The Perpetual Discussion Group 138 members · 58 stories
Comments ( 63 )
  • Viewing 1 - 50 of 63

In this thread, I hope to change Dragor's mind regarding certain topics. Mainly, about girls and relationships.

So... how I want this to work, I guess, is he states his views on both, I (or any of you, that's cool too) question him about what he thinks in order to see why he thinks what he thinks, and then try to point out the discrepancy between what he sees and what you see. Yeah. Something like that.

Something I'd like to say real quick: please avoid flaming him or anyone else. The point of this thread's to help shift his views gradually, not shame him for what he thinks. As I've said in another thread, I think he wants to be wrong, but more than anything, he wants to be proven wrong. You can do that through questioning and pointing out conflicts in his thoughts.

Okay, so here we go.

So, what's up, Dragor? Tell us all about it.

3342030 Lol, a thread dedicated to me. :rainbowwild:

Okay, let's debate this. Here's the gist of how I see things.

Love is a selfish emotion, yet people associate it with harmony and oneness for some reason.

Ask anyone that has been in relationship for more than a year, and you'll hear them say that relationship takes work. That doesn't sound like fun at all.

3342043
I think it's selfish too, in some ways. Let's start there.

First: what is love, exactly? What would you say, I mean.

Now that that joke's outta the way.

Second: What makes you think that it's selfish?

edit: Okay, fixed.

3342054 There are two aspects of love that usually get mixed up.

One is the physical mechanism in our brain, that changes one's perspective on a certain person. That state can be measured by the amount of certain hormones in the bloodstream. Such affection never lasts more than a year.

The other one is the long term connection that two people share. It's a bunch of emotions like compassion, attachment, mutual understanding, and other stuff that you could form with a friend just as you can with a partner.

The first kind of love is short lived and usually connected with other negative emotions like jealousy and possessiveness. When it runs out the two involved are starting to grasp at straws to hold the relationship together.

As for the other long term love, it doesn't actually exist. It's just a package of other attitudes and characteristics that could be ascribed just as well to a family member.

As for the selfish part, I'm mostly referring to accompanying emotions like jealousy and over-clinginess. But love itself is a selfish emotion as well. When you're in love, your worst fear isn't that you'll hurt the potential partner by denying his/her wishes. Your worst fear is that you will be the one that gets denied. There's nothing altruistic in that.

Edit: Well, since 3342030 seems to be away for a little while, I might as well rent about it some more.

One other reason why love doesn't work out so well is that men and women have different needs to fulfill. I'm generalizing, of course. We're not talking about a specific relationship, but relationships in general, so generalization is in order.

Woman craves for security and stability in the relationship. A man that can't provide that even for himself doesn't give out indications that he would be able to provide it for her as well. That is why girls are attracted to guys that can hold their own.

Man on the other hand mostly wants intimacy and recognition that he is indeed worthy in girl's eyes.

That is just one of the reason why relationship takes work. It's not enough to fulfill mutual desires. You have to go out of your way to fulfil those other needs. If you don’t, the other will be left wanting and unsatisfied.

Relationship is not about being yourself and doing what both of you like. Relationship is about balancing the territory you’re giving up and the leeway you can secure without causing an upheaval. It’s a 24/7 job.

If you give up on your defenses and start fulfilling every need your spouse comes up with, you will start losing ground and spouse’s needs won’t get fulfilled but will actually increase to the point where you won’t be able to fulfil them anymore.

Again, what I’m saying are all my personal views on the subject. I’m not here to convince anypony that they should break up their relationships and stay away from them for the rest of their lives. These things only hold true for me and may not hold true for someone else.

The purpose of this thread is not to change the world. It is only for to understand my views on this subject and me providing that understanding.

Just because I’m not into vore (or relationship) it doesn’t mean I disapprove of it.

I'm not on any kind of a crusade. My only wish is to explain my views so that they aren't missunderstood.

3342109

One is the physical mechanism in our brain, that changes one's perspective on a certain person. That state can be measured by the amount of certain hormones in the bloodstream. Such affection never lasts more than a year.

Regarding that last line, I think that specific events inspire it. So, for example, if someone meets someone they're attracted to and experiences that kind of love, it won't last more than a year -- if that's the only event that inspires that feeling. Whereas, if such events popped up ever so often, that feeling could be sustained enough to carry on longer than a year, or perhaps even reignited. Think so?

Though, I have to say right now, that sounds like it would be pretty tiresome to keep up.

Anyway, both definitions accepted now.

The first kind of love is short lived and usually connected with other negative emotions like jealousy and possessiveness. When it runs out the two involved are starting to grasp at straws to hold the relationship together.

This is a bit of a long shot because it's definitely not part of the norm, but have you ever heard of compersion? It's basically described as the opposite of jealousy. Instead of being fearful that your partner will be with someone else, you want to see them love someone else because it makes you feel loved to see them have what they want.

As for the other long term love, it doesn't actually exist. It's just a package of other attitudes and characteristics that could be ascribed just as well to a family member.

I definitely don't think that there's a type of long term love, but I do think that there is attachment to others. Think that bridges the gap between people insisting upon the existence of long term love and that type of love's actual existence?

As for the selfish part, I'm mostly referring to accompanying emotions like jealousy and over-clinginess. But love itself is a selfish emotion as well. When you're in love, your worst fear isn't that you'll hurt the potential partner by denying his/her wishes. Your worst fear is that you will be the one that gets denied. There's nothing altruistic in that.

You have no idea how happy I am that you used that word. This gives me a unique angle to start from.

By mentioning altruism as you have, it seems you want to get closer to it, not further away from it. Have you ever heard of the idea that altruism is evil? I heard the idea from Ayn Rand. I've noticed that as soon as that name is mentioned, people jump into attack mode. That made me pay attention to her just a bit more because I thought maybe she would be saying something close to the truth, if not the truth itself.

If you want to make someone angry, tell him a lie; if you want to make him furious, tell him the truth.

As I try to find a source that has everything necessary to clearly express my point, I beat my face into the keyboard. So I won't go too deeply into that point for now, until it becomes far more important and relevant, but I will say this: it is not evil for you or anyone else to serve the self, and it is not necessarily a good thing to serve others, sacrifice or not. If it is indeed evil to serve yourself and good to sacrifice yourself to serve others, then I can argue that you are evil, because you want to serve yourself by avoiding harmful relationships, and as such, you shouldn't care about altruism in the first place. You should instead seek harmony within selfishness.

There is generally selfishness within everything. Hell, the fact that I even wanted to make this thread to try and change your mind is selfish of me in a way. I tried to explain to you a scenario where selflessness is expressed, but ended up realizing that even in the end, that selflessness was due to a form of selfishness. If a man and his lover (let's assume female for simplicity) are in a life or death situation, and the man can either save himself or his lover, there are many men that would opt to save her. While that might make people think "Awwww, he gave his life to save her, that's real love!", they're not seeing actuality. The actual argument in such a man's head would be more akin to "I would rather her survive than me"; that's an indication of selfishness. In other words, he was so selfish about ensuring that she lives that he would face certain doom so that she lives.

So.. how are you feeling about selfishness now? :pinkiesmile:

edit: Damn! Didn't see the edit! I'll speak about the edited portion once you've added another post.

3342109

As for the other long term love, it doesn't actually exist. It's just a package of other attitudes and characteristics that could be ascribed just as well to a family member.

And you've never heard someone say they 'love' their family? :trixieshiftright:

There are other types of love besides romantic, and they're no less valid.


But true love isn't selfish.
True love is the connection that makes it so that making your lover happy makes you happy, and vice versa: making your lover unhappy makes you unhappy.
Love is what makes acts of un-selfishness feel good, and it makes acts of selfishness feel bad. When you hurt your lover, you hurt yourself just as much.
I'd even go so far as to say that love is the only non-selfish emotion.

That is just one of the reason why relationship takes work. It's not enough to fulfill mutual desires. You have to go out of your way to fulfil those other needs. If you don’t, the other will be left wanting and unsatisfied.
[...]
If you give up on your defenses and start fulfilling every need your spouse comes up with, you will start losing ground and spouse’s needs won’t get fulfilled but will actually increase to the point where you won’t be able to fulfil them anymore.

And that's why it only really works when both people truly love each other.
You both focus on fulfilling the other's needs, and as a byproduct, both people's needs are met.

Yes it's hard sometimes, and it can be a devastatingly bumpy road to happiness.
But take it from me, it's the greatest experience life has to offer. It's the joy of being able to run home and tell someone, 'look what I did!' -- It's the comfort of someone to hold you when everything else in the world is crashing down. -- It's being able to trust someone utterly; able to trust them to be by your side when you need it, and making you able to share anything with them.

That's worth a little work. :raritywink:

(And the sex is nice, too. :rainbowkiss:)

3342233

Regarding that last line, I think that specific events inspire it. So, for example, if someone meets someone they're attracted to and experiences that kind of love, it won't last more than a year -- if that's the only event that inspires that feeling. Whereas, if such events popped up ever so often, that feeling could be sustained enough to carry on longer than a year, or perhaps even reignited. Think so?

I don’t think you can experience that love with the same person twice. You would have to be changing your partners constantly. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact it’s natural. Those that changed partners regularly got to reproduce more. We’re the offsprings of the polygamistic forefathers, so we too have the same mechanisms implanted in us.
That is another negative point to the relationships. You never get to experience that first kind of love that you felt at the beginning. It’s starts to get boring and tedious, the longer you keep up with a relationship.
Finding new relationships and breaking up with the old ones isn’t fun either. At least not for me. So much games and ‘feeling’ each other out.

This is a bit of a long shot because it's definitely not part of the norm, but have you ever heard of comparison? It's basically described as the opposite of jealousy. Instead of being fearful that your partner will be with someone else, you want to see them love someone else because it makes you feel loved to see them have what they want.

I haven’t heard of that expression yet. It could be, that I have that actually. I was glad when my ex started dating other guys after I broke up with her and I never felt any jealousy during the relationship. I actually took some heat from that. Supposably the lack of jealousy means that you don’t love your partner. As if relationship was a competition where the reward would be ‘true love’ title. People should form relationships because they enjoy them, not to earn some titles. It doesn’t even matter whether love is present or not (though it was present in my case).

I do think that there is attachment to others. Think that bridges the gap between people insisting upon the existence of long term love and that type of love's actual existence?

But why call attachment something else if we already have a word for it. It’s called — ‘attachment’. Again, I think insisting on love is just title hunting. You don’t have to question physical abilities in sport if you’ve won a gold medal. I think people have the same mentality in relationships. You don’t have to doubt relationship if you can convince everyone around you including yourself, that you reached love with your partner.

I think many people are stuck in relationships for relationships’ sakes and not for the actual fun that they are experiencing in said relationships.

Have you ever heard of the idea that altruism is evil?

I actually don’t believe that altruism exists. I do believe that empathy exists. I believe that all of the actions any human has performed to this day can be traced down to egoism. Actions that seem like good are gratifying because we have empathy. It’s that gratification that we’re after. You wouldn’t give money to a homeless person if that action made you sick and you felt horrible about it in every way. You give money to homeless people because that action makes you feel good.

I heard the idea from Ayn Rand. I've noticed that as soon as that name is mentioned, people jump into attack mode. That made me pay attention to her just a bit more because I thought maybe she would be saying something close to the truth, if not the truth itself.
If you want to make someone angry, tell him a lie; if you want to make him furious, tell him the truth.

I don’t know who she was, but I do agree with that statement. The big majority of relationships are based on lies. When your partner comes home you don’t hug her and say, “While you were gone I masturbated to a video of foalcon gore rape of My Little Pony characters.” Instead, you just hug her. That’s dishonesty right there.

but I will say this: it is not evil for you or anyone else to serve the self, and it is not necessarily a good thing to serve others, sacrifice or not.

Yes, being in isolation doesn’t hurt anyone. Serving Hitler on the other hand, could potentially hurt someone.

If it is indeed evil to serve yourself and good to sacrifice yourself to serve others, then I can argue that you are evil, because you want to serve yourself by avoiding harmful relationships, and as such, you shouldn't care about altruism in the first place.

Based on those assumptions I would indeed be evil, however that might not reflect my views on altruism. Hitler didn’t go on crusade for a perfect race for his own account. He wasn’t even of that race. So if his actions weren’t egoistic, were they altruistic? I’m just trying to point out, that altruism may not be fully related to good and egoism to evil.

You should instead seek harmony within selfishness.

I thought you were trying to change me. :) I’m fully content in my lack of sacrifice.

There is generally selfishness within everything. Hell, the fact that I even wanted to make this thread to try and change your mind is selfish of me in a way. I tried to explain to you a scenario where selflessness is expressed, but ended up realizing that even in the end, that selflessness was due to a form of selfishness.

I subscribe to that. I don’t think anyone can trick himself to perform an action that wouldn’t be egotistical in nature.

If a man and his lover (let's assume female for simplicity) are in a life or death situation, and the man can either save himself or his lover, there are many men that would opt to save her. While that might make people think "Awwww, he gave his life to save her, that's real love!", they're not seeing actuality. The actual argument in such a man's head would be more akin to "I would rather her survive than me"; that's an indication of selfishness. In other words, he was so selfish about ensuring that she lives that he would face certain doom so that she lives.

I see 2 possible scenarios for self sacrifice:
a) It’s a fact that that man was in a relationship with the woman. Therefore he must have had a reason to be in said relationship. The only way he could sustain a relationship would be, to convince himself, that that relationship was positive. The consequences of his failing to convince himself, that what he has with his spouse is positive would be the crumbling of his relationship and that would raise an enormous amount of existential and social questions and that would be even harder to deal with. The only possible assumption, therefore is, that the man was successful in convincing himself that the that woman is essential to his life. You naturally want to preserve what you find positive, so his reaction to protect his spouse would be the only logical conclusion if their relationship wasn’t shaky to start with.
b) A man logically concludes that another person is more valuable. Sacrificing that person would trigger his guilt and he could never turn that guild off. Life with that guilt would no longer be worth living, so again, the only possible conclusion is self-sacrifice.

So.. how are you feeling about selfishness now?

I’m fine with it. It basically all comes down to empathy, and I know I have ample amounts of it.

And you've never heard someone say they 'love' their family?

Whenever someone says something like that, all I hear is, “I’m attached to my family.”

3342264

There are other types of love besides romantic, and they're no less valid.
But true love isn't selfish.

Love is just a package of other emotions and habits. As you shift those around, the shade of that package changes. I still don’t think there’s any kind of love that couldn’t be described with other, less mystical words.

True love is the connection that makes it so that making your lover happy makes you happy, and vice versa: making your lover unhappy makes you unhappy.

That is empathy. Most of us have it even for complete strangers.

Love is what makes acts of unselfishness feel good, and it makes acts of selfishness feel bad. When you hurt your lover, you hurt yourself just as much.

I’ll just say I agree with you at this point. There’s no need to argue about semantics. You say love, I say empathy (which is stronger for the people you’re more attached to). Tomāto; Tomäto.

I'd even go so far as to say that love is the only non-selfish emotion.

Empathy could very well be the only non-selfish mechanism, yes. I’d also add logic as one, but that isn’t really an emotion, so yes, you’re probably right.

And that's why it only really works when both people truly love each other.
You both focus on fulfilling the other's needs, and as a byproduct, both people's needs are met.
Yes it's hard sometimes, and it can be a devastatingly bumpy road to happiness.

It wouldn’t be called work if it was so self-fulfilling.

But take it from me, it's the greatest experience life has to offer. It's the joy of being able to run home and tell someone, 'look what I did!'

The need for attention is engraved within us, but there are other mechanisms besides pampering it. We’d all act like a bunch of spoiled children if we never learned the alternative mechanisms. I perceive spoilness to be a weakness. People don’t like spoiled children.

-- It's the comfort of someone to hold you when everything else in the world is crashing down.

Again, I perceive the lack of self-sustainability as a weakness. Fulfilling those needs is like putting mud on a wound. It makes you feel better, but the wound (=weakness) grows.

-- It's being able to trust someone utterly; able to trust them to be by your side when you need it,

This goes both ways. When I want to do something, I do it. I don’t force some higher power on myself, that would rip me away from my life at the moment of it’s choice. And what happens when both of you want to lean on each other at the same time? Do you both collapse? The more you count on being able to lean on someone else, the less you learn to be able to lean on yourself.

and making you able to share anything with them.

There’s a very common troupe where a man tries to read a newspaper at breakfast and the wife keeps talking. Why isn’t the man putting down the newspaper. Why isn’t he enjoying what his spouse has to say? It’s because wish fulfilment isn’t mutual. One has to go out of his way to fulfil the needs of the other. They both have to compensate in their lives. That’s why it’s called work and not fun.

