All are full of unmuscular spots and nerves, besides the macho ones tend to be slooow, because of their ridiculous body mass and undeveloped joints. I know from tournaments. But this is more appropriate for some other thread. I'm outa here, cheers! Don't worry yourself too much about the gender problem, you won't change anything anyway.
Heterosexuality is unnatural
- Thread starter Buddha1
- Start date
- Status
Buddha1 said:
For the most part, I suppose you are correct, but there are exceptions and some people who are not subjective if there is reason to question their perception. Those people can give an equally valuable insight, as those who are disgruntled and want to see change.
Sorry, i'm not trying to avoid the issues.
I have come to the conclusion that you are both right and wrong about human nature. I believe what you are perceiving as human nature, as far as sexual preference, is not what nature intended (because of the main purpose as defined in nature of sexual organs). But, it is nature's sexual organs and the chemicals produced from stimulation that gives the impulse for sexual preference and in that sense you are correct that heterosexuality is not natural and should not be endorsed fully in society. We are brainwashed in America to be "straight." Is that a bad thing?
Whatever effects there are, they are debatable, unless there is empirical evidence of a universally labeled negative effect on society.
jayleew said:
But shouldn't you be willing to discuss it if you don't want to be biased. You can't just base your decisions on what you percieve religion to be saying on the matter. There should be room for a logical discussion on the issue. I'm already discussing the issue under "heterosexuality is unethical, immoral and harmful". Let's see what you have to say about that!
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49602
Also, if you do believe that heterosexualty also runs against the wishes of god, then why don't you oppose it. Why do you wear a heterosexual label. You will have more credibility to preach men to stay away from other men, if you could yourself practise sex only within marriage and discard a sexual identity. Surely, god does not see people as primarily sexual beings!
Sex, sex, sex. Are you saying that this sexual desire stems from societies influence on sexual preference? Where is the connection?Buddha1 said:
Record companies and producers know the desires of America and they fulfill the desire. They did not create the desire, it was already there. Do you think that a producer would risk putting something on the air that the American public would not want to see and expect to sell ads?
Buddah1 said:
Just when I was beginning to have respect for you, please do not throw my religion at me because I did not mean to throw my belief upon or at anyone. The Bible was brought up not by you, but by Giambattista and that is who I was speaking to, and I wished to clarify that only religious people who have teachings against homosexuality have any reason to disagree with homosexuality. If you are a non-theist you have no legitamite reason to disagree with homosexuality as acceptable behavior, because there is only evidence for sexuality in nature, not heterosexuality nor homosexuality.
Well, since you can do it in mintues that might be interesting, but it really doesn't matter because good Christian men who screwed up have distorted what purpose there is to believing in God and have created a false god with their hypocrisy and lies. People put their hopes, belief, and faith in the preacher and the Bible and it is misplaced and worthless. And I am not the Christian you think I am. If you wish to continue this discussion, let's talk elsewhere...Buddah1 said:
jayleew said:
What I'm saying is something different here! Let's assume the desire is already there and the producers are just exploiting it. But you as a religious preacher, should you not condemn them, take issue with them, for surely, God did not want men and women to have sex just for pleasure, at least not without marriage.
Why are you silent upon that! A heterosexual identity is basically about man-woman casual sex. Why do you flaunt that identity, aren't you preoccupied with sex yourself!
Buddah,Buddha1 said:
Yes, and I am listening...I was just pointing out the obvious position of Christians and that it asking Christians to go against their teachings (we do that enough on our own) is not freedom of religion...I will check it out, thanks.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49602
Buddah1 said:
God supports heterosexuality in Genesis. He made a man and a woman, if he was against heterosexuality he would not have done that. Did I say something awry?
As I said before I haven't touched a man since I was about 12. I have been faithfully married to one woman for eight years so far. What do you mean by "discard my sexual identity"?
jayleew said:
Surely, you know what I'm talking about.
There were no heterosexuals or homosexuals in the times of the god or pre-modern times. Men were supposed to marry women and procreate. Who cared about whether you liked your wife or not, let alone your so-called sexual preference.
Heterosexuality is an identity created to circumvent the strict regulations put on man-woman sex beyond marriage.
It is not enough that you practise monogamous marriage yourself (And I hope you did not have sex with your wife or any other girl before marriage!). You should be willing to preach this to others, at least other Christians. And take up issue with the Heterosexuals, not join them!
If you flaunt the heterosexual identity yourself, you have no right to preach to homosexuals!
