sexual competition

[Xev]

Coffee:

They want their feet flayed, bamboo chutes up their nails, and a tube placed up their anus that sucks out entrails.

Oh yay, do you think I can get the equipment to build all that at the local hardware store?

Bob:

Relationships involve an exchange in power.

Of, and I don't buy it. It's a hoax designed to make them look interesting.
That is precisely what I take issue with.

Look, a human being has certain needs. Beyond our need for food and shelter, beyond our need to reproduce we also need to conquer and dominate.
I'm recapping. Not Thomas Hobbes here, mmkay?
But then what?

For most of human history there were outlets for that. Go out and pillage your neighbors. Now they have nuclear missiles and peace treaties and coalitions, so that's out. You can pillage liquour stores but there are cops and security cameras, so that's really out too. What do we have? Oh, we can be sex magnets. Yaaaay!

You see what I'm saying? Relationship books are a hoax to keep us from running wild in the streets.

So some folks can mistakenly interpret that as conflict.

Fighting for power isn't conflict?

But the thing that you mentioned about psycho-boy, and not wanting to hold back on the sex because you're competitive, how does that factor in?

Well I'm old-school. I don't want a man who I play head games with, I want a man I can burn churches with and trust that he's watching my back. Heck, he can even rape the nuns and I won't be jealous.

But see that was my point - now it seems mawkish and gooey and worst, I'm repeating myself and it's so bad to do that - relationships are one of the few fun sources of conflict that won't land us in prison so we've made them all about that. And one of the few sources of productivity so we're all obsessed with something that really means very little.

Further, we are paranoid. For if I don't realize that other people see this as an area of fight, I will lose. I am thus forced to play.

"putting up with a man" seems like a lot when there is the alternative of dildoes and lesbian love to give the same thing.

No it doesn't. Sex is way different with a man compared to with another woman or a banana.

 

[whitewolf]

Relationships involve an exchange in power. So some folks can mistakenly interpret that as conflict.

No, it really is a conflict: I must dominate, but once I dominate the other being is no longer interesting.

 

[-Bob-]

Of, and I don't buy it. It's a hoax designed to make them look interesting.
That is precisely what I take issue with.

Look, a human being has certain needs. Beyond our need for food and shelter, beyond our need to reproduce we also need to conquer and dominate.
I'm recapping. Not Thomas Hobbes here, mmkay?
But then what?

For most of human history there were outlets for that. Go out and pillage your neighbors. Now they have nuclear missiles and peace treaties and coalitions, so that's out. You can pillage liquour stores but there are cops and security cameras, so that's really out too. What do we have? Oh, we can be sex magnets. Yaaaay!

You see what I'm saying? Relationship books are a hoax to keep us from running wild in the streets.

Ahh, yes. But I think you are letting a little bit too much of yourself into the picture here. Does not man, despite his pleasure in controlling others, also want to be controlled? Does he not want to submit to some higher power, avoid responsibility, become a slave? You'll drive yourself mad deciding which impulse is more powerful in us. All you can decide is which impulse is more powerful in you.

I say that a relationship involves an exchange in power, because its necessary for any two people who become that intimate. The best relationships are ones where the participants are nearly equal in power- so that a constant back and forth balance is maintained. This is because we have both the desire to control and be controlled. The game is no fun if you don't have a worthy adversary.

Fighting for power isn't conflict?

I said exchange, not fight. Participants in a relationship might give the other power in certain realms, but dominate in some other arena. A dance of domination and submission.

Well I'm old-school. I don't want a man who I play head games with, I want a man I can burn churches with and trust that he's watching my back. Heck, he can even rape the nuns and I won't be jealous.

But see that was my point - now it seems mawkish and gooey and worst, I'm repeating myself and it's so bad to do that - relationships are one of the few fun sources of conflict that won't land us in prison so we've made them all about that. And one of the few sources of productivity so we're all obsessed with something that really means very little.

Further, we are paranoid. For if I don't realize that other people see this as an area of fight, I will lose. I am thus forced to play.

You are competitive, you like relationship to be about conflict. Why should you not like these head-games? They are all about power, you know. Being jealous when your dude rapes the nuns, reigns him in. Hiding your interest in a man forces him to play his cards, in a sense. Asserts the fact that you are the object to be desired, he must submit to you. You tempt the man to make his conquest, and at the same time you assert your power to attract him without even trying very hard. Am I being a retard here?