That's worth a little work.

I’m glad you find more positive then negative in your relationship. For me, the calculations show a different result. I wouldn’t be happy in a relationship. It wouldn’t be worth the amount of work I would have to invest. To me, it would feel like my life was draining away from me. Like I’m dying. Basically what Twilight felt in this scene.

(And the sex is nice, too. )

You have a point.

3342043
Lust is actually rather selfish. Love is selfess and caring.

Not all relationships have to be driven by lust, some are driven by love.

3342414 I don't know... I think that two people having lustful sex with each other, can be quite enjoyable experience for both of them. Though, sex also takes some 'adjusting' to one another, I think it's still more fun then work. More gratifying then the constant battlefield that is love, at least.

3342109

Woman craves for security and stability in the relationship. A man that can't provide that even for himself doesn't give out indications that he would be able to provide it for her as well. That is why girls are attracted to guys that can hold their own.

It's funny that you say this. The relationships I've seen where the women are most adamant about staying with men are the relationships in which the man physically and/or emotionally abuses her. Such men can have their own jobs or career or whatever, but many of them can also rely upon the woman and not work at all, and she'll abide by his wishes because she fears disappointing him. I think such relationships counter your viewpoint because those aren't stable at all. Additionally, if stability were truly what's craved, girls would probably be more interested in knowing what men do for a living and spotting evidence of that. Yeah, anyone could lie about that or simply not talk about it, but they'd have a definite interest in it and probably not leave it alone in the dark for too long.

If I were to use relationships like that as a bar, and there are many out there like this, marriages too, it would seem to me that a woman would crave not stability, but continuous instability.

Man on the other hand mostly wants intimacy and recognition that he is indeed worthy in girl's eyes.

That I think I can agree to without argument. You know, in a general sense, so... not counting assexual men, or men that are interested only in other men (would have to switch the genders around here), yadda yadda.

The funny thing is, I know men that have been in the same type of relationships as the women I previously described. So maybe, within the ways men and women are viewed, there is a common connection that bridges the two together and brings us closer to what's actually out there. I mean, women definitely seem to want intimacy and recognition that they're worthy in their mate's eyes, too, that's not just a male's desire. And some men seem to be bored easily, too, I've heard men say that the best part about a relationship is "the chase". And then there are also things like women that lie to men in order to use them for sex, and men that manipulate women not to get sex but to use them in other ways. Let's not even factor how sexuality complicates all of this.

So maybe, if we put the two together, we'll get an answer. And trust me, if it sounds too gender neutral, it's only because I see little reason to separate the sexes, not because I'm trying to make anyone feel better about their gender.

People crave continuous instability, intimacy, and recognition that they're worthy in their mate's eyes.

So how's that sound?

Relationship is not about being yourself and doing what both of you like. Relationship is about balancing the territory you’re giving up and the leeway you can secure without causing an upheaval. It’s a 24/7 job.

Unfortunately, this I think I can agree to. Though, some people are so in sync with each other that they do exactly what they like and function together pretty well. If that's a possibility, then I don't think we can yet settle upon feelings regarding a relationship, what they're about, or to say that it's difficult, tiring, etc. Example, breathing is a 24/7 job, but for most of us most of the time, it's the easiest thing you can do. It's not annoying either. You may not even notice it.

If you give up on your defenses and start fulfilling every need your spouse comes up with, you will start losing ground and spouse’s needs won’t get fulfilled but will actually increase to the point where you won’t be able to fulfil them anymore.

I think we came across this point before the last time. When we talked at that time, I stated that there were two things you need to be aware of when you're around people -- not just in a romantic relationship, but in all possible relationships with any human/social/pack type animal. Your usefulness to yourself, and your usefulness to others. If you fulfill your own needs, you'll generate a certain level of respect. If you don't, you won't. If you fulfill the needs of others, they'll like you on some level and want to be around you; you empower them. If you don't, they'll eventually want nothing to do with you. If you have neither, you're nobody, and if you have both, you're extremely important to them.

So... I think I agree, that if you fulfill every need your spouse has, especially above your own, they might try to use you more and more laying demands upon you that you can't possibly fulfill. You could also just stop and say "Hey, I'm not handling all of that, just <that one>." I haven't had to do that yet, but I have just flat out said no before, though not in a relationship. That may put a sour taste in their mouth for a while, but the demands will definitely decrease. They may go looking for someone else to use though, particularly if they actually thought you were just gonna do everything they wanted you to.


On to post #2!

I don’t think you can experience that love with the same person twice. You would have to be changing your partners constantly. There’s nothing wrong with that. In fact it’s natural. Those that changed partners regularly got to reproduce more. We’re the offsprings of the polygamistic forefathers, so we too have the same mechanisms implanted in us.

That is another negative point to the relationships. You never get to experience that first kind of love that you felt at the beginning. It’s starts to get boring and tedious, the longer you keep up with a relationship.

Finding new relationships and breaking up with the old ones isn’t fun either. At least not for me. So much games and ‘feeling’ each other out.

Dang. I can't say that I've experienced it twice myself. It definitely does die out. I've got nothing further as far as that point goes. So you don't think that the chemical feeling could be nurtured to last longer than a year? Not that I think that anyone should try to do that, especially if it's not simple.

I can agree to the point of relationships becoming boring and tedious the longer it goes on. That happens in marriages too. I constantly hear things about "spicing it up". Though... "spicing it up" requires bringing in totally new elements, not just... doing something new. Like, if you wanted to spice up your gaming experience, you don't play the same game a different way, you introduce a new game. You play new people. You play in different settings. You modify the game and give it things that will make it more interesting. So... I think you are starting to change me... :twilightoops:

On this topic though, there is an anime I saw called Marmalade Boy. I think I mentioned it before. I think the gist of the story is.. and since I don't remember the characters I'll use letters, A and B, C and D. Both groups are husband and wife. They have children together. However, the two groups fell out of love with each other. They didn't divorce I don't think, and I don't think they're planning on getting one. A and D + C and B fall in love. Due to that, they decided to all live together under one roof. Now, I don't know how long they've stayed in love in either case, but I just thought that was a unique take on polyamory and it was a beautiful idea and so natural and I love it. They didn't fight about it, they didn't even break up with each other, they just fell in love with other people, together. If you like anime, maybe you should give it a watch sometime.

I haven’t heard of that expression yet. It could be, that I have that actually. I was glad when my ex started dating other guys after I broke up with her and I never felt any jealousy during the relationship. I actually took some heat from that. Supposably the lack of jealousy means that you don’t love your partner. As if relationship was a competition where the reward would be ‘true love’ title. People should form relationships because they enjoy them, not to earn some titles. It doesn’t even matter whether love is present or not (though it was present in my case).

My mistake. Compersion* I misspelled it. I agree with that, too. I don't think relationships should be some kind of contest. I have a hard time understanding how people can even see it that way. The only reason I can see love as a battlefield is due to what goes on between the actual people in the relationship.

But why call attachment something else if we already have a word for it. It’s called — ‘attachment’. Again, I think insisting on love is just title hunting. You don’t have to question physical abilities in sport if you’ve won a gold medal. I think people have the same mentality in relationships. You don’t have to doubt relationship if you can convince everyone around you including yourself, that you reached love with your partner.

We do that for a lot of things, actually, especially in English.

Outside of that, I think the true context of love in that instance is when you're in a survival situation. We didn't always have a secure way of life, and lots of places in the world still don't. And when you're dependent upon your partner to survive, you are not only stuck in that relationship, you eventually accept that you are and you want to be stuck there with them. You'll love them a lot more deeply than if you could survive just fine without them. The more you go through together, the more attached you become. Under such circumstances, you would actually be enticed to work things out with them and consider them a part of yourself. In a secure world though, your partner won't mean as much. They're just "some other person", like extra luggage you don't need to carry, and you don't necessarily have to have anything to do with them, so once you're tired of them you get rid of them. That's what I think, anyway. I've never seen lovers in such settings portrayed as a guy just trying to stick his cock in someone, or a girl just trying to see how many guys she can use to do her bidding to get her into position to get the guy she actually wants.

I actually don’t believe that altruism exists. I do believe that empathy exists. I believe that all of the actions any human has performed to this day can be traced down to egoism. Actions that seem like good are gratifying because we have empathy. It’s that gratification that we’re after. You wouldn’t give money to a homeless person if that action made you sick and you felt horrible about it in every way. You give money to homeless people because that action makes you feel good.

Sometimes, we do things just because others ask, coax, command, or mislead us to do so. In these ways, anyone can be called to do evil. Through the same ways, they could also be called to do good. But what are you likely being called to do when you listen to someone whose only goal is profit, for instance?

Whenever a person acts according to their own will, things tend to play out just fine, even if they did something wrong. Don't know about you, but I've been satisfied whenever I did what I wanted to instead of letting someone tell me what to do. Another thing, you tend to actually acquire wisdom from such experiences. But what is it that you learn when you just follow someone else's plans and not your own?

Suppose you worked for a company that also did illegal activities. The guys in charge know what's going on, but guys like you are called out to different places to do whatever and you have no idea what's going on, you're just following orders. What are you to think after knowing you've been partaking in criminal activity? Hey, I shouldn't work for these guys anymore? I should do better company research next time? I should've asked more about what I was doing? Think as long and as hard as you want, the best answers you can come up with will eventually start to sound like "I should've done whatever I wanted to" or "I shouldn't have followed someone else's plans". In such a situation, there is nothing for you to do or say, nothing for you to gain, and nothing for you to learn, except that you did something you really didn't want to play any part in.

I don’t know who she was, but I do agree with that statement. The big majority of relationships are based on lies. When your partner comes home you don’t hug her and say, “While you were gone I masturbated to a video of foalcon gore rape of My Little Pony characters.” Instead, you just hug her. That’s dishonesty right there.

:rainbowlaugh: That's because that's awkward! I've told friends of mine that I've done it and to what. Hell... I've told them when I've done it, and some how. It's a little something I've been learning lately. I don't know if it's deception or not, it probably is, but you'll see my point in a moment.

You can tell someone the most... unimaginably vile, disgusting, filthy things imaginable about yourself, but if you say them in a certain way, then it won't be viewed that way -- even if it really should be. I used to think that it was deceptive to do such a thing, but then I started to realize that if you don't take it upon yourself to fill in the blanks for people, they'll start filling in the blanks on their own, and you will almost always never like what they come up with. Yes, it can be used to mislead people, but it can also be used to take the sting off of how they'll perceive what you're talking about.

For example, I wasn't of course, but I could tell you that I was masturbating. You ask what to, I say tub girl. You might not know what that is so you ask what. I tell you that it's fetishized pornography. You might want to know more, and I warn you that it's not for everyone. I could even eventually show it to it. Now, I haven't lied to you, but I guarantee you that you will take that a lot differently than you would if I just went off on a tangent talking about how much I liked it and what I liked about it before you had ever developed any sort of interest in it.

Yes, being in isolation doesn’t hurt anyone. Serving Hitler on the other hand, could potentially hurt someone.

Well, I could make the argument that you're depriving lonely girls of your awesomeness.

Serving Hitler could potentially hurt someone if what Hitler has planned leads you to do so. If you did whatever the hell you wanted though and you didn't want to hurt people, then without deceiving you, there's nothing he could say to you to make you act on his behalf.

Based on those assumptions I would indeed be evil, however that might not reflect my views on altruism. Hitler didn’t go on crusade for a perfect race for his own account. He wasn’t even of that race. So if his actions weren’t egoistic, were they altruistic? I’m just trying to point out, that altruism may not be fully related to good and egoism to evil.

The point I wanted to make is that he would only be able to direct as much energy towards that end as he alone was capable, if others didn't aid him. And others would aid him only if they saw what he wanted as what they wanted. Through asking, coaxing, commanding, and misleading, he made them see it that way, and he almost got what he wanted. Coincidentally, wasn't America selfish during that time?

I thought you were trying to change me. :) I’m fully content in my lack of sacrifice.

Harmony within selfishness doesn't mean you have to be alone. It could mean you're being selfish with someone else who's as selfish as you are, where your selfishness doesn't conflict with theirs and vice versa. Example, it may be wrong and selfish to plant a kiss on the lips of a woman who doesn't want to be kissed, and it may be wrong and selfish (and weird :twilightoops:) for her to try and force you to kiss her, but how wrong is it if you kiss her after you've made her want to be kissed?

I see 2 possible scenarios for self sacrifice:

a) It’s a fact that that man was in a relationship with the woman. Therefore he must have had a reason to be in said relationship. The only way he could sustain a relationship would be, to convince himself, that that relationship was positive. The consequences of his failing to convince himself, that what he has with his spouse is positive would be the crumbling of his relationship and that would raise an enormous amount of existential and social questions and that would be even harder to deal with. The only possible assumption, therefore is, that the man was successful in convincing himself that the that woman is essential to his life. You naturally want to preserve what you find positive, so his reaction to protect his spouse would be the only logical conclusion if their relationship wasn’t shaky to start with.

b) A man logically concludes that another person is more valuable. Sacrificing that person would trigger his guilt and he could never turn that guild off. Life with that guilt would no longer be worth living, so again, the only possible conclusion is self-sacrifice.

..I'm not gonna lie, I don't completely understand that first one. Are you saying that he basically sacrificed himself for a delusion?

FamousLastWords
Group Admin

3342043 I've been in quite a few relationships seeing as how I've moved around a bunch in my life so far, and It does take a certain amount of work... but it's super rewarding.:heart:

3342748

I think such relationships counter your viewpoint because those aren't stable at all.

Proving that he can be an abuser and not the abused is another indication that he can hold his own.
There is another element at play, though. The abusive man doesn't just hit the woman out of thin air. He makes up a reason for it. Abusive woman often times feels guilty for her the behaviour of her abuser. She usually believes that she can change him if she only tries harder. By trying harder on her part, his value increases in her eyes and her own self-value plummets.

She does get the security out of it. She doesn't feel threatened from the outside. She knows that her husband could control the situation, just as he can control her.

if stability were truly what's craved, girls would probably be more interested in knowing what men do for a living and spotting evidence of that.

Women say, that they don't care about the status symbols, but trust me, there's a difference if you ride yourself to the club on a bicycle or a fancy car. They also care about what you do. If you tell her that you're just gonna drift around for a year, because you don't have a clue what to do with your life, you've lost her right there and then.

it would seem to me that a woman would crave not stability, but continuous instability.

The only way she can feel stability is if she constantly tests it. Testing stability, however, does bring instability in the relationship. If you don't give in, you can pass the tests and you can keep things fairly stable. It takes work, though.

there is a common connection that bridges the two together and brings us closer to what's actually out there.

Yes, you're right. These differences are oftentimes subtle, but they do affect the relationships. I've been doing a lot of generalization, to show what those differences are. In the actual person those things that I mention probably present more than 1% of that person's personality.

the best part about a relationship is "the chase"

Men usually like the chase because you get more of that 'worthy' feeling if more girls give it to you. There's a limit to how much one girl can boost a man's ego. More girls have more potential for that. For many, closing the deal (sex) is more for the ego boost than the actual sexual activity. It's the conformation that he's a successful man. Being able to get a girl is one of the society's imposed factor for measuring a man's worth.

And then there are also things like women that lie to men in order to use them for sex

I didn't know about that. Why do they even have to lie? They can just use the most successful pick up line that they have at their disposal (Wanna have sex?). Again, I'm generalizing.

if it sounds too gender neutral

I actually have the same view. I wouldn't care whether my friends would be male or female. However in dance clubs and other social gatherings, gender roles do still show. Girls still value the amount they've been hit on by guys and guys still value the amount of phone numbers they collect. If a girl would say to her female friends, "I've exchanged my phone number with 30 guys tonight." she wouldn't be meet with eyes of admiration and approval from her friends.

So how's that sound?

I would argue that instability is only there to determine how stable things are. You have to shake your desk in order to see if it's stable. But the rest sounds true in my opinion.

It's not annoying either. You may not even notice it.

There might be some personal issues from my side here. I'm a problem solver. If something is unstable, i want to stabilise it. I can't live in the constant state of conflict. I want things to be defined clearly. With such mindset, it is work and it is tiring, since you can never 'solve' a relationship in its entirety.

if you fulfill every need your spouse has, especially above your own, they might try to use you more

This comes back to my mindset again. I don't want to hold a barrier up at all times. I don't want to be the one that tell other people what their limits should be. I don't limits in general and only adhere to one: "Don't hurt others." Often times, though, I think that some people act more on the "Don't do what is forbidden." than their internal moral compass.