I mean you cannot create a society which celebrates sex for pleasure between man and women, without the burden of marriage or procreation, and expect that men will not ask for freedom to have sex for pleasure with men!
I mean when you allow non-procreative sex for pleasure what difference does it make if it is with a woman or a man!
I mean when you allow non-procreative sex for pleasure what difference does it make if it is with a woman or a man!
jayleew said:
You know damn well that what you are saying is against the spirit of your religion.
Making a man and a woman was not for pleasure. Did he not ask Adam not to eat the apple? And in any case God did expect the humans afterwards to have sex only for procreation and within marriage! Am I wrong?
I mean before you had the 'heterosexuality' thing, men did their godly duty of marriage and procreation, whether or not they liked girls. You guys had more control over the outer sexual behaviour of people, as almost everyone married and produced children (including those who today identify as gays!)
With heterosexuality you have made it impossible for these men to 'marry' because it demands things from them that they can't fulfill. Heterosexuality demands men to have a lot of sexual interest in women. These men can't enter into marriage as a social duty anymore. How can they make up love when they don't feel it!
So with glorifying and promoting heterosexaulity you have actually forced people to be 'homosexuals'. You have to strike at heterosexuality first before you have any right to demand 'homosexuals' to mend their ways!
With heterosexuality you have made it impossible for these men to 'marry' because it demands things from them that they can't fulfill. Heterosexuality demands men to have a lot of sexual interest in women. These men can't enter into marriage as a social duty anymore. How can they make up love when they don't feel it!
So with glorifying and promoting heterosexaulity you have actually forced people to be 'homosexuals'. You have to strike at heterosexuality first before you have any right to demand 'homosexuals' to mend their ways!
jayleew said:
It's really of little value to bring "nature's intentions" into the argument all the time as the supreme qualifier that condones or condemns a relationship. I almost never hear these brilliant people appealing to Nature in their moral war against birth control, unless they're Catholics (staunch ones at that, since most secretly practice it anyway, so I have heard). But in reality, whether in a "casual" relationship or marriage, modern day male-female sex cannot exist without some form of birth control, generally in pill form.
Read some of the pro-Catholic literature about birth control, procreation, and natural order, and you're bound to also see homosexuality brought in as the epitomy of unnatural, because not only are the sexual organs being "misappropriated" but the chance of conception between two men (or two women) is infinitely ZERO.
One of these "geniuses" compared homosexuals to abortionists, concluding that the former was worse because at least the aborted fetus had a soul, but these monstrous faggots deprived that "child" (which is really an imagined conception that never took place) the chance to ever even have been created. And that, naturally, is why God calls them abominations. It makes me wonder why these same people who praise God and claim his omnipotence and omniscience (God OBVIOUSLY has a good reason for hating sodomy, what right do we have to disagree?!?!) think that somehow these uncreated, nonexistent babies are somehow subject to the sexual whims of non-heterosexual couples.
That was somewhat off the track I was running on, but I'm a gawker, and I admire the landscape as often as I can! That also wasn't directed at you, Mr. Jaylee, it was just general commentary.
jayleew said:
As someone who has studied relationships of animals in nature as regards this subject (and Buddha1 has brought up these points as well), I can safely say that there are very few, scanty examples of truely intimate relationships in lower animals that bear any resemblance to what humans could identify with.
As Mr. Buddha1 observed, most natural couplings are nothing more than couplings, in a brief, almost violent, sexual sense. Commitment is by far the exception.
Genesis is a rather rudimentary accounting of creation. Some people believe it happened exactly like that, in SIX ordinary 24-hour days, approximately 6 to 7 thousand years ago. After all, we know that scripture is God-breathed! And that Cain and Abel's wives were either their sisters (presumably at a time when incestual relations were approved by God and weren't a threat to genetic integrity) or they simply magically appeared and God, in his mystery, didn't deem it worthy to write down their names. After all, they were only women...
And speaking of women, wives weren't the only people these strong, Biblical, manly archetypes were fooling around with. Neither is this sanctified marriage ceremony explained (what exactly DID they do when they got married? Did they have cake?), nor is it explained who these concubines were that are mentioned here and there. It is my general understanding that a concubine was basically a semi-wife, who could be used (or abused) for sexual and procreative purposes at the God-fearing man's discretion. There are some guidelines about slaves in the Bible (mainly in Leviticus I believe) that tells how slaves can be taken as concubines.