 

[-Bob-]

No, it really is a conflict: I must dominate, but once I dominate the other being is no longer interesting.

Thats not a relationship. Its only a domination, a conquest. You take and then you move on.

 

[Xev]

Bob:

But I think you are letting a little bit too much of yourself into the picture here.

I speak from personal experience, else I'm redundant.

Does not man, despite his pleasure in controlling others, also want to be controlled? Does he not want to submit to some higher power, avoid responsibility, become a slave?

Oh, well there are those who would say so, or at least that that is a drive, Sartre and Deleuze for two.
Sartre describes it as anguish, the fear of being utterly free. Whether you accept that depends on how far you'll take Sartre's epistemology - are we utterly free?
I'd say yes but not in the way Sartre envisions freedom.

Deleuze - Michel Foucault writes a nice introduction to Anti-Oedipus and describes it as the fascistic, the desire to be led. Deleuze's main idea behind schitzo-analysis is to root out the fascistic. But then, ego-loss and immersion in the many is somewhat fascistic itself.

Oh well and there's Nietzsche, who describes it as slave-morality.

You can take your pick. Myself am not French but American, I don't believe that every human has that impulse - many do, certainly, but the popularity and longevitiy of authoritarian or fascistic (however you want to take fascism) traditions is based not only on their suitedness for man but also on their suitedness as structures.

Following the crowd is a valuable basic strategy, not necessarily an indication that one wants to be led. Complexity theory deals with cases like it a lot - the theory is, a bird flock moves because one bird sees advantage in moving one way, and the more who follow cause others to follow.
It works very well because then you have the information resources of the whole flock at your disposal.

I say that a relationship involves an exchange in power, because its necessary for any two people who become that intimate.

That's self-referential, "why" is not addressed.

I said exchange, not fight. Participants in a relationship might give the other power in certain realms, but dominate in some other arena. A dance of domination and submission.

No offense, but if you're not even fighting, then your stupid game loses its one saving grace.

It is very funny, I once dated a man who told me things like this. And who had little going in his life but that - "I am a man, rrrwl!"
I do not play such games well. I lack some will and much social grace. So I started losing, and when I was really upset about losing I lost my temper and smacked him.
Well see that was bloody stupid, I could have injured someone or been arrested, and I felt so low for losing my control.
But you know what? He didn't strike back, and afterwords was rather weak and affection giving. I won.

You can play such games because I go to jail if I respond with physical violence. Now I admit my gender tends to be a bit lighter physically, but still you do see how really meaningless it is?

You are competitive, you like relationship to be about conflict.

I like relationships to be about trust, love, mutual support and wild monkey sex. Yes I'm competitive. Yes with men I dig. But there's competition to build and competition to destroy. And there's competition to be an asshole control-freak. Those people generally get away with it 'cause it's illegal to beat the living hell out of them, not because they're strong.

Or rather they are strong, in a way. Society respects their strength, honors it. You must, by the way, forgive the "society". It's the first word that came to mind and it's kinda hard to express what I mean right, you know?

Why should you not like these head-games? They are all about power, you know.

And allow the controlled release of rage or frustration or the need to conquer and distract one from how meaningless one's life really is.
Rather like those devices they use to burn the excess methane in landfills.

You live on a planet of six billion plus. Your life may have once been justifiable no matter what, but those days are long over. You are very superfluous - I am superfluous too - and must find significance in something, you must create something, and this - is what you are given.
And to only take what you are given?

Am I being a retard here?

Not at all.

whitewolf:

No, it really is a conflict: I must dominate, but once I dominate the other being is no longer interesting.

There's that too.

 

[-Bob-]

I speak from personal experience, else I'm redundant.

So do I. The few relationships, friendships I've had where the power is all on my side I immediately found to be boring. Some people do like having that power, though. I tend to be on the submissive side. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside. Relates back to the parents, you know.

Oh, well there are those who would say so, or at least that that is a drive, Sartre and Deleuze for two.
Sartre describes it as anguish, the fear of being utterly free. Whether you accept that depends on how far you'll take Sartre's epistemology - are we utterly free?
I'd say yes but not in the way Sartre envisions freedom.

Oh god, don't bring Sartre into this.

Following the crowd is a valuable basic strategy, not necessarily an indication that one wants to be led. Complexity theory deals with cases like it a lot - the theory is, a bird flock moves because one bird sees advantage in moving one way, and the more who follow cause others to follow.
It works very well because then you have the information resources of the whole flock at your disposal.