I also want to focus on issue at hand, not juggle with multiple fronts, strategising my way through something that was supposed to be fun.

So you don't think that the chemical feeling could be nurtured to last longer than a year?

Anything that brain can produce, we can produce on an even larger scale artificially. The tools for that are called 'drugs'. As any 'serious' drug addict and they'll tell you that drug is several times better than orgasm or any other pleasure they've experienced. Without the drugs, however, I don't think there's much you can do, except for changing your relationships regularly.

spicing it up

That's not fixing the problem, that's putting a temporary bandage on it. The underlying problem still remains strong. Your gaming example is perfect. Only a new game can give you that feeling that you could never experience with the old game again.

I think you are starting to change me...

I certainly don't mean to. I'm here because I believe in what I say, and I see no reason to shy away from a debate about it. I'm also a white knight against close-mindedness. Shying away from discussion is one of the sign of close-mindedness and I certainly can't have that on my backyard.

Marmalade Boy

I haven't watched it, but what you described sounds like societies like they used to be and still are in the primal parts of the world. Family is an artificial construct. There used to be a whole tribe taking care of upbringing of a child. Polygamy is engraved in our genes. It tells us exactly how our ancestors used to live.


That's a very interesting theory about the mutual struggle tightening the relationship. It's a common trope, but I haven't actually seen any research on it. Investments do cause increase in subjective values, so I think your theory does indeed hold water.

*Searches for Tube girl on Youtube. Doesn't find it.*

Portraying honesty shouldn't be hard if honesty was the centerpiece of the relationship. Having to have to chose the right words and the flow brings us back to investing effort for making it work. In an average relationship I'm pretty sure that masturbation doesn't get brought up, not even with the right tone. You may tell yourself, that withholding information isn't lying, but it is. When you know that a view of someone differs from the truth and you leave them in that state, despite information being relevant, it is lying.

Coincidentally, wasn't America selfish during that time?

America was on the other side of the world and had Japanese to worry about. They did finance the war to some extent, though.

Harmony within selfishness doesn't mean you have to be alone.

I don't think harmony is achievable outside the 'alone' state.

but how wrong is it if you kiss her after you've made her want to be kissed?

I don't think there's any law against mental manipulation. If there was such a law, all the population of the world would go to jail. Even if you manage to 'reprogram' the girl, it is still considered that she's acting based on her own will. That's the official view of it at least.

Are you saying that he basically sacrificed himself for a delusion?

Not necessarily, but yes. What I was trying to say is, that it doesn't matter whether his 'love' and 'the good of relationship' is true or false as long as he is convinced that it's true. Weather it is an actual truth would be irrelevant in this matter.

3342902 I believe you. However, we are all different people here. What works for one, may not work for another.

Personally, I like being alone. I actively seek seclusion because I find it gratifying. I find ultimate freedom in it.

FamousLastWords
Group Admin

3343183 i'm thinking of locking this thread because I agree with you. It's not right to just up and expect someone to change how they are. If you like being alone, more power to you my friend, and others shouldn't expect you to change :heart:

3343217 No, please don't lock it. I was informed about the formation of this thread beforehand. I was the one that suggested that this debate take place in a thread format.

I'm enjoying myself and I think the same holds true for my codebaters. It's a very friendly environment and we're keeping everything perfectly civil.

FamousLastWords
Group Admin

3343252 alrighty, that's kool then :scootangel: I just saw the long comment chains and wasn't sure if this was okay by you (seeing as how many a thread do end up flaming users)

3343183

Proving that he can be an abuser and not the abused is another indication that he can hold his own.

There is another element at play, though. The abusive man doesn't just hit the woman out of thin air. He makes up a reason for it. Abusive woman often times feels guilty for her the behaviour of her abuser. She usually believes that she can change him if she only tries harder. By trying harder on her part, his value increases in her eyes and her own self-value plummets.

She does get the security out of it. She doesn't feel threatened from the outside. She knows that her husband could control the situation, just as he can control her.

Hold on. So you're saying that it actually is stability, despite the course of the relationship, because he's basically displaying his ability to "handle his own", which shows that he can provide her with stability...........?

:applejackconfused:

That makes sense in a fucked up way.

That kinda explains the type of women that mouth off to their guys they're stuck with and why they even hit them, despite the man being bigger and stronger. It's because she knows he can't hold his own, so he won't do anything about her .

I don't have much to say about this point anymore. I'm sold on this.

Women say, that they don't care about the status symbols, but trust me, there's a difference if you ride yourself to the club on a bicycle or a fancy car. They also care about what you do. If you tell her that you're just gonna drift around for a year, because you don't have a clue what to do with your life, you've lost her right there and then.

Now that I don't think is true at all. I do think that women, men too, care about status symbols, but I don't think those are what they're looking for. I think it all ties back into what you were talking about earlier: this ability to hold their own. He can roll up on a bicycle and pick her up, he just has to show her he can hold his own. If he were lost the moment he showed up on a bike, there would be nothing to talk about and all of us would be aware of this. There would be nothing to say about this point, except that women do not respect men who have little, and every heterosexual female would be proof of this. There wouldn't be any discrepancies.

My semi-evidence:

She's used her judgement to determine that the man hollering at her from the passenger's side is weak. He's a "scrub", a man that definitely can't handle his own. It's not because he has no job, or doesn't have a car, or that he doesn't know how to talk to girls, etc. She says it within the first few lines, actually.

A scrub is a guy that thinks he's fly
And is also known as a buster
Always talkin' about what he wants
And just sits on his broke ass

If he had reason to think so highly of himself, she would just consider him cocky and may even find the cockiness attractive. If he talked about what he wants and was actually taking action to get it, there wouldn't be a problem. But she sees that he's deluded about himself and his capabilities, so she's uninterested.

Last part I wanted to talk about using this song, as a sort of double point: if all she knows about this guy is that he's in the passenger's side of his friend's car trying to get her number, she's most likely judged him to be a scrub prematurely. The guy may have had his own car that was being worked on in the shop. They might be car pooling. It may even be one of his cars, but she sees another man driving it so she assumes it's not his. Mistakes like these are common, and once corrected, can even fix her perceptions about him.

In short, doom can be undone, all it takes is you changing their perspective.

I think I've made a pretty good argument.

The only way she can feel stability is if she constantly tests it. Testing stability, however, does bring instability in the relationship. If you don't give in, you can pass the tests and you can keep things fairly stable. It takes work, though.

Just wanted to say that at this point, I'm still assuming that by stability, you're referring to his ability to provide her with the security she's looking for, and not anything else. Are we on the same page?

You're saying that a girl will continually test whether or not her guy can hold his own by throwing different monkey wrenches at him every now and then to see if he responds well to it? Well... I dunno if that's right or not in a general sense, but I can say that I haven't heard of men doing this. To lend evidence to that though, I've heard a man say this once:

"The reason she's with me is because I know how to call her on her bullshit."

The woman nodded in agreement and added "That is exactly why I am with him."

I think I can accept that point. Though I think that if it applies to women, it probably applies to men as well. Women may be different, but they're not drastically different creatures from men. We're ultimately the same species and all, I mean. For me to accept a difference between men and women, you're gonna have to point to the reproductive organs or some function or substance relative to it.

Yes, you're right. These differences are oftentimes subtle, but they do affect the relationships. I've been doing a lot of generalization, to show what those differences are. In the actual person those things that I mention probably present more than 1% of that person's personality.

Generalizations are useful only insofar as you can apply them. That's why I tend to look for generalizations that can't possibly be wrong, even when you factor in extreme circumstances. Additionally, when you stay general yet precise, that allows you to do much more and keep out all the other unnecessary elements. To know how to manipulate a human will help you manipulate a person whether they're male or female. To say that you know how to manipulate women for example suggests either a specialized focus -- that there are definite things that allow you to manipulate a woman that perhaps disallow you to manipulate a man -- or that you have a poor understanding of the class in which men and women belong to and thus you possess less capability than you think you do.

Think of it this way: whatever you have a problem with, focus on conquering it by the class in which it belongs. If conquering its class doesn't help you conquer the thing, then you dive a bit deeper and conquer its subclasses. That should definitely solve your problem.

Men usually like the chase because you get more of that 'worthy' feeling if more girls give it to you. There's a limit to how much one girl can boost a man's ego. More girls have more potential for that. For many, closing the deal (sex) is more for the ego boost than the actual sexual activity. It's the conformation that he's a successful man. Being able to get a girl is one of the society's imposed factor for measuring a man's worth.

I've had first hand experience with that -- not the sex part, but the whole chase thing boosting my ego up to the point where I pretty much told the girl, who had started falling in love with me at the time actually, that she needed to continue to be cold to me. :ajsleepy:

I didn't know about that. Why do they even have to lie? They can just use the most successful pick up line that they have at their disposal (Wanna have sex?). Again, I'm generalizing.

For some, the same reason men would lie: they can't see a situation in which the guy would have sex with them otherwise. It's not PUA though and different girls have different goals and tactics. Some girls just want sex and are all about undermining the guy's confidence in their girlfriend and appearing as the strong option #2. Others have the main goal of getting a man to leave his wife and children for her, all the while having no intention to have a relationship with him. There's also some that try to get celibate men to break their celibacy. All of them lie, or deceive, in order to get what they want.

I actually have the same view. I wouldn't care whether my friends would be male or female. However in dance clubs and other social gatherings, gender roles do still show. Girls still value the amount they've been hit on by guys and guys still value the amount of phone numbers they collect. If a girl would say to her female friends, "I've exchanged my phone number with 30 guys tonight." she wouldn't be meet with eyes of admiration and approval from her friends.

I know what you mean. That's definitely gender dependent. They're playing two different games with two completely different sets of tools.

I would argue that instability is only there to determine how stable things are. You have to shake your desk in order to see if it's stable. But the rest sounds true in my opinion.

:pinkiehappy: Making progress!

There might be some personal issues from my side here. I'm a problem solver. If something is unstable, i want to stabilise it. I can't live in the constant state of conflict. I want things to be defined clearly. With such mindset, it is work and it is tiring, since you can never 'solve' a relationship in its entirety.

I'm a problem solver too though I don't know if I can say I can't rest until the problem is solved. I can rest easily and forget all about the problem if it's not eating me alive. But the point I was trying to make with the breathing analogy is that just because there may be constant maintenance doesn't mean it has to be stressful. And if it doesn't have to be stressful, then you have to wonder why, especially since it's one of the biggest reasons why you'd avoid relationships.

This comes back to my mindset again. I don't want to hold a barrier up at all times. I don't want to be the one that tell other people what their limits should be. I don't limits in general and only adhere to one: "Don't hurt others." Often times, though, I think that some people act more on the "Don't do what is forbidden." than their internal moral compass.

I also want to focus on issue at hand, not juggle with multiple fronts, strategising my way through something that was supposed to be fun.

I don't want to either and that would be very tiresome. I'm trying to reach a state that's as natural as possible, with as little maintenance as possible, with as much pleasure as possible.

That's not fixing the problem, that's putting a temporary bandage on it. The underlying problem still remains strong. Your gaming example is perfect. Only a new game can give you that feeling that you could never experience with the old game again.

Completely agreed here.

I haven't watched it, but what you described sounds like societies like they used to be and still are in the primal parts of the world. Family is an artificial construct. There used to be a whole tribe taking care of upbringing of a child. Polygamy is engraved in our genes. It tells us exactly how our ancestors used to live.

Something I heard on House, don't know if there is any truth to the claim: the size of testicles in primates is determined by the unfaithfulness of the females. If true, I think that might also apply to other animals, but whether it's true or not for other animals, let's say that it is for humans. Gorilla testicle size to body size is smaller than human testicle size to body size. That would be biological evidence of what you say... assuming I can blindly take a quote from House and call it fact. :twilightsheepish:

Portraying honesty shouldn't be hard if honesty was the centerpiece of the relationship. Having to have to chose the right words and the flow brings us back to investing effort for making it work. In an average relationship I'm pretty sure that masturbation doesn't get brought up, not even with the right tone. You may tell yourself, that withholding information isn't lying, but it is. When you know that a view of someone differs from the truth and you leave them in that state, despite information being relevant, it is lying.

Well, my main point with that was that it's a skill you'd have built up anyway for dealing with people, and so it could be applied to relationships, but I'll drop that point.

Though I want to clear this part up: it's not about hiding information, but avoiding an extremely negative portrayal. I don't think that it's lying or even a form of deception, especially if you give them all the relevant information they need to make their own conclusion, and especially if you let them know how others feel about it. But as I've said before, if you don't fill in the blanks for people, they will fill in the blanks on their own, and you won't like what they come up with. And there is no uninfluenced stance that you can take with this. Anything you say or do can be viewed positively, negatively, or as nothing at all, depending on who's taking a look at it from what angle and how. Without trying to affect their perception, messages that come from you run the risk of inspiring negative feelings. It's then that I reach this question: would I rather run the risk of being seen as something I'm not and never was, or run the risk of being seen as a person who is tricky with words but never lies/avoids lying?

The way I feel is that if I don't affect their perception of me, then when I'm with this person and if they have a bad image of me, I'm always fighting an uphill battle to prove that I'm not what they think. I have to wait some time for them to correct themselves about me. They may never do so. They may even come up with something even worse and more untrue to say about me, and then the relationship may be unsalvagebable completely and they see me as a harmful or worthless person. Similar issues arise if they have a really good but untrue image of me. I would rather skip all of that trouble, tell them who and what I am, and let them decide how to feel from that.

I don't think harmony is achievable outside the 'alone' state.

Why not? Theoretically, if you and your partner always want the same things, wouldn't that be harmony in selfishness?

I don't think there's any law against mental manipulation. If there was such a law, all the population of the world would go to jail. Even if you manage to 'reprogram' the girl, it is still considered that she's acting based on her own will. That's the official view of it at least.

That was what I meant about harmony in selfishness. In that scenario, you get what you want and she too gets what she wants.

Of course, others will always want things you don't want and vice versa, but you can make it worth each other's while. (And I'm not talking about cheap sexual favors. :ajbemused:)

3342030
I have to say, this is far more honorable than how most people approach "changing" his mind; it's more like people like to look for bad guys like they do in movies to make conflict. But this isn't a movie; this is reality, and in reality, there's always a more mature path to wisdom, and a chance of understanding, learning, and repentance. For seeing this, I congratulate you! :twilightsmile:

3343947
As MLP taught me, bad guys aren't "the bad guys"; there's no such thing as "the bad guy". We've just had to learn to see people that way because if their goals are contradictory to yours, that affects your survival.

Besides, I don't see him as bad. Even if I did, you can't convince someone that they're wrong by telling them that they're bad. If you want to convince someone that they're wrong, you need to show them that their thoughts and actions don't match up to their goals/beliefs.

3343648

because he's basically displaying his ability to "handle his own", which shows that he can provide her with stability...........?

That's what I was implying, yes. If a woman was in relationship where she would be able to smack the guy any time she wanted with no consequences, then she wouldn't be receiving any security from his account. What she can do to him is an indication what others can do to him.

Now that I don't think is true at all.

I was talking about the club environment. There are a hundred people there, you can't know them all, so first impressions come into play. Your status symbols are the first things, that you give out. You can still change your impression, even if you did come with a bicycle. However, having no ambition in your life is a permanent turn off for her. You can't recover from that.

And just sits on his broke ass

And we're back to money. Apparently it his status is important to her. What she gives is basically a definition of a jerk. Ask any girl and she'll tell you that she hates jerks. Look around yourself and you'll see jerks getting girls with no problem. You can see the divergence between what girls say and what you can observe.

Again, all this status symbols are just first impressions. The song does indeed take those first impressions into to much consideration. If the guy would give out impressions that he isn't a 'broke ass' and that he is in charge, his talk about himself would be much more believed from her side.

stability, you're referring to his ability to provide her with the security she's looking for, and not anything else.

Security means protecting her from mostly outside environment (lack of money, judgements from people, solving problems, etc). Stability is more of how much the relationship can take, before it collapses.

If conquering its class doesn't help you conquer the thing, then you dive a bit deeper and conquer its subclasses. That should definitely solve your problem.

That's what I did when I studied sarging. I didn't have a problem with men, only women. Some methods for manipulating men are the same as the ones for manipulating women. Some of them, however are unique for women and that does came from the social and genetic differences between genders.

All of them lie, or deceive, in order to get what they want.

The whole game is based on that.

The wants differ a lot from one person to another, however, these differences do show from one gender to the other as well. Women are more inclined to think about relationships and future family. Men are more inclined to think about sex. In general, of course.

But the point I was trying to make with the breathing analogy is that just because there may be constant maintenance doesn't mean it has to be stressful.

