Metropol

CraigF wrote:Another spanner I'd like to throw in the works is: how do you know that what you are feeling is the true emotion? Are you just not emulating the description that other people/sources give you?

at that level, everything we sense is an illusion. our very consciousness in fact, and how do you know that anything we see or percieve is real? i know as well as everybody here that we are machines, but i can't rubbish the feelings i have for another person and put them down to a mere temporary chemical state, just because, at a low level, that is what they are. everything is.

what we percieve as emotion is what makes us human. it's these feelings that has driven mankind to develop technology, societies, and everything else. it doesn't matter to me what causes these emotions, the fact i have them is all that matters to me.

also, on something else you said, even being aware that emotions like anger, hate, and sadness are chemical doesn't enable me deal with them any easier. if i was able to do so, i think it would make me sterile and generic. the response to emotions is as important as feeling them.

nobody likes negative emotions, but feeling them drives you to overcome them and make changes in your life. what you are suggesting is by knowing how they work, you can almost blot them out. this gets you nowhere.

CraigF wrote:BTW - Gavin, when you said, I'm taking all of the joy out of it, that proves my point exactly. We get joy from these descriptions about love. We do not from MY description. Which one do we always choose?

it's just that those words have tanagable sensations and feelings assigned to them - if i say tingle, pinch, burn, itch, people generally know what i mean because they know what those physically feel like.

if somebody gets joy from my specific description of love (which i admit, as you say, is completely subjective), it's because the words and the descriptions can be related in the readers mind to a physical and emotion experience. your descriptions do not, simply because i don't not consciously percieve emotions in the way you describe, even, if 'under the bonnet', that is what is really going on.

CraigF wrote: How is it not semantics? My description when compared to Dr Sigmund's is almost completely identical, except he chose the more "emotional" response; filling his post with words associated with the act itself, which produces the effects. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually felt "good" when writing the post.

for what it's worth, i did. it brought back memories of me laying asleep next to my girlfriend, she gets up for a wee, kisses me on the head, gets back into bed, kisses me again, and puts her arm around me.

CraigF wrote:

Gavin Scott wrote:Its not a question of semantics Craig, it really isn't. Emotional responses, illogical though they may, can be (in some cases) too powerful to ignore.

How is it not semantics? My description when compared to Dr Sigmund's is almost completely identical, except he chose the more "emotional" response; filling his post with words associated with the act itself, which produces the effects. I wouldn't be surprised if he actually felt "good" when writing the post.

They are not identical. One refers to *feeling* emotions, ther other is a sterile clinical view of the biological chain reaction which causes a person to 'feel'. You may be describing the same event, but only one description touches on the experience.

I may have misinterpreted, but are you saying that we are unable to choose our view about what emotions truly are? Well, no. I mean, what have I been doing in this thread? I can see when my mum is feeding her addiction when looking at my new born niece. I know that when she kisses her forehead, the nerves in her lips are being stimulated.

I know how to rationalise emotions Craig. I also understand why I feel the way I do. To define your mothers love for her grandchild in the terms that you do overlooks the intengible aspect of love which is also present.

It continues to make you sound like an empty vessel. I'm sorry, but its true.

Can we talk about sex again?

Please?

I was 17 or 18 I think, with the chap who went on to become a doctor in a scottish soap. True story.

But if you tell anyone, I'll deny it.

I really wish I remember my first time. Alcohol eh? :roll:

I will always remember my first boyfriend though, and the times we had together.

remind me not to go out for a quiet drink with you Craig

good God - all this Open University-level stuff between Craig and Gavin make me VERY pleased to be autistic and so only have a basic understanding of human emotions...

As far as I'm concerned, love is hugging your mum/dad, love is kisses and love is caring about and safeguarding your partner's wellbeing....

CraigF wrote:Tsk.
Okay then, lets end the conversation here.

Now, back onto the sex... Conveniently, I don't bat an eyelid about bloody chemicals then!

you might do if she sits on your face

yuk!

No more 'woman squating on face' mentions please! *shudder*

Not sure what the whole issue is about sex.......if you want to do it, then what is wrong.....it's the people who don't want to do it who you should feel sorry for!

As for the first time being the most special......loads of balls......you get better with experience. My first time was awkward, hap-hazard and....erm....very quick! But I learnt and now, although it depends on the person, I like to think I know how to stimulate a guy, push the right buttons etc.

At the end of the day if a guy can kiss.....and I mean 'kiss' the one where you get the prickles on the back of your neck then he/she is the one!!!

Its all in the kiss for me too.