If you want a very nice example of this impulse, along the Nietzshean lines, just take religion. The word 'Islam' means submission. And why do you think people scream out things like "who's your daddy?" when they are banging each other.

That's self-referential, "why" is not addressed.

Its more of an expanded definition, if you like.

No offense, but if you're not even fighting, then your stupid game loses its one saving grace.

What is its saving grace? The back-and-forth of course. Now thats not necessarily fighting, I say. Fighting is only a way to achieve it.

It is very funny, I once dated a man who told me things like this. And who had little going in his life but that - "I am a man, rrrwl!"
I do not play such games well. I lack some will and much social grace. So I started losing, and when I was really upset about losing I lost my temper and smacked him.
Well see that was bloody stupid, I could have injured someone or been arrested, and I felt so low for losing my control.
But you know what? He didn't strike back, and afterwords was rather weak and affection giving. I won.

You can play such games because I go to jail if I respond with physical violence. Now I admit my gender tends to be a bit lighter physically, but still you do see how really meaningless it is?

Well, no. Women are abused often (men too I imagine), but such relationships aren't healthy. What is meaningless, the game of it? Maybe so, if the other side cannot play. This is a case where because such 'games' frustrate you, the relationship becomes uneven.

I like relationships to be about trust, love, mutual support and wild monkey sex. Yes I'm competitive. Yes with men I dig. But there's competition to build and competition to destroy. And there's competition to be an asshole control-freak. Those people generally get away with it 'cause it's illegal to beat the living hell out of them, not because they're strong.

Take trust, for example. Doesn't it require some kind of deference? If your partner wanted to lie and control you, he could. Trust is letting your guard down. You are competitive with the men for power, and yet you seek trust?

Or rather they are strong, in a way. Society respects their strength, honors it. You must, by the way, forgive the "society". It's the first word that came to mind and it's kinda hard to express what I mean right, you know?

I'm afraid its even harder to interpret, now that you said that. Control freaks are strong in ways, and weak in ways. They have a brittle shell.

And allow the controlled release of rage or frustration or the need to conquer and distract one from how meaningless one's life really is.
Rather like those devices they use to burn the excess methane in landfills.

You live on a planet of six billion plus. Your life may have once been justifiable no matter what, but those days are long over. You are very superfluous - I am superfluous too - and must find significance in something, you must create something, and this - is what you are given.
And to only take what you are given?

Yes, I imagine so. But another way to put it is, that don't assume people who play games are doing anything more superficial than you are. It is also about power for them, they have peculiar personalities that operate in that sort of language. Games are a way of filling up life- but they also create, as you noted, the 'constructive competition'.

 

[hypatia]

"I have never understood that line of thought. If so and so likes you and you like them, why make yourself less available?”

That there is what I want to know

Well, several people on this thread have tried to explain it to you, but you are refusing to acknowledge their points.

Many people respond to that technique. That's all. If you and he both happen to be among those who don't, then that is good for both of you. But if you are of one type and he of the other, then it won't help you to pretend he's just like you. You can either decide you don't want to date people of that type, which is fine; or you can decide you will play along with their little game, which is also fine.

But what you are doing here is merely railing against the unfair world and its unjust ways, which is completely unproductive in terms of fulfilling your sexual needs.

 

[Xev]

hypatia:
Shut up. This is not Xev's advice on dealing with people thread. If I wanted that I'd be soliciting donations for an assault rifle and a cabin, geddit?

which is completely unproductive in terms of fulfilling your sexual needs.

Ugh, gross. Just...gross. I do not want anyone here fulfilling my sexual needs or aiding me in fulfilling them. Eww. Disgusting slut, why on earth do you care?

Bob:

Relates back to the parents, you know.

I don't dig Freud.

Oh god, don't bring Sartre into this.

Oh hell YES.

If you want a very nice example of this impulse, along the Nietzshean lines, just take religion. The word 'Islam' means submission. And why do you think people scream out things like "who's your daddy?" when they are banging each other.

I thought that only happened in porn and Islam meant "ka-BLOOIE!".
I get what you're conveying, but I don't agree fully. Give another example - you're new to a town and it has two wells, both of equal convenience. But only one is used. Nobody ever uses the second well, and for good reason - there's a transdimensional riff in the spacetime continuum right below the well, so if you go too near it one of the Elder Gods will reach out a tentacle, grab you and drag you into the well.
You don't speak the language, you have no way of knowing this. If you follow the crowd, you'll be safe.