People may very well hold the creation narrative up, and those strict proscriptions against homosexuals which DEMANDS that their blood be shed to atone for their atrocious acts, and say "SEE!?! All this makes it clear that marriage is for Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. After all, their blood is upon them!" But what are these concubines doing here? Some people may suggest that they were merely for procreation in the event that the man's "true" wife is barren. However, we find no such conditions or reasons for taking concubines or multiple wives.
And speaking of multiple wives, if marriage is for one man and one woman only, where are the Biblical laws against polygamy? The simple but profound answer is that there are none. And according to that wise old Mosaic Code, divorce is at the MAN's leisure. It says if the MAN is unsatisfied with his wife for any reason, he may seek a divorce. Nowhere is the woman's dissatisfaction taken into account nor is it even inquired about. She apparently really WAS just a commodity. After all, MAN is in the image of God, while woman is in the image of MAN!
Oh, and any potential bride, before being married off, has the obligation to prove her virginity. Basically the father "tests" to see if she has a hymen, and if she does, it naturally leaves a blood stain on the cloth he inserts into her. This is the "proof!" Although, in light of modern physiology, we know that not every woman has a hymen, they may break at any time with or without sexual intercourse, and they may or may not bleed when they do break. This test is in the Bible, but I have to wonder how foolproof it really is.
And about concubines and how much they meant to their MASTERS, we have the story of the stranger in the town of Gilbeah, which is found in the book of Judges. It's very similar to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, only this time, the crowd with it's heart set on gangrape actually DOES rape, only they don't get the man, but his concubine that he threw out of the house. She was dead by morning. A war ensued. When the man came out of the house in the morning, he simply told her to get up, "we have to get going."
I read an examination of this event by a conservative Christian minister who was discussing homosexuality and its utter vileness. He conveniently and callously glossed over this poor woman's treatment, and the man's incredibly nonchalant attitude toward her the next day as she lay outside the doorway to the house. He made a very quick and ridiculous justification of this whole event, almost jokingly
saying "See how horrible these sodomites really are?!?!"I recently saw the cover of a Christian pamphlet entitled, "Return to Sodom" and it showed a picture (albeit with faces cropped out) of two men holding hands. I'm constantly amazed at how they take these stories of utter violence and depravity in the very early parts of the Bible, and then equate it with two men holding hands.
Jesus once said something about knowing a tree by its fruits. A bad tree brings forth bad fruit, but a good tree brings forth good fruit. Maybe that analogy doesn't quite fit here (or maybe it does), but calling two men who are in a loving relationship sodomites is hardly anything but calling something what it clearly isn't.
I only happily wrote all that out because of your comments on the Bible and what it supposedly says about homosexuality. But people have every right to challenge those assumptions. There are NO examples of loving male-male relationships. For people to assume that because the men of Sodom wanted to rape other men, then ANY man who is attracted to another man is automatically guilty of that same crime. The two are NOTHING alike, and yet people make that connection.
Again, I'm not accusing YOU of holding these beliefs, I'm merely illustrating why I can't take everything the Bible says at face value.
Many fundamentalists do, and many of them also believe that the King James Version is the only true bible. It even clearly mistranslates a Hebrew word as sodomite when it really means some type of ritual prostitue (qadesh and qadesha are the male and female versions of the word). They actually do translate 'qadesha' as prostitute, but the masculine equivalent for some reason becomes 'sodomite'. Hmmm. I thought a sodomite was an inhabitant of Sodom...
But they somehow KNOW that God takes a special favor on the KJV, and that any supposed mistranslation is actual divinely inspired. However, their strict adherence to this one 17th century volume and their outright rejection of any other translation is entirely unBiblical. They pride themselves on not "picking and choosing" and listening to the whole word, not just what they want, but nowhere does Jesus say, "Thou shalt regard only the King James Authorised Version as The Word. All else is of the Father of Lies." They assume he WOULD have said it, apparently, but it's only their assumption, and nothing more.
That's all I can say about putting absolute faith in the Bible when it comes to morals. We can generalize, but on the details there are too many exceptions and caveats, and I think the example of the concubine(s) speaks volumes about this.
If someone wants to continue this discussion/argument about the Bible, I can certainly try, but I think I've said all I'm going to say.
....and can I add. If there is one cliched
homophobic saying i hate it is: "God didn't make Adam and Steve, he made Adam and Eve".......it is truly pathetic, and shows blind indoctrination.
For a start. The story of The Garden of Eden in the biblical Genesis, is written in layers. The writers of it would use various literary devices like transliteration, pun, metaphor, cryptic references, etc etc. It, as any myth properly understood, is NOT to be read literally--only for the ignorant is myth read literally. This doesn't mean to say the writers knew all readers would read it that way. The deeper meaning was meant for te intitated of the religion
Also, it is a patriarchal story! It is a story which has borrowed its main themes from eariler mythologies about a Garden , a Tree, a Serpent, a GODDESS, and her son/lover, etc....taken...from Egypt, Sumarian mythologies, etc.
