Comments by "Rose S" (@roses6564) on "The two relationships: marriage does not get you love" video.

  1. A relationship should be sound on its own, outside of a frame of controls, carrots and stick. The two should simply want to be with each other regardless. Anything else is institutional fakery or "better than nothing."
    11
  2. There are no words to describe how much I love this video and how many Likes I could give it. Not Likes, Loves. Not Loves, Adorations. Most people do not understand this distinction and why contracts, vows, moral codes and other symbolisms are far from a guarantee of love and pair-bonding. De-emphasize the institution, emphasize the quality of the relationship. As bad as your last posting was, this one was Perfection. We love you badly today, Dr. Taraban, like no tomorrow!
    11
  3. It is also amazing to read the Comments and realize how much these Taraban pearls are mostly cast before the ... well, we know who. He is making an incredibly valuable point and people still miss it, hearing what they want to hear, having nothing to do with the point and walking away with nothing of what was intended. And yet, clicks are clicks and he'll soon be at 700,000. Nice.
    6
  4. If she did domestic work, it wasn't half your money.
    4
  5. As it should be. Naturally well-selected couples would continue to love each other regardless of what they "promise" or not. Everyone else begins manipulating to get "leverage" and demand the "promised love."
    4
  6. You're missing his point because you're too busy parroting platitudes.
    4
  7. If you match well and both are in love with each other in the right way (not just physical) then it's easy as pie. You just want to be together period and each one will make accommodations for the other. Not because they choose to, but because they can't help it.
    3
  8. You have it the other way around. Younger women (meaning pre-reproduction) are much more likely to look for money, the mere status of being married, and other similar social advantages - due to reproduction. Beyond an age, any sane woman who has acquired some wisdom wants connection, goodness of fit, and actual pair-bonding. You are obsessed with body count because you have been conditioned to be, being told this is the end-all be all. It isn't, unless the woman is a crazy nymphomaniac who screwed them by the dozen.
    3
  9. No, it isn't. He is 100% right but people parrot the commitment mantra because it is ingrained in the collective consciousness. Being committed to someone you are weakly pair-bonded to and for whom sufficient holistic attraction (physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual) either never existed or dropped significantly at some point, is simply a self-damnation to prison and poor quality of life. Commitment to a weak relationship is nothing to glorify. Relationship quality matters, longevity by itself is a hollow concept and matters less. And no, you can't will relationship substance with commitment.
    3
  10. It's for the better. You will find peace, just try not to give in to bitterness because it's very tempting. You want to be with someone who feels an emotional bond with you, not with a "label." It was time for her to go.
    3
  11. Despite popular notions, it's not what you DO for her that triggers the love. It's what you ARE and DO to her senses. Then of course she hopes the man she loves would also want to DO some things for her. As T. says: "all men pay, but the more she likes you, the greater the discount."
    2
  12. Yeap.
    2
  13.  @CabbagePatchkid-r8e  It does beyond a point and and the context in which they acquired it. A woman with a body county of 4-5 from genuine attempts at relationships that simply did not work can be a lot more propitious than a woman with a body count of 0 or 1 who is a poor fit. If you tell me about women who ride the bars in an intentional search of one night stands, then No S Sherlock. That BC is a proxy for the crappy, shallow human that she is all things considered.
    2
  14. Very much possible. Those are the most intense.
    1
  15. Agree. Last time he had the worst and now he has the best. The two in fact contradict each other but hey, I am grateful for the one today. Someone had to say it clearly.
    1
  16. Yes.
    1
  17. Nope. This is not the problem. This is solution. Move forward.
    1
  18. @ You don't "commit" to love anyone forever - bc you cannot know the future. You simply either love them (still) or you don't.