You don't have to be at all a submissive person for that. It's just a matter of information.

Eek indeed.
But quite accurate in showing what 'winning' your 'games' is based upon: nada. The fact that you won't get your ass kicked for acting like a jerk.

See and that's where I think it's an unhealthy substitute for real action. Kinda like sciforums is an unhealthy substitute for going to bed.

Well, no. Women are abused often (men too I imagine), but such relationships aren't healthy.

No, but they are incredibly funny.
I thought you said people were submissive and wanted to lose control. Isn't the trailer-ho with a black eye thus, doing what comes naturally?

What is meaningless, the game of it? Maybe so, if the other side cannot play. This is a case where because such 'games' frustrate you, the relationship becomes uneven.

Dominence is by nature opposed to equality or "evenness"
You destroy your enemy or he destroys you. You don't get a "we kinda punch at each other a little bit" option.

Take trust, for example. Doesn't it require some kind of deference? If your partner wanted to lie and control you, he could. Trust is letting your guard down. You are competitive with the men for power, and yet you seek trust?

Hence, as I said - I am not competitive in the way that seeks to destroy another, but rather to improve oneself. In certain situations. Now I've not really had many relationships, I'm only twenty-one. In any case, few men I'd sleep with really have power I'd compete for - nobody my age is going to have money or influence - so that's a null consideration.

But you confuse trust and faith. Trust means "I don't think you want to hurt me, I can do x, y and z to you if you hurt me, hence you will probably try not to hurt me". Faith is when you let your guard down and you say "I give you every possibility to hurt me, but I don't believe you will"

Yes, I imagine so. But another way to put it is, that don't assume people who play games are doing anything more superficial than you are.

I said nothing about superficiality, but interesting.
I do think that's quite unhealthy. We're getting sidetracked here - I'm not saying "it's wrong" but outlining why I think "it's unhealthy", or a symptom of our rather decadent way of life.

I'm sorry, however entertaining such games may be, distracting yourself by wondering who should call first is not a healthy way to live. And I am beginning to think that it is based on something false.

 

[-Bob-]

I don't dig Freud.

Did your parents treat you violently or otherwise use force to control you?

Oh hell YES.

I thought that only happened in porn and Islam meant "ka-BLOOIE!".
I get what you're conveying, but I don't agree fully. Give another example - you're new to a town and it has two wells, both of equal convenience. But only one is used. Nobody ever uses the second well, and for good reason - there's a transdimensional riff in the spacetime continuum right below the well, so if you go too near it one of the Elder Gods will reach out a tentacle, grab you and drag you into the well.
You don't speak the language, you have no way of knowing this. If you follow the crowd, you'll be safe.

You don't have to be at all a submissive person for that. It's just a matter of information.

So you're saying this is all due to the crowding instinct. Does it not fulfill a need? Is not religion tailored to produce an effect similar to being a happy little boy or girl, completely dependent on the "father" in the sky? I see people wanting to get back to their childhood states of dependence everywhere, whether or not they are following the crowd.

Eek indeed.
But quite accurate in showing what 'winning' your 'games' is based upon: nada. The fact that you won't get your ass kicked for acting like a jerk.

Yes, perhaps! But being a jerk is also only based upon the fact that you won't get your ass kicked. Whats the difference?

See and that's where I think it's an unhealthy substitute for real action. Kinda like sciforums is an unhealthy substitute for going to bed.

erm, yes. sciforums for me is an unhealthy substitute for work I wish I was in bed.

No, but they are incredibly funny.
I thought you said people were submissive and wanted to lose control. Isn't the trailer-ho with a black eye thus, doing what comes naturally?
Dominence is by nature opposed to equality or "evenness"
You destroy your enemy or he destroys you. You don't get a "we kinda punch at each other a little bit" option.

The trailer ho is a perfect example. Some of them were abused by men in their childhood, and the only way they know love is to be dominated and beaten. So they keep themselves in these unhealthy relationships.

Hence, as I said - I am not competitive in the way that seeks to destroy another, but rather to improve oneself. In certain situations. Now I've not really had many relationships, I'm only twenty-one. In any case, few men I'd sleep with really have power I'd compete for - nobody my age is going to have money or influence - so that's a null consideration.