What they THEN did is demonize what had been accepted before. This is clearly shown in their condemnation of the Serpent, and their prohibiting the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life----ie., of partaking of psychedelic fruit and its inspiration! Which the Indigenous people they invaded would have been freely allowed to do.
They condemn women to suffer in childbirth (whereas before they would have been helped by various 'herbs' to have easier childbirth), and 'us' to sweat and toil bla bla. miserable bastards. of COURSE then they are also going to condemn non-procreative sex. mainly because they are patriarchs ad believe the male seed is superior to the woman's egg, and thus asssume baby is their property, as is the woman!
Did you also know that same mindset also thought women shouldn't even ENJOY sex, or have orgasm?
well, of course, IT would. And that belief leads to the REAL abomination of female circumcsion/mutilaton.
so.........dont , dont , dont believe the HYPE!!!
homophobic saying i hate it is: "God didn't make Adam and Steve, he made Adam and Eve".......it is truly pathetic, and shows blind indoctrination.
For a start. The story of The Garden of Eden in the biblical Genesis, is written in layers. The writers of it would use various literary devices like transliteration, pun, metaphor, cryptic references, etc etc. It, as any myth properly understood, is NOT to be read literally--only for the ignorant is myth read literally. This doesn't mean to say the writers knew all readers would read it that way. The deeper meaning was meant for te intitated of the religion
Also, it is a patriarchal story! It is a story which has borrowed its main themes from eariler mythologies about a Garden , a Tree, a Serpent, a GODDESS, and her son/lover, etc....taken...from Egypt, Sumarian mythologies, etc.
What they THEN did is demonize what had been accepted before. This is clearly shown in their condemnation of the Serpent, and their prohibiting the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Life----ie., of partaking of psychedelic fruit and its inspiration! Which the Indigenous people they invaded would have been freely allowed to do.
They condemn women to suffer in childbirth (whereas before they would have been helped by various 'herbs' to have easier childbirth), and 'us' to sweat and toil bla bla. miserable bastards. of COURSE then they are also going to condemn non-procreative sex. mainly because they are patriarchs ad believe the male seed is superior to the woman's egg, and thus asssume baby is their property, as is the woman!
Did you also know that same mindset also thought women shouldn't even ENJOY sex, or have orgasm?
well, of course, IT would. And that belief leads to the REAL abomination of female circumcsion/mutilaton.
so.........dont , dont , dont believe the HYPE!!!
Buddha1 said:Beautifully said! I couldn't have explained it better than that
Almost ridiculous isn't it?!?!
It sounds like such a perfect example of what we're talking about that it's almost unreal, and yet that whole event was VERY real, and I'm still trying to figure out what exactly happened there, even though it happened over five years ago.
The weird "coincidences" that occurred around this relationship (if you can call it that) made me feel as if it was happening for a reason, but what? All it's done is made me bitter about alot of things.
Nonetheless, observing him and people like him, made it very apparent to me how much people are acting. I noticed it in myself too.
Maybe the one positive thing to come out of that miserable time was that I improved as a person. I saw certain unfavorable characteristics being displayed by him, people around us, and myself, and it made me a little more aware of how people consciously and unconsciously perpetuate these standards, "morals", and myths.
I had just graduated from high school shortly before all that began, and had
a truely remarkable, life changing experience, which at the time I considered to be of a highly spiritual and religious nature, and my thoughts on that have not changed. It was maybe a few weeks after that happened that I got a new job through a friend, and that was where I met this person.
Actually, I vaguely knew him from school through a friend of my brother, so he wasn't totally unfamiliar to me. My friend who got me the job said that someone he worked with knew me, but I wasn't sure who it was. Apparently this guy ( two grades below me) was more aware of me than I was of him.
Anyhow, it became obvious to me in very short order that this guy was not what a person could call "straight as an arrow". I gathered from the way he acted and talked around me that he liked me. I also was somewhat put off by his seemingly double-identity.
He had a very big front, and he often would say things that might have had the intention and purpose making him look cool, but often it seemed more pathetic than anything else! And some other guy (an assistant manager of sorts) that worked there would comment on this out-loud, with impunity, calling this person things like loser, faggot, dork, etc.