There is a difference. Breathing doesn't require focus. It comes naturally.

I believe some people can bathe in problems without being affected by them. With that kind of mindset, breathing would, indeed, be a good analogy. Some might even like it when there are problems around them. Like that statistics that you posted on the other thread about wives being happy when they piss off their husbands.

I have a different mind-set I want to solve each and every one and I don't rest until all of them are solved. I make it my first priority to solve problems. Analogy vise, I would compare it more to shaving. If you had to constantly shave yourself during the day, even when you were doing other things, it would become tiring. You'd have to be careful at all times. One wrong move and you would cut yourself. Constant focus on shaving would be the key to making it through the day without cuts.

I would rather skip all of that trouble, tell them who and what I am, and let them decide how to feel from that.

I would prefer it, if things worked like that, however, if you want to make a relationship work, you have to take her view of you into account as well. Sometimes this means that you mostly tell her things she's okay with (talking to your colleagues at work) and not telling her about things she wouldn't approve of (giving your hot coworker a thural back massage after she complained of a sore neck).

Theoretically, if you and your partner always want the same things, wouldn't that be harmony in selfishness?

In theory, harmony could be established, yes. In practice, not so much.

In practice, relationships do take work and effort and I see that as a big negative point to them. As for the rewards in the relationships, I can see some, but they don't overwave the equation to the point where relationship would be more enjoyable for me than my current state.

3344103

That's what I was implying, yes. If a woman was in relationship where she would be able to smack the guy any time she wanted with no consequences, then she wouldn't be receiving any security from his account. What she can do to him is an indication what others can do to him.

Alright. Point accepted.

I was talking about the club environment. There are a hundred people there, you can't know them all, so first impressions come into play. Your status symbols are the first things, that you give out. You can still change your impression, even if you did come with a bicycle. However, having no ambition in your life is a permanent turn off for her. You can't recover from that.

I can't say I know what the club environment, but if I'm allowed to speculate, then the idea is that with a certain combination of self esteem + ego, the more likely they are to turn down guys for having things they don't like, even minor things, because they're attractive. They can just wait until another guy comes by and check him out. There's no shortage of guys.

And we're back to money. Apparently it his status is important to her. What she gives is basically a definition of a jerk. Ask any girl and she'll tell you that she hates jerks. Look around yourself and you'll see jerks getting girls with no problem. You can see the divergence between what girls say and what you can observe.

Again, all this status symbols are just first impressions. The song does indeed take those first impressions into to much consideration. If the guy would give out impressions that he isn't a 'broke ass' and that he is in charge, his talk about himself would be much more believed from her side.

When there's divergence between what a person thinks and what they do, they don't understand the world well, so they were never qualified to make judgements in the first place. But there is often such divergence, and not just when it comes to relationships. Convergence is just as common. Some girls may say they want a nice guy and not actually date one, but there are plenty of girls that come right out and say that they want a bad boy, someone powerful, someone strong, etc. and that is exactly who they're with or chasing after.

Yup. Dating is starting to seem a lot like buying a car. At the same time though, no one wants to be with someone they're not attracted to. I get what you mean though, that this is what people are out there looking for.

Security means protecting her from mostly outside environment (lack of money, judgements from people, solving problems, etc). Stability is more of how much the relationship can take, before it collapses.

Alright. I'm not sure how stability comes into play though. Not yet anyway. To me, it's starting to seem like as long as he's the ultimate protector, she's fine.

That's what I did when I studied sarging. I didn't have a problem with men, only women. Some methods for manipulating men are the same as the ones for manipulating women. Some of them, however are unique for women and that does came from the social and genetic differences between genders.

Just making sure you question whether or not the findings are sound. To me, some of those generalizations didn't seem to be. If they're not and you don't question that, you'll develop beliefs that hinder you.

The whole game is based on that.

The wants differ a lot from one person to another, however, these differences do show from one gender to the other as well. Women are more inclined to think about relationships and future family. Men are more inclined to think about sex. In general, of course.

If you play the game, you mean.

Just because there is a dog eat dog environment doesn't mean you need to become a dog to exist within it. Unless, you know, you wanted to become top dog within that environment. But even if you managed to be top dog, you can't stay young and attractive forever. Eventually, your power will dwindle. Outside of that scope, if you want to make progress within, you could perhaps settle for this:

On average, there is definitely a difference between the genders there. As you said also though, different people are interested in different things. So I guess we're in agreement here.

There is a difference. Breathing doesn't require focus. It comes naturally.

I believe some people can bathe in problems without being affected by them. With that kind of mindset, breathing would, indeed, be a good analogy. Some might even like it when there are problems around them. Like that statistics that you posted on the other thread about wives being happy when they piss off their husbands.

I have a different mind-set I want to solve each and every one and I don't rest until all of them are solved. I make it my first priority to solve problems. Analogy vise, I would compare it more to shaving. If you had to constantly shave yourself during the day, even when you were doing other things, it would become tiring. You'd have to be careful at all times. One wrong move and you would cut yourself. Constant focus on shaving would be the key to making it through the day without cuts.

Breathing does come naturally. So does being friends with someone. And so do skills, once developed. I'm not advocating that you develop more skills, but doing some things are easier than doing others, and I wouldn't advocate you do anything that places anymore strain on you than the strain I can handle. I am the absolute bar for "fuck this shit". If I'll do it, I'm certain others can.

That shaving analogy does sound really tiring. But, and this isn't a very strong point but it exists, you're not the only one shaving. If your partner were a barber for example, she can fix much of it herself. This is a really weird analogy and I don't know what I'm saying. Just that you don't have to bear the brunt of relationship problems alone. You may be male, but that doesn't automatically mean you're Mr. Fix It. There are two people in a relationship -- two potential problem solvers.

I would prefer it, if things worked like that, however, if you want to make a relationship work, you have to take her view of you into account as well. Sometimes this means that you mostly tell her things she's okay with (talking to your colleagues at work) and not telling her about things she wouldn't approve of (giving your hot coworker a thural back massage after she complained of a sore neck).

That's precisely why I control people's view of me. If I avoid appearing a certain way then they won't think of me in that way. I like that versus never paying attention to what others thought of me and then coming across as something I'm not.

I think it's possible to tell her all about the massage without causing her to be greatly alarmed. But, for example, if you tell her about the massage in a really sexual way and started talking about what you wanted to do to the girl you massaged, and you know she fears being cheated on, the only thing you're gonna do there is upset her. There's no avoiding that. But there are ways you can express that and give her all the information possible about the situation -- yes, even that you liked it, was turned on by it, and wanted to have sex with her -- that will cause her to experience less pain and accept what happened. Though, whether or not it's successful mainly depends on her fears and your ability to address them. If the fears powerful, you can probably throw all of this talk out of the window.

In theory, harmony could be established, yes. In practice, not so much.

In practice, relationships do take work and effort and I see that as a big negative point to them. As for the rewards in the relationships, I can see some, but they don't overwave the equation to the point where relationship would be more enjoyable for me than my current state.

When you said that first line, are you saying that the possibility might exist but isn't very realistic?

I'm still working from the angle that while it might take work and effort to maintain a relationship, that it might not take SO MUCH to the point where a relationship is completely unattractive. Like, you write for example. To me, writing is very draining, about as draining as your relationship(s). I didn't quit writing (though I did procrastinate for over a year... :twilightblush:); I instead sought out a way to take the strain off so it wouldn't make me feel miserable.

I think that there is a way of having a relationship that -- while it does take effort, that's undeniable -- you can actually stomach it and dish out that effort without feeling the least bit exhausted or even hindered.

So maybe in your last relationship, you were lifting this and carrying it around town:

But would a relationship be so troublesome if this were your burden?

If you can answer yes to that, then you have to admit that there's at least some merit to it.

3344783

They can just wait until another guy comes by and check him out. There's no shortage of guys.

Indeed. This could still work even if there was a shortage of guys.

Here's mathematically correct equation:

If a guy has to hit on 30 women before he gets one, that means, that a woman gets hit on by 30 guys in average and can chose among them.

That's how it generally is in clubs. Guys are 'hitters' and woman are 'pickers'.

Just like guys get ego boost when they have sex with a woman, so do woman get ego boosts when they get hit on by a lot of guys. If those guys are perceived as quality material, than the ego boost intensifies even more.

I'm not sure how stability comes into play though.

Woman is more of a 'nester' than a man is. She doesn't build relationship for her current satisfaction but the promise of future happiness. She dreams of a family, but in order for a that family to have any chance of fruition, the relationship has to survive until then. But is the relationship really that stable. Can she count on her boyfriend to stay with her even when things get rough? Well, hard to know, let's test it out and make a scene and see how he handles it. She'll make it up to him later on, so it really shouldn't be such a bad thing to do.

Just making sure you question whether or not the findings are sound.

What I tested out was, indeed, working. So, there's that. It also explained the behaviours of girls that I was seeing (dating jerks, causing scenes,...). Either way, as for the methods goes, I have no need for them anymore, regardless of whether they are sound or not. All my previous understanding of love and relationship didn't explain any of the things I was actually seeing in real world, so I knew that romantic view of the world doesn't hold any water. These generalizations and techniques come from people that are really good around women. They spend every day with several women and have a very high success rate. If the things they taught were wrong then it wouldn't make much sense why they are so good believing the wrong things and using the wrong methods.

I was hindered before I knew this knowledge. I had no idea how to go about women. But then I learned and I didn't have any problem with the actual dating. At least some of the knowledge I got must have been useful.

If you play the game, you mean.

Yes; that and the relationship. Though, the relationship is just an extension of the game.

Just because there is a dog eat dog environment doesn't mean you need to become a dog to exist within it.

If you have the power to be a top dog and power is the name of the game then why would you choose to be an underdog? I prefer to be a lone wolf.

There are two people in a relationship -- two potential problem solvers.

If people were altruists, then this might work. They could fix each other's problems as well as their own. However, there isn't a single true altruist in the world. Harmonious relationship is an illusion that can not be reached in practice. You can get close to it to some extent, but never reach it.

If the fears powerful, you can probably throw all of this talk out of the window.

At one point, you come to a realization, that sometimes it's just better not to tell—to lie. I have a problem with that. I value honesty, I do not want to become a liar. In the end it all comes down to this: Either I stay to be myself and all potential relationships crumble around me as a result of it; or I become successful and lose myself in the process. I don't want to lose myself. It feels like dying.

When you said that first line, are you saying that the possibility might exist but isn't very realistic?

If people would be perfect, this could be achievable. However, people are not perfect. They have mistakes in them. Those mistakes affect relationship. Most of those problems could be alleviated and worked around, but that isn't harmony anymore. It's work and effort.

I instead sought out a way to take the strain off so it wouldn't make me feel miserable.

Have you discovered a way?

But would a relationship be so troublesome if this (a pebble) were your burden?
You may be right. There may be some potential relationships that I could endure in. However it would take a lot of boulder lifting to find that pebble. In theory, I could waste my life, trying to find it. In the end I could come to the realization, that the world only consists of boulders. Also, it's not easy to tell a boulder from a pebble in the beginning. Even in the best of circumstances, that pebble still chafes. The ultimate freedom no longer exists.

They have a saying in Poland: "One bird in your hand is worth two in the bush." Optimistically looking at it, I think there is a maximum of one and a half bird in the bush. My calculations still warn against jumping in the thorns.

3345000

Indeed. This could still work even if there was a shortage of guys.

How does that work? Wouldn't they eventually have to choose a guy?

Woman is more of a 'nester' than a man is. She doesn't build relationship for her current satisfaction but the promise of future happiness. She dreams of a family, but in order for a that family to have any chance of fruition, the relationship has to survive until then. But is the relationship really that stable. Can she count on her boyfriend to stay with her even when things get rough? Well, hard to know, let's test it out and make a scene and see how he handles it. She'll make it up to him later on, so it really shouldn't be such a bad thing to do.

That which you've described, I know for sure there are women that apply to, but there are women it doesn't apply to as well. I don't really know what the distinguishing factors are there.

That's never happened to me in a relationship (the girl testing me), but then again I've never had a very long one.

What I tested out was, indeed, working. So, there's that. It also explained the behaviours of girls that I was seeing (dating jerks, causing scenes,...). Either way, as for the methods goes, I have no need for them anymore, regardless of whether they are sound or not. All my previous understanding of love and relationship didn't explain any of the things I was actually seeing in real world, so I knew that romantic view of the world doesn't hold any water. These generalizations and techniques come from people that are really good around women. They spend every day with several women and have a very high success rate. If the things they taught were wrong then it wouldn't make much sense why they are so good believing the wrong things and using the wrong methods.

I was hindered before I knew this knowledge. I had no idea how to go about women. But then I learned and I didn't have any problem with the actual dating. At least some of the knowledge I got must have been useful.

Something can seem to work very well and still be unsound, particularly if you don't have the right view of it. If such a view is unsound, you'd only be able to see that once you've stepped outside of it to consider other possibilities. I wasn't questioning the effectiveness so much as the soundness.

Meaning, is this the direct start and end of all relationships? Is there no room for anything else? Are there no alternatives, no other ways the variables can be played with in order for you to get what you want? Is it just straight up not possible to have a relationship where you don't feel drained?

If you have a strong enough understanding of something, you should be able to take pieces of information from that something and do whatever you want with them, like apply them to other completely different situations, and the formula should hold together tightly so long as you make the proper adjustments. If it's sound, that is.

If you have the power to be a top dog and power is the name of the game then why would you choose to be an underdog? I prefer to be a lone wolf.

If in your journey you have to become a dog, and becoming a dog is exactly what you don't want to do, then... everything here was for naught and there's nothing else I can tell you.

However, if some other route gets you want you want, then there's no need to continue think about the whole dog world anymore.

If people were altruists, then this might work. They could fix each other's problems as well as their own. However, there isn't a single true altruist in the world. Harmonious relationship is an illusion that can not be reached in practice. You can get close to it to some extent, but never reach it.

By this, do you mean to say that all relationships are draining?

At one point, you come to a realization, that sometimes it's just better not to tell—to lie. I have a problem with that. I value honesty, I do not want to become a liar. In the end it all comes down to this: Either I stay to be myself and all potential relationships crumble around me as a result of it; or I become successful and lose myself in the process. I don't want to lose myself. It feels like dying.

Why do you think lying is necessary?

If people would be perfect, this could be achievable. However, people are not perfect. They have mistakes in them. Those mistakes affect relationship. Most of those problems could be alleviated and worked around, but that isn't harmony anymore. It's work and effort.

I see what you mean. But I don't think perfection is required for that. Perhaps for there to be zero conflicts, perfection would be required. But I think zero serious conflicts is entirely possible.

Have you discovered a way?

I believe I have, but I won't know until I try it. I won't try it until I've done enough world building, and I won't do that until I've framed what I need to and want to do relative to the story I'm making. In case you're curious, I'm talking about the video below. Wonder if that can be applied to relationships, too?

You can cure writer's block with one simple sentence, and that is: give yourself permission to write garbage.

Hmm. If there is a correlation... then..

When writing, you don't want to write garbage, so to avoid writing garbage you try to write well, and attempting to write well causes the strain. So you give yourself permission to write garbage, which, theoretically, should release the strain, and then you can go back and shape the story up into non-garbage later on through editing, which will still come with strain, but much less of it.

Sooo.. when in a relationship, you don't want to fuck it up with problems, so to avoid fucking up you try to focus heavily on doing it right, and attempting to do that causes the strain. So you give yourself permission to fuck it up, which, theoreticallly, should release the strain, and then you can go back and shape the relationship up with.... uh... non-fuckedupness :twilightsheepish: later on through..... editing :facehoof:, which will still come with strain, but much less of it.

How's that sound?

You may be right.

There may be some potential relationships that I could endure in. However it would take a lot of boulder lifting to find that pebble. In theory, I could waste my life, trying to find it. In the end I could come to the realization, that the world only consists of boulders. Also, it's not easy to tell a boulder from a pebble in the beginning. Even in the best of circumstances, that pebble still chafes. The ultimate freedom no longer exists.

They have a saying in Poland: "One bird in your hand is worth two in the bush." Optimistically looking at it, I think there is a maximum of one and a half bird in the bush. My calculations still warn against jumping in the thorns.

That means the next step is developing an understanding of relationship burden. That way, you don't waste time just diving into a relationship to find out if it's a boulder or a pebble. With studying, you might even find out there's something one or both of you are doing that causes the rock to be so heavy, rather than just assuming that all relationships are boulder-burdening. You can probably even chisel that boulder into nothing with little effort. We've got a whole new set of possibilities to explore.