    1
  19. @ It is you who is confused as you confuse duty, commitment and transaction with love. This is not what love is. Love is purely inspirational before anything else. You may or may not be able to be with that person,. But you love them simply because. If I am pressed by circumstances (hunger, necessity, fear of whatever, saving face, etc), I will "commit to love" a dude to save my a** with a marriage. Do I actually love him? Of course not ! But I had no choice but to parrot some vows and "commit." Do you see how disconnected you are from what is real? You Dogma people are so brain-W it's frightening. Save yourselves.
    1
  20. @ These people are frightening, They think symbols, contracts, decisions and commitments are actual LOVE. Might as well be married to a robot.
    1
  21. Good. Now do relationships the right way.
    1
  22. Yes - and society, men, nature, bio-clock - EVERYBODY and EVERYTHING - pressure women to settle. Want women to not settle and pull one on you? Quit pressuring them to get married by X age and to "quit being so picky." Sane women are not picky to get the Toppest Dog. They are picky to get the man she falls in love with, even if he is a classic loser in many ways. It is VITAL that the woman doesn't feel like she settled. Simple as.
    1
  23.  @Austenfan177  On the nose.
    1
  24.  @Hollowed2wiz  True except there are limitations to this apparently simple and straightforward school of thought. 1. Many women simply do not meet/have access to a man they would unequivocally want and would be in love with. Women actually want to be in love with the guy, they desperately want that, but this cannot be forced. So they rationalize themselves into guys that are "just fine because - a,b,c." 2. Women are limited by their restrictive fertility deadlines so they often settle under those pressures instead of waiting for the one who can make their heart sing, who may or may not show up one day.
    1
  25. Two dimensions. And yes, these two dimensions can be in two distinct relationships for many. "One has my name, the other has my heart" type thing.
    1
  26. What's unsettling about it?
    1
  27. 1000 reasons. Love is hardly the reason why most people marry. Economic and social stability, easy sex, social integration, family/children, companionship, self-esteem, fear of ending up alone, practical help, not wanting to be the only one left unmarried among one's friends, religious convinction, pleasing family, etc. People rationalize more than you realize.
    1
  28. You sound like a weakly matched couple. Hate to say it but you shouldn't have married to begin with. This is where people go wrong. The label is too appealing and they under-vet the potential for the emotional bond.
    1
  29. No, it's the other way around. Religious/"traditionalist" ideas about marriage sound good on the surface but create unrealistic rigid structures that trap people in situations completely unnatural for them and sap them of life. The emotional bond and connection between two people who share a life MATTER. Anything less is fraud.
    1
  30. Everywhere, in all times. Dupe.
    1
  31. Truth hit too hard?
    1
  32. If the two no longer experience any meaningful connection, it is not for the good of any partner, other than maybe for their convenience. Please let humanity rise above dogma. It's high-time.
    1
  33. @ You can hear that from one more woman. Marriage begs for control, manipulation and gaming the system with it.
    1
  34. You can grow from this, yes you can. Soulmates are for sanity.
    1
  35. He never said love sucks. On the contrary.
    1
  36. 100%.
    1
  37. It's perfectly good. Probably best.
    1
  38. How has this been working out for humanity? In fact, it's the opposite. This institution invites exploitation, gives spouses a sense of entitlement and ability to manipulate the other. It should go, it's in fact a grotesque institution.
    1
  39. Should be the other way around.
    1
  40. No, it increases.
    1
  41. Because people are very different and they must be properly matched to last for the long haul. Some are just shallow and wouldn't last anyway.
    1
  42. ​ @popopho Great contribution.
    1
  43. ​ @johndoe-vc1we They matched well in the first place.
    1
  44.  @joycechu5451  Yes. Love first, commit later. Some people simply love - without commitment - and they still come out ahead of those who commit on empty or mostly so.