But you confuse trust and faith. Trust means "I don't think you want to hurt me, I can do x, y and z to you if you hurt me, hence you will probably try not to hurt me". Faith is when you let your guard down and you say "I give you every possibility to hurt me, but I don't believe you will"

Trust requires an element of faith, I think. Otherwise you will always have that little bit of doubt. You are condemned to always wonder whether x, y, z is really enough to control the other, and that he has no motives he is hiding from you. And what about "mutual reliance"? Does that not mean you 'rely' on the other, that you have a certain bit of dependence? Letting your guard down, showing your vulnerability and willingness to be controlled, as well as the power to control the other, is an essential part of love.

I said nothing about superficiality, but interesting.
I do think that's quite unhealthy. We're getting sidetracked here - I'm not saying "it's wrong" but outlining why I think "it's unhealthy", or a symptom of our rather decadent way of life.

I'm sorry, however entertaining such games may be, distracting yourself by wondering who should call first is not a healthy way to live. And I am beginning to think that it is based on something false.

I would mostly agree with you there. I don't like games at all.

But it depends partly I think on what kinds of games people play. If a relationship had no 'game', whether it be physical, mental or competitive in your case, it would certainly be quite boring. So perhaps your disgust comes from the fact that people's games are being played at a more superficial, irritating level. Now that, I wouldn't disagree with- it stems partly from disgust at the fact that you are forced to live in their world and play their rules. But the wait for sex, I think is an issue of taste. Some like to wait a while, it only increases the pleasure. And if they are prudish, as well.

 

[hypatia]

hypatia:
Shut up. This is not Xev's advice on dealing with people thread. If I wanted that I'd be soliciting donations for an assault rifle and a cabin, geddit?

You posted a question. Responders are answering it. Perhaps you wish you'd never started, but if you're going to post asking advice you should expect to receive some.

Ugh, gross. Just...gross. I do not want anyone here fulfilling my sexual needs or aiding me in fulfilling them.

Once again, don't ask a question if you don't want the answer.

Eww. Disgusting slut, why on earth do you care?

Why do you think I care? I am merely entertained by your juvenile antics. The name-calling sounds rather unhinged, but the thread has its merits.

 

[Xev]

hypatia:

You posted a question. Responders are answering it. Perhaps you wish you'd never started, but if you're going to post asking advice you should expect to receive some.

That's true, and would be accurate if I had posted asking for advice. But I didn't. Now go back to your Harlequin romances.

Bob:

Did your parents treat you violently or otherwise use force to control you?

No, but they did pimp my twelve year old ass.
Okay, I'll agree that childhood has relevence. It's one of our formative areas.
Was that a serious question?

So you're saying this is all due to the crowding instinct.

NO!! Not all. But a part which has been underestimated.

Does it not fulfill a need? Is not religion tailored to produce an effect similar to being a happy little boy or girl, completely dependent on the "father" in the sky? I see people wanting to get back to their childhood states of dependence everywhere, whether or not they are following the crowd.

Yes, the monotheistic religions are. Not to jump on the "happy Odinist" bandwagon, but the pagan religions served other needs - I mean definitely one's God or Gods always serve an emotional need, but I think there's a marked psychological difference between monotheism and paganism.

Childhood is hell. Do some people want to return to it? Yes, but the things that make childhood hellish exist in the adult world, of different genesis - a prisoner, an insane person or a woman in certain times and places go through that same hell.

Yes, perhaps! But being a jerk is also only based upon the fact that you won't get your ass kicked. Whats the difference?

There's not one.

The trailer ho is a perfect example. Some of them were abused by men in their childhood, and the only way they know love is to be dominated and beaten.

But there are many economic factors keeping them there. A lot of the time they have children, and they are afraid the man would take the children or something. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame battered women for their own abuse.

That said, I would not be suprised if that is a dynamic. Some people who lacked real control of their surroundings as children realize that they can take a certain sort of control by inciting violence in others. They can't really alter that person's behaviour, but they can piss them off until they snap, and thus they can affect that person.

You haven't really seen many of those type families, have you? It's very much more complex than those who write papers about it make it out to be (I spent a couple years living in a town near Midland, Michigan - yikes) - generally the battered partner doesn't stay in it just out of fear, or misplaced love, or having an abused childhood. Those are factors, but eating Percodan with her girlfriends at the I-Hop and getting their sympathy is another.

Trust requires an element of faith, I think. Otherwise you will always have that little bit of doubt.

There is always a little bit of doubt about everything.

You are condemned to always wonder whether x, y, z is really enough to control the other, and that he has no motives he is hiding from you.