I had to talk to several different people and look up online what the hell that quote meant. Apparently, one bird in the hand means that you certainly get a bird, whereas two in the bush means that the possibility of getting both is less certain. Two in the bush is worth more than one in the hand if you need two immediately and you're pressed for time. And who's to say you can't have two in the hand. :eeyup:

3345000

Indeed. This could still work even if there was a shortage of guys.

How does that work? Wouldn't they eventually have to choose a guy?

Woman is more of a 'nester' than a man is. She doesn't build relationship for her current satisfaction but the promise of future happiness. She dreams of a family, but in order for a that family to have any chance of fruition, the relationship has to survive until then. But is the relationship really that stable. Can she count on her boyfriend to stay with her even when things get rough? Well, hard to know, let's test it out and make a scene and see how he handles it. She'll make it up to him later on, so it really shouldn't be such a bad thing to do.

That which you've described, I know for sure there are women that apply to, but there are women it doesn't apply to as well. I don't really know what the distinguishing factors are there.

That's never happened to me in a relationship (the girl testing me), but then again I've never had a very long one.

What I tested out was, indeed, working. So, there's that. It also explained the behaviours of girls that I was seeing (dating jerks, causing scenes,...). Either way, as for the methods goes, I have no need for them anymore, regardless of whether they are sound or not. All my previous understanding of love and relationship didn't explain any of the things I was actually seeing in real world, so I knew that romantic view of the world doesn't hold any water. These generalizations and techniques come from people that are really good around women. They spend every day with several women and have a very high success rate. If the things they taught were wrong then it wouldn't make much sense why they are so good believing the wrong things and using the wrong methods.

I was hindered before I knew this knowledge. I had no idea how to go about women. But then I learned and I didn't have any problem with the actual dating. At least some of the knowledge I got must have been useful.

Something can seem to work very well and still be unsound, particularly if you don't have the right view of it. If such a view is unsound, you'd only be able to see that once you've stepped outside of it to consider other possibilities. I wasn't questioning the effectiveness so much as the soundness.

Meaning, is this the direct start and end of all relationships? Is there no room for anything else? Are there no alternatives, no other ways the variables can be played with in order for you to get what you want? Is it just straight up not possible to have a relationship where you don't feel drained?

If you have a strong enough understanding of something, you should be able to take pieces of information from that something and do whatever you want with them, like apply them to other completely different situations, and the formula should hold together tightly so long as you make the proper adjustments. If it's sound, that is.

If you have the power to be a top dog and power is the name of the game then why would you choose to be an underdog? I prefer to be a lone wolf.

If in your journey you have to become a dog, and becoming a dog is exactly what you don't want to do, then... everything here was for naught and there's nothing else I can tell you.

However, if some other route gets you want you want, then there's no need to continue think about the whole dog world anymore.

If people were altruists, then this might work. They could fix each other's problems as well as their own. However, there isn't a single true altruist in the world. Harmonious relationship is an illusion that can not be reached in practice. You can get close to it to some extent, but never reach it.

By this, do you mean to say that all relationships are draining?

At one point, you come to a realization, that sometimes it's just better not to tell—to lie. I have a problem with that. I value honesty, I do not want to become a liar. In the end it all comes down to this: Either I stay to be myself and all potential relationships crumble around me as a result of it; or I become successful and lose myself in the process. I don't want to lose myself. It feels like dying.

Why do you think lying is necessary?

If people would be perfect, this could be achievable. However, people are not perfect. They have mistakes in them. Those mistakes affect relationship. Most of those problems could be alleviated and worked around, but that isn't harmony anymore. It's work and effort.

I see what you mean. But I don't think perfection is required for that. Perhaps for there to be zero conflicts, perfection would be required. But I think zero serious conflicts is entirely possible.

Have you discovered a way?

I believe I have, but I won't know until I try it. I won't try it until I've done enough world building, and I won't do that until I've framed what I need to and want to do relative to the story I'm making. In case you're curious, I'm talking about the video below. Wonder if that can be applied to relationships, too?

You can cure writer's block with one simple sentence, and that is: give yourself permission to write garbage.

Hmm. If there is a correlation... then..

When writing, you don't want to write garbage, so to avoid writing garbage you try to write well, and attempting to write well causes the strain. So you give yourself permission to write garbage, which, theoretically, should release the strain, and then you can go back and shape the story up into non-garbage later on through editing, which will still come with strain, but much less of it.

Sooo.. when in a relationship, you don't want to fuck it up with problems, so to avoid fucking up you try to focus heavily on doing it right, and attempting to do that causes the strain. So you give yourself permission to fuck it up, which, theoreticallly, should release the strain, and then you can go back and shape the relationship up with.... uh... non-fuckedupness :twilightsheepish: later on through..... editing :facehoof:, which will still come with strain, but much less of it.

How's that sound?

You may be right.

There may be some potential relationships that I could endure in. However it would take a lot of boulder lifting to find that pebble. In theory, I could waste my life, trying to find it. In the end I could come to the realization, that the world only consists of boulders. Also, it's not easy to tell a boulder from a pebble in the beginning. Even in the best of circumstances, that pebble still chafes. The ultimate freedom no longer exists.

They have a saying in Poland: "One bird in your hand is worth two in the bush." Optimistically looking at it, I think there is a maximum of one and a half bird in the bush. My calculations still warn against jumping in the thorns.

That means the next step is developing an understanding of relationship burden. That way, you don't waste time just diving into a relationship to find out if it's a boulder or a pebble. With studying, you might even find out there's something one or both of you are doing that causes the rock to be so heavy, rather than just assuming that all relationships are boulder-burdening. You can probably even chisel that boulder into nothing with little effort. We've got a whole new set of possibilities to explore.

I had to talk to several different people and look up online what the hell that quote meant. Apparently, one bird in the hand means that you certainly get a bird, whereas two in the bush means that the possibility of getting both is less certain. Two in the bush is worth more than one in the hand if you need two immediately and you're pressed for time. And who's to say you can't have two in the hand. :eeyup:

3345474 3345475

How does that work? Wouldn't they eventually have to choose a guy?

Well yes, but the math would still work. Guys would still have to approach 30 girls to get one and girls would be choosing between 20 guys (the numbers are just exemplary).

Is it just straight up not possible to have a relationship where you don't feel drained?

When the topic came up, my friend that knew me for years said this to me:

Buddy, here's how your ideal relationship would look like. It would be you, hovering in the vacuum in your room, and her staying in a separate room.

I think he was right.

if some other route gets you want you want, then there's no need to continue think about the whole dog world anymore.

some of the things people want are wrong. You shouldn't be eating live babies every morning for breakfast, even if you want to.

Sometimes it's not the lack of wish fulfillment that is the problem. It's having that wish.

I've never liked the dog world, but I did get pulled into it because I believed there would be cookies. I didn't found those and the world itself proved to be worst then I imagined it to be before.

I can't say for certain, that the cookies that I want don't exist. Maybe there's a whole stash of them somewhere. At some point, however, it's better to give up the search if you find no indication of the thing you're looking for.

I can survive without the cookies. There's plenty of other food outside of the dog world. Maybe I find myself a stash of even tastier food, that I couldn't enjoy if I were stuffed on cookies.

By this, do you mean to say that all relationships are draining?

Yes. There are pros and cons in every relationship. I don't think any practical relationship exists without cons.

Why do you think lying is necessary?

You get punished if you are sincere, and get rewarded for lying and covering up information. You're hurting yourself and everyone around you by staying true to yourself.

But I think zero serious conflicts is entirely possible.

Small conflicts are small until you multiply them by the entirety of time they persist.

I'm not sure how long Twilight could sit in there without fixing that inkwell.

I'm talking about the video below. Wonder if that can be applied to relationships, too?

Yes, I can see that being applied to relationships, sarging at least. You should try talking to a girl in the elevator about the weather. Perhaps it grows into something more and perhaps it will free your restrictions, so you will be able to hit hard targets with greater ease. I can definitely find it useful for the first sarging. Your goal with that shouldn't be to get a girl of your dreams on the first try, but to just survive a normal conversation.

I'm on a completely different scale in regard to this, though. I have the opposite of a writer's block. Ideas in my head are a problem. They are on replay and they occupy my mind. Writing them down frees my brain of them. I guess I could say that my goal as a writer is to achieve the writer's block.

Give yourself permission to fuck it up. How's that sound?

I'm not sure if I would give myself permission to write garbage if the bad sentences would step out of computer screen at night and jump on my head until I regretted writing them.

With people, when you fuck up it's fucked up. It will always be that way. You can do a rewrite, but the original will still loom around, haunting you; no amount of fixing it will make it go away.

Also, real people can get hurt. I don't want to be the reason for it. With people, you have responsibility, you can't do whatever you want, you have to—limit yourself.

I had to talk to several different people and look up online what the hell that quote meant.

Sorry about that. I should have gone with its equivalent: "A sparrow in your hand is better than a pigeon on the roof.".

Either way, the point is, that sometimes it's better to be happy with what you have, then to chase after something shinier that you may or may not get.

I'm not saying, that I'm absolutely certain, that there isn't one and a half birds in one of the bushes. I'll just assume, that there is 1.5 birds in one bush. There could in theory, somewhere be a person with which I could potentially connect and possibly form a better relationship with, than the one I have with myself. Assuming all that, I still think it isn't worth pursuing it. It's too much of a long shot and I'd most certainly lose that sparrow, chasing after that elusive, speculative pigeon.

3347386

When the topic came up, my friend that knew me for years said this to me:

Buddy, here's how your ideal relationship would look like. It would be you, hovering in the vacuum in your room, and her staying in a separate room.

I think he was right.

Ideals don't exactly encompass a method for achieving your desires, they just show what you want the end results to be. But that which can be imagined can be actualized, unless something obstructs it, and upon finding the obstruction, you can examine it and figure out how to deal with it from there. Obstruction's not the end of the journey. I mean, even a mouse can think to chew through a wall.

Just cause it's imagined doesn't mean that it's all in your head and you can never have what you want. Just because 100% of what you want isn't possible doesn't mean that you can't enjoy what you could potentially get and not consider it good overall.

That said, it's totally possible that whatever answer we ultimately find might not satisfy either of us. But, it's also totally possible that we find what we want. To know that though, we have to take a look at everything before we can ultimately decide that there's no point because we won't get what we want.

some of the things people want are wrong. You shouldn't be eating live babies every morning for breakfast, even if you want to.

What's so evil about wanting only relationships that don't drain you...?

Sometimes it's not the lack of wish fulfillment that is the problem. It's having that wish.

I've never liked the dog world, but I did get pulled into it because I believed there would be cookies. I didn't found those and the world itself proved to be worst then I imagined it to be before.

I can't say for certain, that the cookies that I want don't exist. Maybe there's a whole stash of them somewhere. At some point, however, it's better to give up the search if you find no indication of the thing you're looking for.

I can survive without the cookies. There's plenty of other food outside of the dog world. Maybe I find myself a stash of even tastier food, that I couldn't enjoy if I were stuffed on cookies.

What if you could have those same exact cookies without becoming a dog? Then it would be fine, wouldn't it? Maybe you can survive just fine without them, but you'd still like some. If you could get it without suffering. You still want it, right? A nice, juicy cookie.

Yes. There are pros and cons in every relationship. I don't think any practical relationship exists without cons.

I don't think any type of relationship, period, exists without cons. I also don't think that just because a relationship has cons means that said cons are powerful enough to cause strain.

You get punished if you are sincere, and get rewarded for lying and covering up information. You're hurting yourself and everyone around you by staying true to yourself.

What, exactly, must you lie about?

Small conflicts are small until you multiply them by the entirety of time they persist.

I haven't been with enough people long enough to say anything further about that. But as far as other kinds of relationships go, I have completely ejected people out of my life once I realized that they were sources of negativity.

As I've said in a completely different thread here, sometimes, what you think is conflict may be illusory. You perceive conflict but conflict isn't present, yet you react as though there is conflict, which causes the whole fight or flight feeling within you, which causes the strain. Talking can help you sort it out sometimes. But... yeah, that's definitely effort, and it's hard to talk to someone, for example, when they're being hostile.

I'm not sure how long Twilight could sit in there without fixing that inkwell.

That was a creepy video. The creepiest part of the video is that Applejack had to have known she would do that the moment she decided to do it.

With people, when you fuck up it's fucked up. It will always be that way. You can do a rewrite, but the original will still loom around, haunting you; no amount of fixing it will make it go away.

Also, real people can get hurt. I don't want to be the reason for it. With people, you have responsibility, you can't do whatever you want, you have to—limit yourself.

I'm not sure what to say about this at all, except that.. this way isn't valid because you don't want to hurt anyone.

Sorry about that. I should have gone with its equivalent: "A sparrow in your hand is better than a pigeon on the roof.".

It's not your fault, it's the quote's fault. It literally says one thing but means another, and that meaning's not easy to derive.

Either way, the point is, that sometimes it's better to be happy with what you have, then to chase after something shinier that you may or may not get.

Perhaps that's true, but there's nothing wrong with cautiously and studiously pursuing what you want, either. You can do more than one thing on this rock.

I'm not saying, that I'm absolutely certain, that there isn't one and a half birds in one of the bushes. I'll just assume, that there is 1.5 birds in one bush. There could in theory, somewhere be a person with which I could potentially connect and possibly form a better relationship with, than the one I have with myself. Assuming all that, I still think it isn't worth pursuing it. It's too much of a long shot and I'd most certainly lose that sparrow, chasing after that elusive, speculative pigeon.

But you're assuming that it's both rare and difficult to obtain. For what reason?

If you could guarantee this better relationship, would you opt not to pursue it?

3347836

What's so evil about wanting only relationships that don't drain you...?

Having a want that will never get fulfilled is not a good thing from the mental health perspective.

Objectively looking, you're right, having this want by itself wouldn't hurt anyone.

What if you could have those same exact cookies without becoming a dog? Then it would be fine, wouldn't it? Maybe you can survive just fine without them, but you'd still like some. If you could get it without suffering. You still want it, right? A nice, juicy cookie.

Yes, I do still want cookies. That want is only 20% of what it used to be, though. I don't think you can get those cookies without becoming a part of the dog world.

What, exactly, must you lie about?

I gave you that 'massage sexy coworker example'. Adjusting the story to fit the listener is just shy of lying. Also, it's work and effort.

Perhaps that's true, but there's nothing wrong with cautiously and studiously pursuing what you want, either. You can do more than one thing on this rock.

There's always a chance that you'll find gold under a random rock. It's a small possibility, though. It's better to assume you will never find gold under a rock in your life than to secretly hope for it and lift a rock or two from time to time. All the efforts and all the time thinking about it are wasted on said gold. It's draining by itself.

But you're assuming that it's both rare and difficult to obtain. For what reason?

I've never seen it before. I've seen no evidence of it. It goes in the face of human egotistical nature. Even if I found it, I wouldn't recognize it at a first glance. I don't have time to study every single rock/bird on the planet.

If you could guarantee this better relationship, would you opt not to pursue it?

I'd pursue it if time investment to achieve it wouldn't be to big.

3349405

Having a want that will never get fulfilled is not a good thing from the mental health perspective.

Need to determine that it's an impossibility first.

Yes, I do still want cookies.

Awesome. I do too.

That want is only 20% of what it used to be, though.

Same for me.

I gave you that 'massage sexy coworker example'. Adjusting the story to fit the listener is just shy of lying. Also, it's work and effort.

Well, not to say that you can't go around giving sexy massages once you're in a in a relationship, but what if you're like me and find touching other people awkward to begin with? What are some things that I would have to lie about in order to keep a relationship going? I'm just trying to understand what makes lying not only necessary, but inescapable. I know why it's necessary, you say that a relationship would crumble without lying, but what is it that people must lie about?

I'd pursue it if time investment to achieve it wouldn't be to big.

Good, so there's a possibility of interest still. :twilightsmile:

I've never seen it before. I've seen no evidence of it. It goes in the face of human egotistical nature. Even if I found it, I wouldn't recognize it at a first glance. I don't have time to study every single rock/bird on the planet.

...

I don't think you can get those cookies without becoming a part of the dog world.

...

There's always a chance that you'll find gold under a random rock. It's a small possibility, though. It's better to assume you will never find gold under a rock in your life than to secretly hope for it and lift a rock or two from time to time. All the efforts and all the time thinking about it are wasted on said gold. It's draining by itself.

I think it's time to focus more on the goal.

Just to clarify, the goal is essentially this:

To both obtain and maintain a strainless relationship, without being unfaithful to yourself or others.

Where "strainless" is defined as:
Work that is not draining

And "being unfaithful" is defined as:
Inflicting pain
Deceiving/Lying

Correct? If not, make modifications where necessary.

