heard of and can't really comprehend any purpose for it. In fact, the very idea as it is applied today seems entirely counter-productive in terms of evolution.

So it's not that I don't 'compute' or believe in emotions (you'd be a fool to ignore emotions), I believe that unconditional love would ultimately be a purposeless emotion, so it doesn't exist.

I just wanted to make a joke involving your mom since it wasn't done yet. /sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad.gif" /> I didn't mean it, I know you love cock <3.

Unconditional love is by definition impossible, in a literal sense. All love has at least one condition, that you are alive to feel the emotion that is love. So even if you would still love you partner or whoever, if they killed you, you are no longer alive, and therefore incapable of continuing to feel the emotion. Above and beyond that, which understandably is a sort of hyperbole, everything has it's limits.

I think a common definition is required before this discussion can really have meaning, lest we debate different topics entirely.

I think it exists in 'crazy' people. But for the rest of us, there is a certain point where a person can break you to the point where you don't love them anymore.

There is no such thing as "unconditional" love unless you are absolutely 100% selfless, which is basically impossible as a human. Its one of those things where you can be a millimeter away from it, but you still just aren't there. Unconditional MEANS unconditional, something human love cannot be thanks to its imperfect nature..

Monk said what I think.

turns out bill said what i think before i posted, basically, just missed it.

unconditional sex?

A fucking men.

i'm not so sure it is possible to say that unconditional love is biologically impossible or evolutionarily without purpose. After all in evolution, offspring are everything. The continuation of the species is the ultimate goal of an evolving species. Evolution is not possible without those offspring, so evolutionarily speaking wouldn't it make sense for a parent to love their offspring mmore then itself?

No, because off spring are weak. If a mother loves a child more than herself, and dies for the child to live, the child is essentially defenseless AND the mother is no longer capable of reproducing, which it had likely potential for doing numerous times more. So really, evolution would suggest that it makes sense for a parent to love their child, to hopefully keep them alive until they can take care of themselves, but that it's better for the species if the mother survives to reproduce more as opposed to dying for only one child.

I love Marijuana unconditionally. End of story.

Bill kind of already said it, but I would like to elaborate. Regardless of what you generally see in modern society, the human body is designed for much different sexual experiences than we're used to. The average family here probably has between 1 and 2 children, and the average family in some 'less developed' countries may have an average from like 5-10 (I honestly haven't looked it up, so please clarify if you know anything about it), but that is minuscule compared to what we're biologically inclined to do. We've developed in such a way that a male seeks to spread his seed as much as humanly possible (the fact that man think about sex all the time is no coincidence); we want to produce thousands of babies with our genes. It is in the male's best interest to not care at all about his children or the people that he has sex with, and our reproductive system supports this philosophy perfectly. You are right in identifying females as the ones who'd be more inclined to care for their young, but that only goes to a certain point. Females are designed to carry a lot of children throughout their lives and since no amount of love can combat traditional things that kill of children in the wilderness (not enough food, disease, etc), it's still in the female's best interest to have lots of children. The general idea being that a female would get pregnant about once a year (the nine month gestation period is no coincidence either...it allows for a female to follow a fairly ritual mating period each year with a slight break for what would normally be considered the 'worst' three months every year -- usually the heart of winter) and would care for each child for only a few short years. Now, human beings have simultaneously developed incredible intelligence, so some of the traditional "move-from-female-to-female" mindset has faded in favor of a slightly more "pack" oriented mindset, so as humans evolved females and males would be more inclined to limit their sexual exposure to a group of the same people instead of random others. This mindset has evolved because of the need to protect ourselves, and our ability to protect ourselves in groups is far more powerful than by ourselves. Our bodies are simply crappy defenses compared to most other animals out there when push-comes-to-shove.

Still, this pack behavior doesn't support an idea of unconditional love. Men would be more inclined to try to protect the women of the pack because they don't have as much freedom to wander from pack to pack to have sex, but since men and women still do have the ability to produce many children, there is no real biological reason that they'd put their own lives on the line for the lives of only a small handful of their potential offspring.

in natural/biological terms its symbiotic perfection, absolute give and receive in so many ways.