    1
  45. You were taught wrong, on so many different levels, but it's good to hear when people awaken. It's all reflected in the immense rate of marital failure out there: 50% divorce rate, 20-30% no legal divorce but expired, and so many of us were taught exactly what you were taught. This has been the Dogma and it's toxic as H. To say that you must base a marriage on "vows and commitment" (symbolic junk), not feelings (which are a symptom of genuine affection and compatibility too if they are reciprocated), and then to state that act "entitles" you to love, is basically to be certified insane. Feelings are not the same as lust but the stoopid can't differentiate. So what the "Wise" are saying...is that I can go grab a dood walking down the street whom I feel nothing for, somehow convince him to go to Vegas to make a vow, then expect actual LOVE by virtue of that act of "commitment?" This is of course an exaggeration to make a point but many people who marry with their "head" and without heart only to expect heart-type products after "commitment," deserve all the worst things that will surely happen to them down the road, even when they will pretend all is good to save face. And deliver us from Evil...
    1
  46. You are moralizing without realizing. The emotion is a symptom of love, which is a spontaneous, non-arbitrary and non-transactional phenomenon. What you are invoking is duty, which is different from love. He never denied that it is possible to be unhappy and love at the same time.
    1
  47.  @MattHabermehl  On spontaneity. Um...do you know that joke? Let's eat Grandma. Let's eat, Grandma! ....................................... Punctuation saves lives. And semantics save relationships, which is another way of saving lives. When it comes to understanding relationships and love, people's inability to get the semantics basically eat them alive. They drown in confusion. They confuse marriage with pair bonding, love with duty, role with emotion, feelings with person,. etc. It's a lot of palm to head. Re: spontaneity, the meaning is naturalism. The two fit naturally inside and out (body-mind-soul), there's no social engineering and no forced intention to "make them work" because someone is a really motivated buyer, to find a boyfriend/girlfriend or to get married, etc. Find someone, commit and make it work! That's a recipe for failure disguised as traditional wisdom. Spontaneity is organic - a reflection of called fundamental compatibility. It doesn't mean the two fall in love out of the blue, on the spur of the moment, in a completely arbitrary fashion, for not explicable reason. There's natural order to the chaos, but it's natural, not man-made. This is the Godzilla of relationships, the kind that stands the test of time, not just in terms of "commitment" and longevity but also in terms of marital satisfaction and life long fulfillment. Tall order? Sure. But this is still what any sane human ultimately needs and hopes for.
    1
  48. @ I replied to clarify what I meant by spontaneity, YT deleted my answer.
    1
  49.  @MattHabermehl  yes and it's a terrible waste of people's time. I'll try again I guess
    1
  50. ​ @MattHabermehl  So I'll try this again. You know that joke? Let's eat Grandma. Let's eat, Grandma! Punctuation saves lives. :) And clear semantics save relationships, which can also mean lives. People get bogged down in semantics. By spontaneity I did not mean that love happens out of the blue, on the spur of the moment, in an arbitrary manner or "at first sight." It is simply a naturally occurring, organic process resulted from body-mind-soul connection that cannot be socially engineered. The emotion is often a signal for such connection and compatibility. People preach that love is "a choice" or "commitment" but this is nothing but moralizing. Those are consequences of love at best, or more precisely, at luckiest, although they can also be entered into without love. Neither "choice" nor "commitment" equate love. It is entirely possible to be unhappy and love - but this is usually due to lack of reciprocation/unrequited love, imbalances in emotional investment, etc. Otherwise two people who love each other and have the chance to be with each other get about as close to happy as it gets.
    1
  51. @ People get bogged down in semantics. By spontaneity I did not mean that love happens out of the blue, on the spur of the moment, in an arbitrary manner or "at first sight." It is simply a naturally occurring, organic process resulted from body-mind-soul connection that cannot be socially engineered. The emotion is often a signal for such connection and compatibility. People preach that love is "a choice" or "commitment" but this is nothing but moralizing. Those are consequences of love at best, or more precisely, at luckiest, although they can also be entered into without love. Neither "choice" nor "commitment" equate love. It is very much possible to love and be unhappy - but this is usually due to lack of reciprocation/unrequited love, imbalances in emotional investment, poor matches, etc. Otherwise two people who match well, love each other and have the chance to be with each other get about as close to happy as it gets.