3349919

Need to determine that it's an impossibility first.

Finding gold under a turned stone is not impossible, but you might get sent in a mental hospital if you keep turning the stones over.

Correct? If not, make modifications where necessary.

You've defined it very well. It sounds like a perfect relationship, but you know what they say about things that sound to good to be true.

What are some things that I would have to lie about in order to keep a relationship going?

Here are some things your spouse could ask you. What would your responses be? Anypony is welcome to join in this discussion and attempt to answer these questions, btw. I'd love to hear your answers.
1. I'm sure you have stuff to do, but do you wanna walk me to the bus station anyway?

2. Why did you eat outside today, if you waited we could eat together. You're not going to let us drift apart, are you? You'll wait for me next time, won't you?

3. Did you think about me at work today?

4. Are you friendly to my parents just on my account?

5. What were your thoughts about my friend? Not as sexy as I am, right?

6. Is there something else you'd rather be doing now than being with me right now?

7. Do you find me attractive, or am I lacking on some front?

8. I don't want my friends seeing you wearing that thing. You don't mind putting this on instead, do you?

9. Are you faithful to me just because I want you to be?

10. Can you think of anything wrong with our relationship? I sure as hell can't think of anything. Now take off your pants.

11. That movie really made me horny. I was thinking about you all the time in that scene. I bet you were thinking about me as well?

12. You were sparing yourself for this special night of ours, haven't you? I was too. I'm so excited. I'm really glad that you find it just as special.

13. What do you think about when you're making love to me?

14. I know I said we'd do that special thing tonight, but I don't really feel like doing it. You don't mind, do you? Just go to sleep.

15. Would you prefer to be with anyone else than me right now?

16. What are your plans for us?

17. How do you imagine our marriage?

18. Do you ever think about leaving me?

19. Do you love me?

20. If you told me that you're thinking of ending our relationship, I'd probably just jump out of the window right now. But I know you love me unconditionally, don't you?

3350042

You've defined it very well. It sounds like a perfect relationship, but you know what they say about things that sound to good to be true.

Fantastic. But my brain is dead right now. Why? I blame you for the questions. I blame me for answering them first. Give me anywhere from a few hours to a day to go forward with that part. I'll keep that part saved.

Here are some things your spouse could ask you. What would your responses be?

...Whoa.

I don't even wanna answering. I can feel how loaded each of those questions are. Those questions are asked by some pretty girly girls. But... eh. What the hell.

1. Wanna walk me to the bus station?
(If I want to) "Sure."
(If I don't) "Fuck that."

2. Why did you eat outside, if you waited we could eat together. You're not going to let us drift apart, are you? You'll wait for me next time, won't you?
'Stop blowing shit outta proportion."

3. Did you think about me at work today?
(If I did) "Yes <insert sexual followup> :heart:"
(If I didn't) 'Nope."
If ready to talk, I'll introduce an actual subject. That is, unless she does. If she can't though, then it seems that if I'm going to continue dating such a person though, I'll need to lead all of the conversations myself. That would certainly break your rule of strain, and perhaps your rule of effort. Anyway, for me personally, that's tedious.

4. Are you friendly to my parents just on my account?
(If I am) "I... don't want to hate their guts. :unsuresweetie:"
(If I'm not) "No. What gave you that idea...?"

5. What were your thoughts about my friend? Not as sexy as I am, right?
"Uh. Yeah, sure."
I can acknowledge that some girls are more attractive than others. I can understand a girl's need to know that she's attractive, but it becomes something else entirely when she needs constant reassurance like what that question seems to be suggesting. If she's saying that just to see what I say or just to play with me, that's cool, but if she's saying that because she needs to be convinced that she must be better than every single girl out there in order to keep me, then this relationship is dead until that belief has been eradicated. I will not play the "You're hotter than her" game to make her happy, and I will not feed into her competitive spirit like that. So if she pushes the question after my answer, I'll know there's a problem.

By the way, I'm answering these questions without giving thought to what they might mean to her. I promise I'm not metagaming. I don't know if you can tell that or not, just thought I would mention it.

6. Is there something else you'd rather be doing now than being with me right now?
"That's not a question."
She's asking me this question because she wants to know if I've ever thought about living my life without her. If I give a valid answer to this question, it's proof of emotional separation. If I answer the question with something like "What? Baby, what makes you think I'd even have thoughts like that?", then she gets the idea that she has a pretty solid place in my heart, which may eventually cause her to think something like "Dang, is this all it takes to make this guy happy? I'mma go find me a challenge. :ajbemused:"

7. Do you find me attractive, or am I lacking on some front?
"What?"
I know that whatever answer I give to this will bore a girl out of her mind. But I won't give that question an answer.

8. I don't want my friends seeing you wearing that thing. You don't mind putting this on instead, do you?
I will absolutely not allow anyone to control my actions. I don't care what their method of manipulation is. Once I detect it, I will either fight against it some way, show them that it's ineffective, tell them that it's ineffective, or tell them that what they're doing isn't cool with me. After I've expressed that point clearly, then we can talk about addressing her concerns.

9. Are you faithful to me just because I want you to be?
I need to address that I don't agree with the idea of limiting yourself to one person. That doesn't mean, though, that I'll just go out and cheat. Situations surrounding cheating can range from simple to extraordinarily complex, so I can't say that I wouldn't either. But I can say that it would be highly unlikely if I know she doesn't agree with it and I have to go out and find this new partner to cheat with and plan it out and such. Only as a gamer have I ever made plans to benefit by screwing other people over, and that's only within the context of the game. I don't really go out looking for girls, and I'm strong enough to kick people out of my life that are detrimental to me.

If we haven't discussed ideals yet, I wouldn't be interested in dating her. I don't care how amazingly physically attractive she is. Incompatible ideology would make her extremely unattractive; if not sexually, then very much so mentally. So I would not have a relationship with a girl who would ask such a question in the first place. She would know exactly why. On the off-chance that I did, what we have left would probably not survive.

In short, I can't answer this question with words alone.

10. Can you think of anything wrong with our relationship? I sure as hell can't think of anything. Now take off your pants.
:rainbowderp:
I know three girls that might say something like that.

11. That movie really made me horny. I was thinking about you all the time in that scene. I bet you were thinking about me as well?
Boring. I wouldn't answer.

12. You were sparing yourself for this special night of ours, haven't you? I was too. I'm so excited. I'm really glad that you find it just as special.
Boring. I wouldn't answer.

13. What do you think about when you're making love to me?
Truthful answer. Though my senses tell me that I shouldn't give a valid answer to the question. When you have sex with someone that you REALLY want to have sex with, your mind pretty much shuts down certain points. If you're able to think, that means your mind wasn't shut down.

14. I know I said we'd do that special thing tonight, but don't feel like it. You don't mind, do you? Just go to sleep.
Mind change is OK. Flake is not. Depends upon the circumstances.

15. Would you prefer to be with anyone else than me right now?
*Gets up and walks away*
No, not really. But what the hell. Are girls on average this emotionally broken? I doubt this. I've talked to many different girls, and each are strong in certain ways and weak in others. I can't recall girls that are this... what's the word. Insecure?

16. What are your plans for us?
Say them if I have them. Don't if I don't.

17. How do you imagine our marriage?

18. Do you ever think about leaving me?
See 15.

19. Do you love me?
I will either not answer or give an answer that's so ridiculous that she understands not to ask this question.

20. If you told me that you're thinking of ending our relationship, I'd probably just jump out of the window right now. But I know you love me unconditionally, don't you?
There are absolutely too many variables to this question to consider, some of which I don't even want to get started on. Let's just say that I am 100% confident in my ability to handle this question to a satisfactory end.

God, that was awful. I hate you. :ajbemused:

Okay. going back and forth here for the last few days has been a bit straining. Now that I've got a little more energy to put into this, let's see. Also, take your time in coming back. Ready whenever you are. But if nearly a few weeks pass since the post, I'll try and get you back here.

To both obtain and maintain a strainless relationship, without being unfaithful to yourself or others.

Where "strainless" is defined as:
Work that is not draining

And "being unfaithful" is defined as:
Inflicting pain
Deceiving/Lying

So the goal's conditions are:

1) Obtain relationship
2) Maintain relationship
3) Steps 1 and 2 carried out strainlessly and faithfully.

So the questions now are how are steps 1 and 2 carried out, but without breaking rule 3. So we need to do some information gathering. And... well, you probably have more experience with obtaining relationships than I do, but I guess I can state mine too.

Obtaining relationship
I've gotten relationships just by hinting that I'm interested in them. This is after being friends with them for a bit. Like, that's it. Also, as I said before, sometimes girls approach me. Both scenarios satisfy condition 3, so they'd be appropriate.

Maintain relationship
This is the tricky part. I've got little for this. Absolutely no personal experience. Plenty of theory though.

As I said before, I think maintaining a relationship is like maintaining any other kind of relationship. Give them enough of what they want and take enough of what you want. In that manner, you're satisfied and they're satisfied. The person also needs to see that there's room to progress within though, so just giving them the same thing forever won't be satisfactory. Eventually, you'll have to give more, or help/allow them to find more for themselves. You could also barter with them. They make a demand, you make one too. But I've little knowledge about what to do if a trade goes wrong or is even flat out refused. Also, depending on what's going on, this can be anywhere from extremely easy to back breakingly strenuous. Actually, no, maybe I do. At that point, you should probably just end the relationship if it's clear that this sort of thing will continue to be a theme.

3357174

Those questions are asked by some pretty girly girls. But... eh. What the hell.

Thanks for your answers. I think you did pretty well. You may have what it takes to survive a relationship. You did risk 2) a little and sacrificed a bit of 3) as well. But then again, that's exactly what it takes for a relationship to 'work'.

But if nearly a few weeks pass since the post, I'll try and get you back here.

You speak as if I had life outside of this site. :rainbowwild:

1) Obtain relationship
2) Maintain relationship
3) Steps 1 and 2 carried out strainlessly and faithfully.

I can do 1) and 2), as you probably saw from my questions, I can't do 3) without breaking 1) and 2). Perhaps it can be done, but then 1) and 2) become very hard.

Either way, those 3 points assume meaning in relationship, but that might also be a bit tricky. We're all brainwashed that getting a relationship in your life is a must, but is there really a purpose to it? I'm not so sure. Just in case, we might want to add 4) Have a motivation for a relationship.

2) is actually easier than 1) in theory. Breaking up is a bad experience and acts as a positive motivation to stay together. You don't get that factor in 1). You can even relax yourself in 2) a little bit, since first impressions about certain subjects don't matter so much. It's a long range hawl, so you can mostly use more than one sentence to get your point across, which is not always the case for 1). The con of 2), however, is that it's a long term obligation. Things that you didn't even notice in 1) start to irk you, since you have to deal with them on a daily basis. That's why most of the relationships are most enjoyable in the beginning. Then that enjoyment starts to slowly fade away.

There are people that enjoy conflict. It invigorates them. They meet all four conditions, so I imagine, that they could form and maintain a 'happy' relationship.

Myself being a person that tries to solve every conflict reasonably is admittedly a problem. I can only live with so many mosquitos in a room, before I start searching for a pesticide.

In the end we may come to a conclusion, that you have to be a certain kind of person to enjoy the relationship. Being tolerant to the problems around me is not something I want to do. I would view it as degradation. Becoming less.

3357711
With a girl who asks stuff like that, dunno if I'd want to survive. Nevermind surviving within the relationship.

You speak as if I had life outside of this site. :rainbowwild:

I probably have the least of a life between the two of us. And it was starting to wear down on me.

Perhaps it can be done, but then 1) and 2) become very hard.

Gotta find out what's in between first. Then, maybe we can find a way to make it easy.

We're all brainwashed that getting a relationship in your life is a must, but is there really a purpose to it?

I haven't. In fact, whenever someone makes a strong claim of any kind (ex. you must have a job), I question it harshly and go against it emotionally. But I know what you're trying to say.

We're all brainwashed that getting a relationship in your life is a must, but is there really a purpose to it?

:ajsmug:

The beauty of life.

4) Have a motivation for a relationship.

The motivation for anything is reward, so I think this goes unspoken.

I had a long post typed up about this but upon reflection, I think you're right. The reason being, you don't need a short term goals for relationships; you need lots of them. You need some long term ones, too. This was what I was talking about, when I said you need room to progress within a relationship.

In the end we may come to a conclusion, that you have to be a certain kind of person to enjoy the relationship. Being tolerant to the problems around me is not something I want to do. I would view it as degradation. Becoming less.

I doubt that you have to change who you are to accomplish any goal, but we'll see. I don't want to become more tolerant of things that make me miserable, but if changing my view of things can help make me less miserable, I'm down for it. That has happened for me, by the way.

2) is actually easier than 1) in theory. Breaking up is a bad experience and acts as a positive motivation to stay together. You don't get that factor in 1). You can even relax yourself in 2) a little bit, since first impressions about certain subjects don't matter so much. It's a long range hawl, so you can mostly use more than one sentence to get your point across, which is not always the case for 1). The con of 2), however, is that it's a long term obligation. Things that you didn't even notice in 1) start to irk you, since you have to deal with them on a daily basis. That's why most of the relationships are most enjoyable in the beginning. Then that enjoyment starts to slowly fade away.

I think that might be because of the whole crush butterflies thing.

Well, if you think 1 is easier than 2, let's start with what you believe as far as 1 goes. What are your thoughts on getting a relationship without regard for 3, and how do they conflict with 3?

3357930

With a girl who asks stuff like that, dunno if I'd want to survive. Nevermind surviving within the relationship.

When I was in a relationship, things got so bad on occasion or two that I daydreamed of accidentally dying. Imagining it felt like stepping out of boiling water. All problems instantly solved.

My experience is not the reason for my view of relationships, though. I had the same view before, I just couldn't trust it, since it was 'untested'.

I probably have the least of a life between the two of us. And it was starting to wear down on me.

Why was it wearing you down?

Gotta find out what's in between first. Then, maybe we can find a way to make it easy.

The easiest solution is, if your morals and principles are flexible enough that you can abandon 3). Then you can do 1) and 2) without much strain.

We're all brainwashed that getting a relationship in your life is a must

Every single one of your ancestors saw something in relationships. You can go back a million generations and it would still hold true. Can you break the cycle. Can you end what your forefathers have been trying to accomplish? Some have given up their life for it, only to 'see' it put to waste when the gene relay responsibility came into your hands.

You've been brought up in a place where there was a motivation to have children. It stayed present during your upbringing. It was a norm.

You live in a society of people that came from families. You don't hear the views of offsprings of those that thought differently. Non of such people exist.

Relationships are like having separate restrooms for men and women. Nobody questions it. It's been like that since ages, everyone abides by it. It's woven so deep that just questioning it is deviant. You have people living their entire lives without posing themselves this question, despite the question looming all around them.

I have a phobia of being trapped by my own narrow mindedness. I always try to explore all alternatives in every situation just for that reason. Why do you question the society's norms?

The motivation for anything is reward, so I think this goes unspoken.

If we know that rewards are valid and good, then yes, motivation comes naturally from that.

progress within a relationship

Is there a purpose to the perpetual motion of things? Why can't things be at their highest levels at the start and remain so until the end? Wouldn't that be more optimal?

I doubt that you have to change who you are to accomplish any goal

When you're dealing with other people, than who you are is sometimes viewed as a problem.

There's nothing wrong with being nude. Going naked to a job interview, however...

if changing my view of things can help make me less miserable, I'm down for it. That has happened for me, by the way.

What were the new views that made you less miserable?

I think that might be because of the whole crush butterflies thing.

Not necessarily. Yes, the crush can cover up all the little annoyances, but it isn't a necessary condition. The hope for things to improve, the sense of getting ever more closer to each other (feels like a pro, but can turn out to be a con on the long run), building a new life. It can work very well even without the crush.

What are your thoughts on getting a relationship

The trick here isn't to fulfill the need of the potential spouse (most virgins do this mistake), the success lies in generating or uncovering the needs in your potential spouse, then relaying a possibility of you fulfilling them. You shouldn't bring gifts to your future partner. They won't be appreciated if you do that. Instead, you should point them the way that will lead them to the gifts you can offer. As they walk the path you set up, they form interest in you. Anything that you put effort in becomes subjectively valuable.

But that's mostly theory. In practice, the easiest way to do 1) is to try as many times as you can. Make use of every opportunity you get and form extra opportunities if you can. It's a game of chances, so the more dices you throw, the higher the possibility of scoring. Even if you know absolutely nothing and are really bad at it, the big enough number of tries can almost guarantee you success. Of course, it does take some effort and loads of time. It's an investment, but if you have high enough motivation, that can be surmountable.