I don't see how that's "condemned". It's just a fact of life. That's like saying I'm "condemned to breathe"

And what about "mutual reliance"? Does that not mean you 'rely' on the other, that you have a certain bit of dependence?

Maybe a little, but I've never heard - "baby, I drank 18 shooters and a six pack of beer last night, can I borrow a kidney?"

Letting your guard down, showing your vulnerability and willingness to be controlled, as well as the power to control the other, is an essential part of love.

The beautiful thing about love is how ineffable it is. Love means very different things to different people, and who would have it any other way?

So perhaps your disgust comes from the fact that people's games are being played at a more superficial, irritating level.

It's not disgust. I don't really mind how people live their lives, heck - I remember talking about the battered women to a lesbian-feminist semi-friend of mine and she thought it was awful. Those poor brainwashed creatures, suffering from our patriarchial system. I was always rather indifferent to the whole thing.

I do resent somewhat, other games. 'Cause I don't like playing 'em and I have to. But such is life.

But the wait for sex, I think is an issue of taste. Some like to wait a while, it only increases the pleasure. And if they are prudish, as well.

Not wanting to swap bodily fluids with every Tom's Hairy Dick makes one prudish? Some people like the wait just so they can get comfortable with a person. Or maybe they don't need sex that incredibly much and can afford to be selective.
Well see now I'm resentful about that. I need to work on that.

 

[Roman]

Xev:

For most of human history there were outlets for that. Go out and pillage your neighbors. Now they have nuclear missiles and peace treaties and coalitions, so that's out. You can pillage liquour stores but there are cops and security cameras, so that's really out too. What do we have? Oh, we can be sex magnets.
But see that was my point - now it seems mawkish and gooey and worst, I'm repeating myself and it's so bad to do that - relationships are one of the few fun sources of conflict that won't land us in prison so we've made them all about that. And one of the few sources of productivity so we're all obsessed with something that really means very little.

Whoa, that makes a lot of sense.

 

[gendanken]

Xev:

Why aren't you saying she isn't?

Because that would mean another round of troll versus gendanken- what did she say?
Strippers are worthless? They’re women just like you are, and deserve (deserve, deserve, deserve) the same respect. What if she has children to feed, gendanken, you bitter old cow?

Gets boring.

Well, I daresay it's healthy. Kinda the reverse of penis-envy, you know?
Besides...pathetic people are fu-nny

Yes, but look what its done.
Ha ha ha and he he he all I want, but here I am knowing its much ado about nothing.

Here I am knowing that mother got it from her mother that did not get it from her mother but from some television program or some counselor or nurse with the same twisted misogyny that makes it sinister (which is why I feel motherhood has lost its integrity).
Here I am knowing this mentality of role-playing reflects a medium where pain is a has-been, where respect is entitlement, where everything is equal and valuable, where all our passions for conflict are tied up doing so much busy work its become a fucking drama.

You know, like knights in the medieval world that channeled their strength into making the ugliest girls in the kingdom feel like Guinevere.
Look how obsessed they are, this thread 6 pages already.
I know all of this, and yet look at me outlining a battlepan my first year in college with that boy from Biology class who thought I was interesting.
HA!

Am I a lazy bitch because I don't like the ones who make a fuss about putting out? It wouldn't kill my appetite - I'd probably drop dead of a MI if a boy were honest about sex but - I love 'easy' men.

No, you're pathetic fucking retard with her fist up her hole years from now when you're lonely.
Tee hee.

Anyway, maybe that's the charm of this conflict- it appeals to the esteem of a passionate, rational mammal that's been stripped of his outlets for accomplishment. That cunning that thrilled a Visigoth in the battlefield and the pride he took in seeing his tribe kill a Hun and gain status with Rome?
Had to go somewhere, it doesn't go away.
So let it fester in the only thing left to the poor thing in a shithole where you can't even hear the word 'bitch' on the radio- sex.
To wit- notice how beautiful it makes people feel and how confused it leaves outsiders looking at them.

(small aside- all my fat 'friends' developed attitude problems and became bitchy as soon as they had a man or men found them interesting. Before that, they were so nice and submissive they'd wash your underwear.)

-Bob-

Does it not fulfill a need? Is not religion tailored to produce an effect similar to being a happy little boy or girl, completely dependent on the "father" in the sky? I see people wanting to get back to their childhood states of dependence everywhere, whether or not they are following the crowd.

More like the makings of a Templar Knight from a real warrior.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Wow...