I remember another time the true assistant manager said that she thought he should "try and be just a LITTLE more cool", obviously being sarcastic about it.
I sobered up really quick during that short half-year I worked with him, after seeing this shining example of what's expected if you're a guy, and not a sissy queer. It had never been laid out so plainly and obviously, and it really confirmed a lot of things I had seen, thought and felt. Alot of these confirmations were realised AFTER the fact, when I had the time to look back and reflect on them.
Reading your ideas and findings has been a somewhat unexpected addition my own personal beliefs.
I've never really been like most people. I was always someone who wasn't really comfortable going along with the crowd. I had my own ideas, you might say.
Take for instance, sports, since we're talking about masculine trends. Never cared one whit about that whole regime. Seems like everyone else did, or they were at least pretending to. It didn't always make my life easy.
I don't know how it is in your country, whichever one that is, but in America, sports is almost a religion. And when you're growing up, the taunting and hounding can be pretty hurtful for people who either aren't very good or don't care or both. It doesn't matter all that much once you become an adult, but it can have a big impact on people when they're young. And a few people may still make offhand comments about it, like I'm just not as acceptable for not caring about such stupid myths.
Masculinity is kind of like a currency, and if you don't handle their particular type, they get very self-righteous about it, because WHY ON EARTH would they want to think that their glittering medals of masculinity and trophies that they've been polishing really aren't worth all that much? It only matters to those people for whom the game is everything.
I was different in other ways. I always thought the way they talked about girlfriends/boyfriends was kind of cheesy and exaggerated. Very often, especially after elementary school, my tastes in music were different to the point of near obscurity compared to what most people were listening to.
Since I can remember, I always believed in the paranormal, and UFOs/aliens were almost an obsession, one that no one else seemed to share. Most people's obsessions were more mundane and ordinary.
This spiritual "awakening" that happened shortly before I met that person changed me forever. It set off a series of unusual events, almost as if it were a catalyst of some kind. I've never been able to write it off as a convenient random occurence.
Now, before I get too off track:
All of these things have given me a markedly different perspective on life, and in particular, how gender roles and the little slots that people are supposed to be molded into (whether relating to gender or otherwise) can really squeeze and suffocate any REAL decency right out of people, en masse.
By the way, I'm going to eventually have to ask for some more info from you, Buddha1, like which country you're from, what exactly your occupation is, and OF COURSE, the real meat of this discussion: case by case illustrations of these gender roles as they affect other men.
I would be very interested to read any papers you have presented (if they're available) and to learn more about the reactions of your peers. You seemed to hint that your theories were of great interest to certain people.
I discussed these very same things with a counselor, and she more or less agreed with me. It's not that these are just crackpot speculations with little merit, it's just that no one really talks about it. I think so many people are so used to silently accepting things, that when someone brings up the topic, people really don't know what to say.
This person that I liked (well, I think 'loved' may almost be more appropriate) was such a perfect example that it's almost hard for me to believe.
I remember one time riding my bike to work, and he was seemingly, judging by his reaction, taken aback to it, almost as if even riding a bike was too manly, since it was a physical activity that's often considered a sport, depending on the situation. The way he reacted overwhelmingly indicated this, and yet it was alright for him to talk about snowboarding like it made him more of a man.
When I had finally gotten up the nerve to call him (which was nearly a year since I last saw him before I quit the job I was at), I was, of course, highly nervous. And he was rather rude to me as well, which may have had something to do with a letter I had sent him that had some subdued but apparent criticisms of the way he had behaved...
Anyway, during the course of that conversation I simply asked him what he had been doing lately. His curt, stereotypically masculine reply was that he had been skateboarding, snowboarding, riding his bike, and studying.
-------- Oooo!!!------- All those MANLY activities, AND he's "improving" his mind by hitting the books, on top of everything. HOW IMPRESSIVE!!!!
I was extrememly nervous at the time, but later (probably days later), when I came to my senses, I realised how true to his form that statement had been. I may have been extremely scared when I tried to talk to him that time, but my intelligence wasn't diminished, and very quickly, just like before and after, I saw through his flimsy superficiality.
When talking to him, and trying to understand why he was being so callous and indifferent to me, I was scared enough that I cried ( ). It was prompted by my mentioning that I had had a dream that I touched his hand, and that the dream had made me very sad. That was all I mentioned, but in the dream, I had actually held his hand.