3358418

When I was in a relationship, things got so bad on occasion or two that I daydreamed of accidentally dying. Imagining it felt like stepping out of boiling water. All problems instantly solved.

I've never thought like that. I've always attributed every negative feeling I had to someone else.

Why was it wearing you down?

Takes a while to come up with posts. I'm good now.

The easiest solution is, if your morals and principles are flexible enough that you can abandon 3). Then you can do 1) and 2) without much strain.

Really? I thought the strain came from the fact that you even had to implement deceptive measures. I have no problem being deceptive. I don't like it but I can easily do it. I wouldn't use it as a standard tactic in a relationship though. That's draining regardless of morality IMO.

Relationships are like having separate restrooms for men and women. Nobody questions it.

I've questioned that too, actually. There is no real answer for this. I mean, there's advantages to doing so of course, but not so to the point of every place in America having restrooms separated by sex.

I understand what you're trying to say though. What's the point of it all? The point of a relationship is whatever you make of it.

Why do you question the society's norms?

Because if I don't and accept someone's word as truth, eventually I'll be hurt by it and no one will give a shit. I've been hurt enough by following other people's word.

If we know that rewards are valid and good, then yes, motivation comes naturally from that.

Sometimes, just the assumption is enough. You do X and I'll do Y. You want me to do Y, so you'll do X. I may even choose not to do Y, but by telling you that I'll do Y if you do X, I've at least opened up the possibility of it. Motivation comes from perceived reward.

Is there a purpose to the perpetual motion of things? Why can't things be at their highest levels at the start and remain so until the end? Wouldn't that be more optimal?

Not sure what you're saying here. Why aren't relationships all super loving in the start and stay that way? Iunno, maybe that's possible. But I think it would involve breaking away from the social mold. Either way, whether you do that or not, it'll essentially break down into whether or not you can make further progress within the relationship. Bonnie probably would've been like "Meh, I'm gonna go get me a real man" if Clyde one day decided he didn't want to do criminal stuff anymore. You never know.

That thing about wives being happiest when their husbands are upset thing might come into play here. The two need something that they agree they're gonna fight against as they move to attain profit. That DEFINITELY solidifies a relationship in harsh times. Perhaps that's the key in modern day?

When you're dealing with other people, than who you are is sometimes viewed as a problem.

There's nothing wrong with being nude. Going naked to a job interview, however...

Their problem, you mean?

When a person has a problem with who someone is, they're basically stating that they question their ability to be effective. Sometimes these problems can be fixed easily, sometimes they can't. Example, if in the army your drill sergeant is being extra shitty to you, trying to break your will cause he think you can't cut it, if you get up there there's nothing he can do and that's exactly what he wanted you to do anyway. If, for instance, you run a daycare and you were accused of child molestation, even if you proved the accusation to be both false and malicious, just the fact that you were accused could ruin your business.

"Who you are" is more of "who they view you to be". If they find evidence to the contrary, they have to admit that their assumptions might be wrong -- unless they're just antagonistic, and then the only way you can prove them wrong is by being strong and allowing them to test that strength whenever they get ready.

What were the new views that made you less miserable?

First the old, then the new, then why.

"People will respect you if you respect them." Never have I been disrespected more fiercely than when I was just acting without doing anything to anyone, by students and teachers alike. My view now is that whether or not someone respects you is up to them, but people will respect you if you leave them no other choice. Though I got what little of mine that I had by physically attacking them or threatening to, I don't necessarily hold the view that "leaving them no other choice" can only mean hurting them. This view has made me less miserable because now I don't feel like I have to become violent in order to get the peace I want. All I have to do is tell them I want it and that they haven't been giving it.

"You go to school to learn". While that's true, this is misleading. You don't go to school to learn how to read, add or subtract, or any of that bullshit you're told -- but to learn what this world is all about. You have to learn that you must exist around these people -- whether they be assholes, bullies, thugs, thieves, faulty human beings, enemies in positions of power -- and learn how to co-exist. At least, this is the intention. The reality is that you'll learn one of three lessons, and only one of them is correct:

1) You have no power, others will dominate you, you are prey.
2) Others can dominate you freely, but you will be punished if you try to dominate others.
3) You can dominate others freely through use of force strongly backed by intelligence.

People who learn lesson 1 tend to commit suicide, be very depressed, and/or have very low self esteem. People who learn lesson 2 tend to encounter lots of suffering because someone takes advantage of their lack of insight or bad positioning. People who learn lesson 3 tend to prosper only insofar as they're able to plan, otherwise they'll suffer the same fate as those who learned lesson 2. Having stumbled upon lesson 3 makes me less miserable now because I understand now that getting what I want has a connection to other people only insofar as their ability and desire to stop me from getting it, otherwise I need not even factor them in.

Justice. Let's let Scorpion answer this one. This makes me less miserable because now that I've adopted this view, I don't have to feel hurt that the right thing wasn't done in my case; I know now that the reason I got harmed in the first place is because I didn't protect myself.

It's wrong to attack others. No; it's wrong to attack others without an excuse everyone accepts. Give an acceptable excuse and anyone is a viable target. Even adults express this view clear as day. If your excuse trumps theirs, everyone will call for your enemy's head. Knowing this makes me less miserable because it lets me know that overall, people are crazy (faulty is a better word) and desire others to be harmed, which means that my life strategy isn't totally incorrect (avoid everyone). In order to not be harmed or killed by some random person in my life, either I'll have to bolster my ability to deal with people or I need to continue to remain undetected by them.

I'm done on this point for now. I could go on and on but honestly we'd be here forever.

The trick here isn't to fulfill the need of the potential spouse (most virgins do this mistake), the success lies in generating or uncovering the needs in your potential spouse, then relaying a possibility of you fulfilling them. You shouldn't bring gifts to your future partner. They won't be appreciated if you do that. Instead, you should point them the way that will lead them to the gifts you can offer. As they walk the path you set up, they form interest in you. Anything that you put effort in becomes subjectively valuable.

Seems broad enough to be possible without breaking condition 3. I agree that mindlessly throwing out gifts won't be appreciated. It has to be something that they want.

But that's mostly theory. In practice, the easiest way to do 1) is to try as many times as you can. Make use of every opportunity you get and form extra opportunities if you can. It's a game of chances, so the more dices you throw, the higher the possibility of scoring. Even if you know absolutely nothing and are really bad at it, the big enough number of tries can almost guarantee you success. Of course, it does take some effort and loads of time. It's an investment, but if you have high enough motivation, that can be surmountable.

So.. whether or not this is strenuous is dependent upon the person you want and the circumstances surrounding the two of you?

If that's the case, you can... using theory talk here, throw out only enough dice throws before it becomes tiring and pointless.

3359095

I've always attributed every negative feeling I had to someone else.

People are constants if you know them well enough. If you don’t, it’s your fault that you didn’t get all the relevant information about them. Ignorance is never a good excuse.

In both cases it comes down to you. All problems originate from yourself and not from the others.

Takes a while to come up with posts.

We can stop the moment this becomes a chore for you. You don’t have to do it regularly, either. I don’t care if I 'wait' for a response 2 hours or 2 months or eternity for that matter. This is all just fun. No pressure, no obligations, no strings attached.

I have no problem being deceptive. I don't like it but I can easily do it.

I do have a problem with it. If I act as a different person, then I am a different person. I never measure myself by what’s going on in my head. I only measure myself from the results I can observe outside of myself. If lie, then I am a lier.

I would either get hurt by myself for not being what I want to be or I’d get hurt by my spouse for being to honest.

I wouldn't use it as a standard tactic in a relationship though.

Remember 20 questions? They were all posed within a relationship, not before. Same rules apply to both
1) Obtain relationship
2) Maintain relationship

You’re right, though, even if you can live with your own immorality, it’s still a strain, since you have to navigate a very narrow path. Sometimes every possible paths you can choose are deemed wrong in the eyes of your partner.

You have to watch the edge of the path you’re walking all the time. It’s a constant drain and effort if you don’t want to risk slipping.

What's the point of it all? The point of a relationship is whatever you make of it.

You should know of the point before you plunge yourself into a relationship. You can not pursue something that you cannot see.

I've been hurt enough by following other people's word.

What happened to you?

You do X and I'll do Y. You want me to do Y,

So, what is Y in a relationship?

That thing about wives being happiest when their husbands are upset thing might come into play here.

One could conclude, that Women are better equipped to handle conflicts and perhaps even enjoy them. Thus the need to generate them if they don’t exist.

I couldn’t live in a constant state of conflict. I don’t care if everything is shity, as long as it’s well defined. When there is conflict you have to deal with it constantly. Even when you’re temporarily away from it, it’s still on your mind. You know it’s approaching and you don’t know what the result of it will be. It’s a big unknown that you can’t do anything about. It’s like something else is controlling your destiny. Something outside your full control.

The two need something that they agree they're gonna fight against as they move to attain profit. That DEFINITELY solidifies a relationship in harsh times. Perhaps that's the key in modern day?

Not sure what you mean by this. Both partners have to have a common thing they focus on, so that the rest of the building blocks don’t collapse? If so, then that would feel like cheating myself. Wasting my time on something just so I wouldn’t focus where the problem is.

It would be like that joke:
A cop sees a man crawling on the street under a street light. He asks, “What are you doing?”
“I lost my keys and am looking for it,” the man answers.
“Where did you lose them?”
“There.” A man points to a dark alley.
“Well, why are you searching for them here then, why not go search where they are?”
“That's would be a crazy thing to do. I can’t see shit in the dark.”

There's nothing wrong with being nude. Going naked to a job interview, however...
Their problem, you mean?

It’s your problem when you don’t get the job you want even though you’re the most capable for it. Just because you came nude to the interview. The right thing to do would be to pretend you’re not a nudist and come to the job interview dressed. They wouldn’t like you if you were 100% honest about yourself. You have to shift their perception of you. You have to manipulate them, losing part of yourself in the process.

I'll have to bolster my ability to deal with people or I need to continue to remain undetected by them.

I have the same view. However, the first part takes effort and consumes my time. Results are only slightly predictable and I’m not in full control of my future.

By staying out of other people’s business and keeping your business to yourself, you instantly solve every potential problem. No conflict can arise. The only con is, that this method isn’t viewed as normal in the eyes of society. It sometimes feels bad because you’ve been told your whole life by everyone around you that that kind of life is bad. But that’s just brainwashed part of your mind speaking. Transcending that is a pro. So basically even this one aspect of doing things differently is actually good for one’s mental health.

I agree that mindlessly throwing out gifts won't be appreciated. It has to be something that they want.

No, it has to be something the earn. Something they put effort into. It doesn’t matter how much they want it. The only thing that matters is how much energy and time they invested in order to get it.

If your spouse wants something, you must never give it freely, you must always trade. This act is the exact opposite of harmony, but the way humans are hardwired, the spouse will be more grateful for it in the end than she would have been if she got it for free. This is tricking people.

So.. whether or not this is strenuous is dependent upon the person you want and the circumstances surrounding the two of you?

I find no pleasure in 1). Finding the right spouse is time consuming and straining. Some get their motivation from the ego boost when they win. I don’t. I know who I am and sleeping with a different woman every month wouldn’t change that.

2) is a definition of effort. Again, no motivation here.

As for 3) Steps 1 and 2 carried out stainlessly and faithfully.
Apart from not being possible, it doesn’t contain any positive motivation. Just a theoretical absence of negative motivations.

If that's the case, you can... using theory talk here, throw out only enough dice throws before it becomes tiring and pointless.

In my case, the mere act of throwing dices is tiering. I used to do it because I was motivated. It was the one thing that I had to confirm in practice. The theory looked sound, but I needed to be sure. The rest of my life was at stake. My whole destiny. I needed to, not just think it, but know it.

Now that that’s been taken care of, I no longer have motivation for throwing the dices.

3359335

People are constants if you know them well enough. If you don’t, it’s your fault that you didn’t get all the relevant information about them. Ignorance is never a good excuse.

In both cases it comes down to you. All problems originate from yourself and not from the others.

I used to think that way, but now my belief is that if you have a goal you can throw that thought out of the window when other people are involved in any way. Even if they're just within the environment. People are too volatile to be considered constants, including yourself. I don't think other people are my problem now, but I do acknowledge that there's still a problem with people who exercise their power a bit too hastily, or do so just to hurt you.

We can stop the moment this becomes a chore for you. You don’t have to do it regularly, either. I don’t care if I 'wait' for a response 2 hours or 2 months or eternity for that matter. This is all just fun. No pressure, no obligations, no strings attached.

Being alive is a chore for me. I didn't realize I was wearing myself down replying. Now I just do it when I feel like it. You seemed to be following the same line of thinking.

I do have a problem with it. If I act as a different person, then I am a different person. I never measure myself by what’s going on in my head. I only measure myself from the results I can observe outside of myself. If lie, then I am a lier.

I try to measure in the same way.

You’re right, though, even if you can live with your own immorality, it’s still a strain, since you have to navigate a very narrow path. Sometimes every possible paths you can choose are deemed wrong in the eyes of your partner.

You have to watch the edge of the path you’re walking all the time. It’s a constant drain and effort if you don’t want to risk slipping.

Was trying for quite some time to figure out how to address this and I think I've got it now.

The problem with deceiving people about who you are is that you'd only do it long-term because you're not skilled at maintaining your image. If you were, there wouldn't be a need to be deceptive in that manner; you'd just be the person. It's not hard to do things contrary to your nature. And anyway, when pressured to make decisions, you're more likely to make decisions based on who you are, rather than what you want to fool others into believing you are. A villain never sacrificed himself to keep up the rouge. The thing that makes it most damning is that it is both unnecessary and weak. There are many people in the world that are skilled at peeling away masks.

You should know of the point before you plunge yourself into a relationship. You can not pursue something that you cannot see.

Not quite sure what you're saying here? The point of doing anything is benefit. The questions are which benefits do you want, does it actually provide them, and if it does then how will you get them. Asking what's the point of doing that is like asking what's the point of doing anything else. When I said the point of it all is whatever you make of it, I meant you have something you want and you work towards it, but as you try for it you might decide you don't want it anymore, or decide something else is better.

What happened to you?

So, what is Y in a relationship?

You're asking me to define Y? I dunno. I don't even know who I am in this equation... :applejackconfused: I'm just saying, you do stuff not cause you know you'll be rewarded, but cause you think you will. Think X and Y would depend on the people in a relationship together and what they want.

One could conclude, that Women are better equipped to handle conflicts and perhaps even enjoy them. Thus the need to generate them if they don’t exist.

Don't know about that. Perhaps women in civil settings.

I couldn’t live in a constant state of conflict. I don’t care if everything is shity, as long as it’s well defined. When there is conflict you have to deal with it constantly. Even when you’re temporarily away from it, it’s still on your mind. You know it’s approaching and you don’t know what the result of it will be. It’s a big unknown that you can’t do anything about. It’s like something else is controlling your destiny. Something outside your full control.

Nevermind if I could live with that, I won't live with that.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Example, man is angry about the state of affairs in his country. Woman gets to be supportive, give him comfort and guidance, then he goes right back out there into the world and exercises his anger beautifully, affects the world, gets what he wants, grows happier, wife is happier because she's profiting from it too, etc.

The way it is today, husband comes home pissed because his boss is an asshole -- except that there's nothing his anger is going to do to help him advance, so he pretty much has to swallow it. Woman gets bored of not seeing him take action using that passion and grows distant from him emotionally. Something like that. Not everyone's circumstances are like that, but I think many closely mimic that. Doesn't have to be a husband and wife situation, could be boyfriend and girlfriend.

It’s your problem when you don’t get the job you want even though you’re the most capable for it. Just because you came nude to the interview. The right thing to do would be to pretend you’re not a nudist and come to the job interview dressed. They wouldn’t like you if you were 100% honest about yourself. You have to shift their perception of you. You have to manipulate them, losing part of yourself in the process.

This is a very weird analogy. :unsuresweetie:

The point I was trying to make is that in such a situation, who they think you are is usually more of a problem than them correctly perceiving who you are. Who they think you are is what bothers them because the fact that they recognize the possibility ties in to their fears. And they don't want to be hurt by the possibility, so they just assume you are what they think you are. So, it's more like you come to work with clothes on, but the interviewer feels that you are nude. That's their problem. Which, yes, becomes your problem too if their real life decisions affect you and their delusions affect their real life decisions.