*sigh*

My amazement right now is a testament to my inter-relational naivette. I knew relationships were complicated, but wow... I really didn't know it was so bad. Perhaps I'm off in my own little world, but it seemed to me that if you felt comfortable with someone, understood the complementariety between the two of you, and expressed yourself honsetly, then you were good to go. This thread single-handedly tossed that conception into the wastebasket.

 

[gendanken]

Beyondtimeandspace:

My amazement right now is a testament to my inter-relational naivette. I knew relationships were complicated, but wow... I really didn't know it was so bad.

Its not so bad when you realize why we do things.
For example, morality becomes something more palatable once you realize its roots.

And that's the thing- if all expressed themselves honestly, sex and love would no longer be interesting.
Look at soap operas, what keeps them alive.
The same imbroglios and conflicts rearranged into a hundred million pieces in order to keep sex interesting.

 

[-Bob-]

No, but they did pimp my twelve year old ass.
Okay, I'll agree that childhood has relevence. It's one of our formative areas.
Was that a serious question?

Hmm, further confirmation of my original suspicions.

I don't like freud too much. But two things you can't argue with. First, we highly resemble our parents. Second, they are the first and most revered members of the opposite sex that we meet.

NO!! Not all. But a part which has been underestimated.

Yes, the monotheistic religions are. Not to jump on the "happy Odinist" bandwagon, but the pagan religions served other needs - I mean definitely one's God or Gods always serve an emotional need, but I think there's a marked psychological difference between monotheism and paganism.

Childhood is hell. Do some people want to return to it? Yes, but the things that make childhood hellish exist in the adult world, of different genesis - a prisoner, an insane person or a woman in certain times and places go through that same hell.

I imagine theres a distinction to be made between submission and the feeling of being part of something else. Most religions, even primitive, provide the inclusion in a greater whole, in order to cement the city, the tribe, together and punish the evildoers. Whenever you combine with something or someone, it involves making yourself even the slightest bit vulnerable. It feels good to us too, to feel we are being cared for and that we are not alone.

But there are many economic factors keeping them there. A lot of the time they have children, and they are afraid the man would take the children or something. I don't think it's entirely fair to blame battered women for their own abuse.

That said, I would not be suprised if that is a dynamic. Some people who lacked real control of their surroundings as children realize that they can take a certain sort of control by inciting violence in others. They can't really alter that person's behaviour, but they can piss them off until they snap, and thus they can affect that person.

You haven't really seen many of those type families, have you? It's very much more complex than those who write papers about it make it out to be (I spent a couple years living in a town near Midland, Michigan - yikes) - generally the battered partner doesn't stay in it just out of fear, or misplaced love, or having an abused childhood. Those are factors, but eating Percodan with her girlfriends at the I-Hop and getting their sympathy is another.

I'm sure there are many factors keeping battered women in abusive relationships. But I believe I heard somewhere that theres a statistical correlation between women who were abused as children and then went on to be in an abusive relationship. Same thing goes with men, too. But also remember, that the women actually have to choose to enter the relationship with these people. Its probably more of a factor in the selection process of choosing a boyfriend. And not only with trailer park folks.

There is always a little bit of doubt about everything.

Of course theres always a bit of jealousy in any relationship, but you talk like the perfect man for you would just go off banging nuns and shit, and it wouldn't bother you. We need a little bit of faith in each other to keep from becoming consumed by jealousy.

I don't see how that's "condemned". It's just a fact of life. That's like saying I'm "condemned to breathe"

Its relative.

Maybe a little, but I've never heard - "baby, I drank 18 shooters and a six pack of beer last night, can I borrow a kidney?"

:bugeye:

The beautiful thing about love is how ineffable it is. Love means very different things to different people, and who would have it any other way?

Yes, its beautiful how some people think love is ineffable, and others think its not- and would have it another way. Cuz it means different things.

It's not disgust. I don't really mind how people live their lives, heck - I remember talking about the battered women to a lesbian-feminist semi-friend of mine and she thought it was awful. Those poor brainwashed creatures, suffering from our patriarchial system. I was always rather indifferent to the whole thing.

I do resent somewhat, other games. 'Cause I don't like playing 'em and I have to. But such is life.

Well, you're disgusted or you resent that people recommend this shit to you. Pretty much the same thing.