----HERE FOLLOWS A LITTLE OF MY OWN PERSONAL DREAM ANALYSIS----
We were in some kind of mall/school cafeteria (there was a little more before that, but I'll get to the point), and I was sitting at the end of a table with him across from me, and the girl that made him nervous (who I hung out with alot during that time) was sitting to my right. I would turn and talk to her and I could see him out of the corner of my eye staring directly at me. Then I would turn to talk to him and he would turn completely away and pretend to be interested in something else off in the distance. This happened several times.
I felt almost as if I was ignoring him because I could tell he was looking blatantly at me. It was an intense stare. I had this feeling that I SHOULD have turned quicker, without giving him warning, because I COULD have caught him in the act. I knew the whole time that if I would just turn quick enough, he wouldn't have time to react and he would be forced to explain why he was so grossly interested in me. But for some reason I was playing the same game, probably out of fear.
I feel this aspect of the dream to be a very true representation of what occurred. Him staring at me represented (of course) his obvious interest in me. My knowing that he was looking at me but in a way, openly ignoring it, accurately represents my reaction to what I KNEW instinctively was going on, but that I was pretending I had better things to do.
The fact that I was talking to my friend while he was staring at me, and the fact that when I turned to talk to him, he would turn his head to the left (sitting directly opposite me as the last person on the table) and stare intently at nothing, pretending not to notice, to ME represents very accurately how his actions were more blatant than mine. I at least had a friend that I was talking to when he was watching me, but he had to pretend to be interested in nothing at all (he was staring across the room at a wall or something) when I was watching HIM. If that makes any sense to the reader... however that IS an accurate reflection of the "excuses" for ignoring each other. Mine was much more natural in appearance, but his was blatantly invented, which is also a reflection of the kind of false masculine baggage that he was hauling around, as opposed to my limited, almost purely circumstancial excuses. :bugeye:
----- I'm not just trying to exculpate myself from all responsibility, but as far as these notions of what men can do and feel acceptably, he was by far the more immature. He was somewhat of a dog in that respect: Is this right? Will people make fun of me? What's the proper thing for a guy to do? Does it make me look cool? -----
BUT, the conclusion of the dream:
Anyhow, after those awkward stares while the other was pretending not to see, the "lunch period" was over, and I was saying goodbye to him. We shook hands, but instead of letting go, we both kind of held onto each other's hand and, looking into his eyes, he was smiling, but one half of his mouth was rather limp. Basically, it was a half-smile, or half-hearted, whichever you prefer to call it.
It was a smile that outwardly was trying to express happiness but the reason only half the mouth was able to smile is that there was inner turmoil behind it that was TRYING to stay hidden, but it wouldn't quite work. If the manner in which he was smiling could be put into a statement that encompassed the whole truth of the emotions behind it, it very well may sound like this:
"I didn't just want to shake your hand. I like holding your hand and we both know it. On the outside, I'm smiling because it's all in jest, right? We have to joke about the way we feel. We have to make it look like we're just playing around, but can't you tell how difficult it is for me to smile properly. Why is only half of my face smiling? Is it because I don't really care to hold your hand, or is it because I want to so badly but I know that I can't? We both know why it's hard for me to smile, but we're never going talk about it."
That's a very good approximation of the feeling I got looking into his eyes in the dream. It was almost as if I was looking into an emotional mirror, and realizing totally that I WAS RIGHT, that I was NOT alone in the way I felt, but the sadness came from the fact that I was utterly helpless, and this was as close as we would ever get.
The fact that I felt that I was looking into this person's mind and seeing myself has haunted me. The dream in and of itself was extremely sad. I woke up crying, and it still makes me feel helpless when I think about. But sometimes I think that maybe the feeling of seeing my feelings reflected in this person was just that. That I was seeing what I wanted to see, and nothing more. I had a few "well meaning" people try to convince me of that.
But none of that, when put all together, made much sense. That "explanation" doesn't go very far towards explaining those things that happened between us.
ANYHOW, it's very ironic in a way, because I briefly mentioned the dream I had where I touched his hand (which was basically all I said) and I immediately couldn't help crying. His attitude softened then and there and then he said something to the effect of "you may think this sounds funny, but did you come to my house and steal my brother's book bag out of his car?" And I was like, Why would I do something like that? And he replied that he felt like someone was playing a "big trick" on him. I said "what kind of trick" and his response was simply, "a really bad trick". Make of it what you will.
What trick was he referring to??? The kind where you really like someone, and you know deep down that they like you back, but you can't say anything about it, mostly because you "know" that's an impossible reality, and every other guy around you SEEMS happy with girls. And even more importantly, what happens if you take the biggest risk and actually SAY how you feel. HOW do you even go about DOING IT? What's going to happen? It could be good, but good things like this don't ever happen.