    1
  52. Kept trying, they keep censoring for God knows what reason. Fly if I know why.
    1
  53. Find a soulmate, she will.
    1
  54. Commitment is NOT necessary if love is there. I urge you to try to leave someone you truly love, even if you promised them nothing. Not gonna happen, unless they ask you to.
    1
  55.  @303Lyons303  You mean you don't believe that multidimensional attraction is necessary for a quality relationship? Physical, intellectual, emotional, spiritual connection. If so, then good luck with your "commitment-driven" relationship that has none or too little of the above. I do not think in non-holistic ways, neither do I think humanity can benefit from that so I am NOT thanking you for your perspective and its incessant dissemination (very popular view), since it has destroyed more lives than all wars combined.
    1
  56. ​ @Leoo117  Once again, I disagree profoundly because this religion-driven school of thought is inherently wrong, misleading, and institutionally-fixated instead of driven by realism. It conveniently diminishes extremely important aspects about long-term compatibility and the odds of pair-bonding in the interest of social order and maximum macro-level reproduction. On your point: it is absolutely not true that most commitment is made when "the feelings and the connections are strong" as you put it. Woefully untrue - and Taraban clarifies that in this video too. If only. Many, if not most young people, engage in a lot of self-deception when it comes to getting married. They rationalize themselves into iffy matches with poor long-term prospects for many reasons ranging from social pressures (time to find a partner and be married, beating the bio clock, wanting regular sex in the context of a socially and religiously approved relationship (chastity), wanting a family wan ting children, wanting to be like everyone else, being in line with what they think is "God's will," or finding someone by the book as opposed to what their neurological wiring actually needs (Great Catch vs Great Match). This is blatantly wrong and always leads to relationship collapse even if not necessarily divorce, but humanity has been brainwashed for so long it cannot recognize the truth hiding in plain sight. None of the above are actual connection and fit with a particular person. They are proxies and marks of intentionality to have a relationship with that person, which is different and may or may not be realistic for the long term. Also Taraban has a video on why "We can't have a relationship with anyone we decide to" - another excellent insight. Regarding your other point that "it is not always good to follow your hearts" - this is sheer insanity promoted by religion under the guise of "age old wisdom." It leads to enormous amounts of failure in quality if life over the long term. Following your heart is different from following your pants and anyone remotely sane and sentient, a bit above animal condition, knows the difference between heart and pants. Most sane humans know instinctively who they fit with because the person makes their heart sing (or not) - but they follow social prescriptions, forcing themselves to pick for marriage the standardized "proper" person - the kind everyone knows is good "husband/wife material" (especially the church)) and the kind you can "bring home to mom." Hm- what could go wrong long term? In reality, people follow their hearts too little and listen too much to the socio-religious and bio-pressure noise. They learn the hard way and often too late, then they blame it on a "narcissistic spouse" or ex. Religion is a destructive force when it comes to the actual success of a relationship and the soundness of long-term pair-bonding -m but it's certainly effective for keeping crappy marriages together. Sell them the Marital Narrative and they will suffer their way to the grave with the legal marriage intact. If this is the goal - then let's have some more of this crap we've had for thousands of years in the 21st century. Or we could get our act together and pay attention to the relationship fit as opposed to worshiping an institution.
    1
  57. The emotional connection has never been a top priority in mate selection, even if modern people claim otherwise. Most lie. It has never been because fertility deadlines and the need for economic stability or social integration, etc cause people to rationalize themselves into less than suitable relationships with sketchy odds of emotional bonding - but they hope to "make it work" as advised by the "Sensible Voices" like yours. This "sensibility" has destroyed more lives than all wars combined. When the Universe is talking to you, listen.
    1
  58. Very few people truly "get" this one. They continue to moralize.
    1
  59. Yeah. Keep doing that. Check back here with how it's working for you...
    1
  60. What's funny is when you hear wood-headed Westerners drooling over that kind of arrangement and thinking it would make their lives so much better! Urgh.
    1