Not wanting to swap bodily fluids with every Tom's Hairy Dick makes one prudish? Some people like the wait just so they can get comfortable with a person. Or maybe they don't need sex that incredibly much and can afford to be selective.
Well see now I'm resentful about that. I need to work on that.

You can say someone is relatively prudish these days, when they like to wait a month or so before sex. Or something like that. Sexuality is a weird thing, some people need sex more than others (sex addicts), some people jerk off to pictures of feet. Its all very fluid, in more ways than one.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Gendanken:

And that's the thing- if all expressed themselves honestly, sex and love would no longer be interesting.
Look at soap operas, what keeps them alive.
The same imbroglios and conflicts rearranged into a hundred million pieces in order to keep sex interesting.

Well I suppose that all depends upon perspective.

I've written and deleted a large paragraph twice because I can't sum my thoughts the way I want, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Xev]

gendanken:
Strippers are as worthy as any other person and merit the same lukewarm distaste. Yeah - trolls boring.

I know all of this, and yet look at me outlining a battlepan my first year in college with that boy from Biology class who thought I was interesting.
HA!

E-xactly. But most of that is because battleplans are fun, no? I've gotten what I wanted out of (X), but I'm still not through.
I think I should get off my ass and sign up for a judo class or something. Give me another hobby.
Men are toys, right?
But some people, they play with their toys, get bored, toss 'em and get new toys. Me, I'm still finding things to do with them months later. One area in which my tendancy to form obsessive interests can be annoying.

Anyway, maybe that's the charm of this conflict- it appeals to the esteem of a passionate, rational mammal that's been stripped of his outlets for accomplishment.

Thank you. I knew somebody would get it.

Bob:

I don't like freud too much. But two things you can't argue with. First, we highly resemble our parents. Second, they are the first and most revered members of the opposite sex that we meet.

Sure, but that doesn't need Freud.
In any case, does my ideal of a man resemble my dad? In many ways - intellectual, antisocial, somewhat on the cold side.
But that's where the simularity ends, and incidentally where I most resemble my dad. My ideal man also raids churches and kills people - my father is almost pathologically incapable of violence. Now physically my father and my ideal of a man are very close, light-skinned, short, compact, dark hair and eyes, very Austrian-German looking. But I also have this thing for blondes. And another thing for E.Asians - who aren't even Indo-European, fucksake!

I imagine theres a distinction to be made between submission and the feeling of being part of something else.

Of course. You bring up the feeling of acceptance and warmth that love brings and you associate it with submission - well of course it could be used to try to force submission, people are assholes and intimacy is weakness - but that doesn't make any relation between the two magically exist.

Which incidentally, I empathize with. I used to confuse being in love with being powerless for that reason - because I expected that vulnerability to be exploited. But then I found that a man worth having, didn't try, and then that a man not worth having, was quite easily countered. So when you say - " I tend to be on the submissive side. It makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside." I can relate.
Basically I'm wired not to strongly want intimacy, but that confusion, that nervousness over "gee, will I be taken advantage of?" is part of it.
But, you're wrong, and I'm wrong, because people are not all bullies and if you date someone who is, you can stop them, beat them up and take their lunch money - mwa-ha!

Its probably more of a factor in the selection process of choosing a boyfriend. And not only with trailer park folks.

Oh right. You know I'm an awful misogynist, and I really try not to be - it's bad. So I had to interject that comment about them not really always staying 'cause they dig abuse.
You're right. I think that a woman who's become acclimitised (however it's spelled) to that behaviour from men will accept it during the courtship process, wheras a woman who isn't would end the relationship before it progressed, or even started.

Well, you're disgusted or you resent that people recommend this shit to you. Pretty much the same thing.

Kinda annoyed that I'm being given advice, but no not disgusted or resentful.

You can say someone is relatively prudish these days, when they like to wait a month or so before sex. Or something like that. Sexuality is a weird thing, some people need sex more than others (sex addicts), some people jerk off to pictures of feet. Its all very fluid, in more ways than one.

You're right.
I just think "prudish" is a somewhat inaccurate way of describing it. I'm nearly asexual - I'd much rather masturbate than have sex with a man, unless - well some men I just go for. So I seem and act prudish, but I hardly am.

 

[Polrean]

My penis is small as your vagina is deep

this is nothing compared to the secrests you keep

you reveal your heart which cannot be seen

this may be mean, but

you comprise the heart of a slut

stop hammer time

 

[Polrean]

haha , j/k sorry I thought of that first line and couldn't resist creating something masterful out of it.

Masterful?

nah.