That was the feeling conveyed by the half-smile in the dream. I WANT to say something to you, but this is TOO GOOD to be TRUE. I don't WANT to let go of your hand, but we HAVE to, because this is only a game. It was a feeling of knowing what was really going on, but also knowing that you're NEVER going to get the satisfaction of actually HEARING the other person acknowledge it.
----- The ultimate in cruel tricks, nothing less.
If that's even the trick he was referring to. That is, however, certainly what this whole thing felt (and STILL feels) like to me. A cruel trick that torments me constantly. I don't even know if I'll ever get that close to anyone again.
I would be very interested to read any papers you have presented (if they're available) and to learn more about the reactions of your peers. You seemed to hint that your theories were of great interest to certain people.
I discussed these very same things with a counselor, and she more or less agreed with me. It's not that these are just crackpot speculations with little merit, it's just that no one really talks about it. I think so many people are so used to silently accepting things, that when someone brings up the topic, people really don't know what to say.
This person that I liked (well, I think 'loved' may almost be more appropriate) was such a perfect example that it's almost hard for me to believe.
I remember one time riding my bike to work, and he was seemingly, judging by his reaction, taken aback to it, almost as if even riding a bike was too manly, since it was a physical activity that's often considered a sport, depending on the situation. The way he reacted overwhelmingly indicated this, and yet it was alright for him to talk about snowboarding like it made him more of a man.
When I had finally gotten up the nerve to call him (which was nearly a year since I last saw him before I quit the job I was at), I was, of course, highly nervous. And he was rather rude to me as well, which may have had something to do with a letter I had sent him that had some subdued but apparent criticisms of the way he had behaved...
Anyway, during the course of that conversation I simply asked him what he had been doing lately. His curt, stereotypically masculine reply was that he had been skateboarding, snowboarding, riding his bike, and studying.
-------- Oooo!!!------- All those MANLY activities, AND he's "improving" his mind by hitting the books, on top of everything. HOW IMPRESSIVE!!!!
I was extrememly nervous at the time, but later (probably days later), when I came to my senses, I realised how true to his form that statement had been. I may have been extremely scared when I tried to talk to him that time, but my intelligence wasn't diminished, and very quickly, just like before and after, I saw through his flimsy superficiality.
When talking to him, and trying to understand why he was being so callous and indifferent to me, I was scared enough that I cried (
). It was prompted by my mentioning that I had had a dream that I touched his hand, and that the dream had made me very sad. That was all I mentioned, but in the dream, I had actually held his hand.----HERE FOLLOWS A LITTLE OF MY OWN PERSONAL DREAM ANALYSIS----
We were in some kind of mall/school cafeteria (there was a little more before that, but I'll get to the point), and I was sitting at the end of a table with him across from me, and the girl that made him nervous (who I hung out with alot during that time) was sitting to my right. I would turn and talk to her and I could see him out of the corner of my eye staring directly at me. Then I would turn to talk to him and he would turn completely away and pretend to be interested in something else off in the distance. This happened several times.
I felt almost as if I was ignoring him because I could tell he was looking blatantly at me. It was an intense stare. I had this feeling that I SHOULD have turned quicker, without giving him warning, because I COULD have caught him in the act. I knew the whole time that if I would just turn quick enough, he wouldn't have time to react and he would be forced to explain why he was so grossly interested in me. But for some reason I was playing the same game, probably out of fear.
I feel this aspect of the dream to be a very true representation of what occurred. Him staring at me represented (of course) his obvious interest in me. My knowing that he was looking at me but in a way, openly ignoring it, accurately represents my reaction to what I KNEW instinctively was going on, but that I was pretending I had better things to do.
The fact that I was talking to my friend while he was staring at me, and the fact that when I turned to talk to him, he would turn his head to the left (sitting directly opposite me as the last person on the table) and stare intently at nothing, pretending not to notice, to ME represents very accurately how his actions were more blatant than mine. I at least had a friend that I was talking to when he was watching me, but he had to pretend to be interested in nothing at all (he was staring across the room at a wall or something) when I was watching HIM. If that makes any sense to the reader... however that IS an accurate reflection of the "excuses" for ignoring each other. Mine was much more natural in appearance, but his was blatantly invented, which is also a reflection of the kind of false masculine baggage that he was hauling around, as opposed to my limited, almost purely circumstancial excuses. :bugeye:
----- I'm not just trying to exculpate myself from all responsibility, but as far as these notions of what men can do and feel acceptably, he was by far the more immature. He was somewhat of a dog in that respect: Is this right? Will people make fun of me? What's the proper thing for a guy to do? Does it make me look cool? -----
BUT, the conclusion of the dream:
Anyhow, after those awkward stares while the other was pretending not to see, the "lunch period" was over, and I was saying goodbye to him. We shook hands, but instead of letting go, we both kind of held onto each other's hand and, looking into his eyes, he was smiling, but one half of his mouth was rather limp. Basically, it was a half-smile, or half-hearted, whichever you prefer to call it.
It was a smile that outwardly was trying to express happiness but the reason only half the mouth was able to smile is that there was inner turmoil behind it that was TRYING to stay hidden, but it wouldn't quite work. If the manner in which he was smiling could be put into a statement that encompassed the whole truth of the emotions behind it, it very well may sound like this:
"I didn't just want to shake your hand. I like holding your hand and we both know it. On the outside, I'm smiling because it's all in jest, right? We have to joke about the way we feel. We have to make it look like we're just playing around, but can't you tell how difficult it is for me to smile properly. Why is only half of my face smiling? Is it because I don't really care to hold your hand, or is it because I want to so badly but I know that I can't? We both know why it's hard for me to smile, but we're never going talk about it."
That's a very good approximation of the feeling I got looking into his eyes in the dream. It was almost as if I was looking into an emotional mirror, and realizing totally that I WAS RIGHT, that I was NOT alone in the way I felt, but the sadness came from the fact that I was utterly helpless, and this was as close as we would ever get.
The fact that I felt that I was looking into this person's mind and seeing myself has haunted me. The dream in and of itself was extremely sad. I woke up crying, and it still makes me feel helpless when I think about. But sometimes I think that maybe the feeling of seeing my feelings reflected in this person was just that. That I was seeing what I wanted to see, and nothing more. I had a few "well meaning" people try to convince me of that.
But none of that, when put all together, made much sense. That "explanation" doesn't go very far towards explaining those things that happened between us.
ANYHOW, it's very ironic in a way, because I briefly mentioned the dream I had where I touched his hand (which was basically all I said) and I immediately couldn't help crying. His attitude softened then and there and then he said something to the effect of "you may think this sounds funny, but did you come to my house and steal my brother's book bag out of his car?" And I was like, Why would I do something like that? And he replied that he felt like someone was playing a "big trick" on him. I said "what kind of trick" and his response was simply, "a really bad trick". Make of it what you will.
What trick was he referring to??? The kind where you really like someone, and you know deep down that they like you back, but you can't say anything about it, mostly because you "know" that's an impossible reality, and every other guy around you SEEMS happy with girls. And even more importantly, what happens if you take the biggest risk and actually SAY how you feel. HOW do you even go about DOING IT? What's going to happen? It could be good, but good things like this don't ever happen.
That was the feeling conveyed by the half-smile in the dream. I WANT to say something to you, but this is TOO GOOD to be TRUE. I don't WANT to let go of your hand, but we HAVE to, because this is only a game. It was a feeling of knowing what was really going on, but also knowing that you're NEVER going to get the satisfaction of actually HEARING the other person acknowledge it.
----- The ultimate in cruel tricks, nothing less.
If that's even the trick he was referring to. That is, however, certainly what this whole thing felt (and STILL feels) like to me. A cruel trick that torments me constantly. I don't even know if I'll ever get that close to anyone again.
Giambattista said:
Actually, the small part that came before that was interesting, because it represented (as I interpret it) the power structure.
A teacher from my high school (one of those stern, no-nonsense, manly types that the jocks get along with great!) was standing outside a restaurant that opened out into the interior of the mall. I think it was Applebee's!
He was talking to this girl that I believed was a cheerleader, and I was trying to go down this darkened wing of the mall, because my "friend" lived down that way. This teacher, in a kind of rude and abrupt manner told me that I couldn't go down there, because the police had "blocked it off." I think I remember seeing traffic barricades, but I remember there was no real reason they had blocked that hallway. I had this feeling that my former teacher somehow derived satisfaction from disrupting my efforts to see this guy that I really liked. The attitude was one of following rules for rules sake, NOT following rules that have meaning or are helpful in someway.
That part of the dream to me represented society and its control structures in general. It sounds pretty accurate to me.
duendy said:
Yes, the Adam and Steve saying is pretty stupid but I love to laugh at stupid people!
And yes, I've heard those theories that women didn't really enjoy sex. MEN! Aren't they God's gift to Creation!?!? HA HA HA HA!!!
- Status