Aside from all that, assuming that you are a nudist in this analogy, coming to work with clothes on isn't dishonesty or deception; it's you fitting in. Just because you don't freely give people information about yourself doesn't mean you're being deceptive. If you have sex with a hot girl, it's not deceptive if you don't tell your mother you made the girl squirt on your face. It's enough for her to know that you lost your virginity. You don't have to tell that to your girlfriend, either. If there's information you don't want to share with someone and they ask for it, you can make it clear to them that you don't want to share it. That wouldn't be deception. If there's information they should have and you're not giving it, that's different; that would be deception.

I have the same view. However, the first part takes effort and consumes my time. Results are only slightly predictable and I’m not in full control of my future.

By staying out of other people’s business and keeping your business to yourself, you instantly solve every potential problem. No conflict can arise. The only con is, that this method isn’t viewed as normal in the eyes of society. It sometimes feels bad because you’ve been told your whole life by everyone around you that that kind of life is bad. But that’s just brainwashed part of your mind speaking. Transcending that is a pro. So basically even this one aspect of doing things differently is actually good for one’s mental health.

Conflicts can still arise, definitely. Even if you're out in the middle of nowhere, someone can come by and bring you conflict. By avoiding people, your chances of conflict become decreased, not 0%; they become 0% only when you're dead or somehow undetectable+unreachable. Besides, you still have to leave home to do everyday stuff. Even I have to sometimes.

The interesting thing though is that while most people are so broken that they'll eventually cause problems with you, there's a bunch of different techniques you can use to make people useful to you despite bad behavior. With those under your belt, you can have the same chances outside as you do in seclusion, minus crazies and people who want to be your enemy.

No, it has to be something the earn. Something they put effort into. It doesn’t matter how much they want it. The only thing that matters is how much energy and time they invested in order to get it.

If your spouse wants something, you must never give it freely, you must always trade. This act is the exact opposite of harmony, but the way humans are hardwired, the spouse will be more grateful for it in the end than she would have been if she got it for free. This is tricking people.

How... why is that a trick? And... even if she didn't appreciate it either way, is it wrong to ask for something in response to someone asking for something from you? I'm just not getting this point well.

2) is a definition of effort.

Maybe and maybe not. We know for sure that doing it one way is draining. What we have to figure out is if there's a way to do it without drain.

In my case, the mere act of throwing dices is tiering. I used to do it because I was motivated. It was the one thing that I had to confirm in practice. The theory looked sound, but I needed to be sure. The rest of my life was at stake. My whole destiny. I needed to, not just think it, but know it.

Now that that’s been taken care of, I no longer have motivation for throwing the dices.

By that, you mean you don't want to go out to clubs and stuff looking for a girl? I wouldn't either. Just the very idea of it is depressing, and I'm not even thinking about whether or not I can get a girl to come home with me, I just think going there doing what I don't want to do would suck.

If in my everyday life I happen across an attractive girl though...


I'm not even sure what I'm doing anymore. I think going back and forth is kinda detracting from what I wanted to do overall. I mean, I've already established that you still have the desire for a relationship, you just want it to be a certain way. Next post I'm gonna focus more on that, and less on a back and forth.

3359335
Been a while. Though I had this thread loaded, I almost forgot about it. You still here?

3361004

You still here?

I've been busy in RL with renovation. I didn't have lots of time. More importantly, however, I wanted to give you a breather. I didn't want to suffocate you. I did have this thread on my to do list at all times, though.

Being alive is a chore for me.

Can you imagine a life that wouldn't feel like a chore to you?

I didn't realize I was wearing myself down replying.

I'm a bit hard to talk to sometimes. 'Unrelenting' is how some people described my conversations.

It's not hard to do things contrary to your nature.

I do things against my nature all the time. However, there is a different barrier that I don't want to breach. My principles. Those are the things that define me. When I work against them it feels like I'm losing myself. Like dying.

assuming that you are a nudist in this analogy, coming to work with clothes on isn't dishonesty or deception

It is a deception. They don't perceive the real you, and your actions are the reason for it.

If you have sex with a hot girl, it's not deceptive if you don't tell your mother you made the girl squirt on your face.

If she asks for details and you tell her that there are no more details, then it is a deception.

If there's information you don't want to share with someone and they ask for it, you can make it clear to them that you don't want to share it.

If you make it clear that there is information about it present, but unrevealed, then I guess it isn't dishonesty. It's not very honest to do so either. Honest people don't hide things.

there's a bunch of different techniques you can use to make people useful to you despite bad behavior.

Isn't that manipulation? Bending their wills to your own. They wouldn't be doing the things you make them do if it wasn't for your techniques. It's like showing a cow some grass to lead it to the slaughter house. Yes, the cow walked by its own accord, but you can't really blame it for getting slaughtered. You're the one that got it killed. It's the same as cutting its neck right there and then. Now, for cow it would be okay if your intention is to eat it, but I don't think it's okay to do these things to fellow humans.

is it wrong to ask for something in response to someone asking for something from you?

It isn't wrong, but it isn't harmony either. It's a heartless trade.

What we have to figure out is if there's a way to do it without drain.

Harmony is the word I use for that. I don't think it's achievable. Not with people.

By that, you mean you don't want to go out to clubs and stuff looking for a girl?

That and also the wooing the girl. Either you manipulate her, which is a bad thing to do IMO, or you don't and you're cutting your chances by a big margin. And all that for a purpose that isn't defined. I don't want any of it.

I've already established that you still have the desire for a relationship, you just want it to be a certain way.

What I want is harmony and acceptance. None of that exists in a relationships; so I stopped wasting my life with chasing the rainbow.

Next post I'm gonna focus more on that, and less on a back and forth.

You can ‘do me’ anyway you like. :rainbowwild:

3402765

I've been busy in RL with renovation. I didn't have lots of time. More importantly, however, I wanted to give you a breather. I didn't want to suffocate you. I did have this thread on my to do list at all times, though.

Okay. I actually meant to reply a week ago but had forgotten all about it.

Can you imagine a life that wouldn't feel like a chore to you?

Mount&Blade Warband seems to give me some ideas for that. That game, and a few animes and hentais.

I'm a bit hard to talk to sometimes. 'Unrelenting' is how some people in described my conversations.

No, that's not it. The whole repeated back and forth.

I do things against my nature all the time. However, there is a different barrier that I don't want to breach. My principles. Those are the things that define me. When I work against them it feels like I'm losing myself. Like dying.

I kinda know what you mean. Following orders to complete mundane tasks is against my nature.

It is a deception. They don't perceive the real you, and your actions are the reason for it.

What even is the real you?

There's a line between revealing that which is necessary and that which is unnecessary. I touch myself, and I'll tell all of my friends that I do, and I'll even describe to them in detail what I do, but that is not information I want my mother/grandma/grandpa/brother/ANY family member to have. It's not information my employer needs. People I may work with in the future don't need to know it. Hell, even the friends I tell it to don't need to know it, but I tell them cause it feels freeing to say I guess. And that, I believe, is what you're looking for. Freedom. Not pure honesty for honesty's sake. If you are looking for that, then I'm not sure there's much I can say to help as far as that goes. You'll find it impossible to survive in this world. Not only would most employers not hire you, even an employer who needs employees that are 100% honest 100% of the time wouldn't hire you, because you won't lie/hide info.

If she asks for details and you tell her that there are no more details, then it is a deception.

True, but that links back to what I was talking about just before. How real are we looking to get? Enough to be free, or to uphold honesty all of the time regardless of the circumstances?

If you make it clear that there is information about it present, but unrevealed, then I guess it isn't dishonesty. It's not very honest to do so either. Honest people don't hide things.

On the contrary, honest people hide things all the time. Especially in settings where they must deter active or potential enemies. You don't give strangers your social security number over the phone, for example. You don't have to be completely transparent to be an honest person. You just have to try your best not to make people miserable. Honesty is more about being consistent and less about being transparent.

Isn't that manipulation? Bending their wills to your own. They wouldn't be doing the things you make them do if it wasn't for your techniques. It's like showing a cow some grass to lead it to the slaughter house. Yes, the cow walked by its own accord, but you can't really blame it for getting slaughtered. You're the one that got it killed. It's the same as cutting its neck right there and then. Now, for cow it would be okay if your intention is to eat it, but I don't think it's okay to do these things to fellow humans.

Manipulation doesn't have to mean "If they thought the situation was X, they would do X thing, but that would be bad for me, so I will lead them to be the situation is Y, so that they do Y thing, because Y thing is in my favor." Manipulation can be persuasion. You have a cigarette but don't have a lighter. You see someone who is smoking. You ask that person for a light. Sure, they can decide out of their own free will to not to light your cigarette for you, but by asking them you're letting them know you desire them to give you a light. That in itself is manipulation.

Human speech is used to manipulate. By communicating with others, you are manipulating them. There is nothing wrong with manipulating people. The problem with being manipulative comes in when you purposefully put the person in a situation they didn't want to be in in order to take advantage of them. That is the kind of manipulation people find despicable.

It isn't wrong, but it isn't harmony either. It's a heartless trade.

Why must that be heartless?

I personally don't think any kind of trait should be associated with that. I've done things for others simply because they asked me to, even though those were things I didn't want to do them at all. Things that were to their benefit and not to mine at all. I wouldn't call what I did kind. In fact, I'd call it somewhat dishonest. Half the time, I only do those things so there won't be any trouble.

If I were in the position to benefit whenever this person benefits and vice versa, I don't see what could be wrong with that. Unless, you know, I didn't want them to benefit, in which case it wouldn't actually be a benefit to me.

Harmony is the word I use for that. I don't think it's achievable. Not with people.

So having people in your life for extended periods of time drains you?

That and also the wooing the girl. Either you manipulate her, which is a bad thing to do IMO, or you don't and you're cutting your chances by a big margin. And all that for a purpose that isn't defined. I don't want any of it.

So, you're saying it'd be preferable to you to just go out, find a girl, and the two of you get together because you both decide it's a good idea?

What I want is harmony and acceptance. None of that exists in a relationships; so I stopped wasting my life with chasing the rainbow.

I think part of that battle will be redefining what you think those things are.

Which is why instead of focusing on a way to do it, I'm gonna focus on what's in your head.

You can ‘do me’ anyway you like. :rainbowwild:

:twilightsheepish:... I don't think either of us is ready to bat for the other team.

3403121

Mount&Blade Warband seems to give me some ideas for that. That game, and a few animes and hentais.

Playing games and watching shows used to be my life's goal. Haven't done any of that for more than a year now.

There's a line between revealing that which is necessary and that which is unnecessary.

You have to build a parallel 'you' for every person in your life. One for the employee, one for your grandma... I'm not sure this system is mentally healthy, but yes, you're right. That's how the world operates. You can either adapt and be part of it or be exiled.

How real are we looking to get? Enough to be free, or to uphold honesty all of the time regardless of the circumstances?

It depends on a person, I guess. Personally, I treat relations to people where I have to pretend as formal relationships. You have them because they are necessary or serve you in some way. Personal relationships would be the ones where you could be real you, without any pretending.

Honesty is more about being consistent and less about being transparent.

I think that's more of a definition for the word lying.

Being transparent to your friends is liberating to you. What if you could have even more of that? Wouldn't that be fun?

asking them you're letting them know you desire them to give you a light. That in itself is manipulation.

I don't think it is. It's just informing them. Giving them truthful information. Manipulation would be to hide the real motivation and give them bits of processed information. When they react differently than they would have if they had full information, it means they've been manipulated.

Why must that be heartless?

There is no trade in my definition of harmony.

So having people in your life for extended periods of time drains you?

Yes, I think you're right. I don't like broken things. I want to fix them. When it's just me, I can fix everything, myself included. With people, you just have to watch them in their broken state and you're powerless to fix them.

I like new people, though. I don't see anything broken with them, yet. I see uniqueness, they intrigue me. That is what usually directs my informal relations to others.

So, you're saying it'd be preferable to you to just go out, find a girl, and the two of you get together because you both decide it's a good idea?

I see nothing wrong with this method. I've never seen it happen in real world, though.

I'm gonna focus on what's in your head.

Probe and drill right ahead. :pinkiecrazy:

I don't think either of us is ready to bat for the other team.

I imagine the aspect of relationship would be the same, regardless of the gender. But yeah, you're right. There would be even more cons to such relationship, since I'm not gay.

3410802

Playing games and watching shows used to be my life's goal. Haven't done any of that for more than a year now.

Those are what my life is all about right now.

You have to build a parallel 'you' for every person in your life. One for the employee, one for your grandma... I'm not sure this system is mentally healthy, but yes, you're right. That's how the world operates. You can either adapt and be part of it or be exiled.

Well, the point I was trying to make with that isn't that you can't tell your employer or grandma about the new Bad Dragon toy you bought, just that it's not necessary... unless you're following some extremely strict code.

It depends on a person, I guess. Personally, I treat relations to people where I have to pretend as formal relationships. You have them because they are necessary or serve you in some way. Personal relationships would be the ones where you could be real you, without any pretending.

If the bar is "no pretending", then answering the question to the best of your ability or saying that you refuse to answer the question is simple enough. If the person wants more information, it's their duty to ask for it. It's not your duty to volunteer information, barring circumstances like you feel that you may be leading them to a bad conclusion.

I think that's more of a definition for the word lying.

Being transparent to your friends is liberating to you. What if you could have even more of that? Wouldn't that be fun?

I don't think that transparency and honesty are synonymous.

Really though, I think I'm attributing way too much to honesty. Example, don't we generally associate honesty with someone who is kind? Technically, a completely honest asshole should be possible. So I think I'll focus more on the dictionary meaning.

Looking up the word honest, one way it's described is "without deception". Seems to be about giving the truth, too. But the truth is hard to give sometimes. So I guess what I said about not making people miserable doesn't hold up. But I don't think transparency is a part of it. If the goal is to be truthful and undeceptive, then it seems you'd have to work more on understanding what truth is, rather than being prepared to say what's on your mind. In that manner, you could be 100% truthful.

I don't think it is. It's just informing them. Giving them truthful information. Manipulation would be to hide the real motivation and give them bits of processed information. When they react differently than they would have if they had full information, it means they've been manipulated.

Okay, let's go with your definition then. I'll re-answer your previous question:

Isn't that manipulation?

No. use of the aforementioned techniques wouldn't be manipulation, because they don't hinge on denying anyone any information. It's more about changing their perspective.

There is no trade in my definition of harmony.

We need to go back to your definition of harmony then. Which seems to be about naturally co-existing. Right? If not, give a definition and disregard the following argument.

If it's about co-existing naturally, then a trade is perhaps one of the most natural things an intelligent species can do. That's how there's peace wherever it is in the world today. Trading should make both of you feel good.

Yes, I think you're right. I don't like broken things. I want to fix them. When it's just me, I can fix everything, myself included. With people, you just have to watch them in their broken state and you're powerless to fix them.

I like new people, though. I don't see anything broken with them, yet. I see uniqueness, they intrigue me. That is what usually directs my informal relations to others.

If that's the case, that having people in your life for extended periods of time is draining, then the step from there is to figure out why they're draining. Maybe you can counteract that.

....But maybe, if you're like me, you don't even want to bother trying to figure that out. :pinkiesick: I dunno, there are some people that drain me and some that don't.

I see nothing wrong with this method. I've never seen it happen in real world, though.

I just wanted clarification.

I imagine the aspect of relationship would be the same, regardless of the gender. But yeah, you're right. There would be even more cons to such relationship, since I'm not gay.

Well, if you get a genie with 3 wishes and you use one of them to turn me into a young chick, we could talk about it.

3421485

Those are what my life is all about right now.

I intended to play games for the rest of my life. Now, I'm not sure if I'll ever be a gamer again.

If the goal is to be truthful and undeceptive, then it seems you'd have to work more on understanding what truth is, rather than being prepared to say what's on your mind

I agree. Just speaking your mind is not good enough. Understanding and shaping listener's perception of the information you're relaying is what I understand as 'not being deceptive'.

It's more about changing their perspective.

When their actions differ from the actions they would take if they had objective perspective of the truth, then they've been deceived.

Trading should make both of you feel good.

It does, but it's soulless. You can trade even with strangers. I'd like to think that harmony is something more than buying bread in a bakers shop.

figure out why they're draining. Maybe you can counteract that

When I'm alone, the potential of things I can do is endless. When there are people around, I have to take them into account since they result in consequences to my actions. It's cutting off my potential freedom. It's an obligation and it takes extra thinking time.

With other people, I'm also stepping outside my 'game field'. It's not just my rules anymore.

For instance, Twilight doesn't mind sitting. She can sit all day long if she wants and can be happy about it. However, with other beings being around her, the same action can become daunting.

there are some people that drain me and some that don't.

I think all people are draining me.

Well, if you get a genie with 3 wishes and you use one of them to turn me into a young chick, we could talk about it.

The thing is, I don't really care about physiology.

When I had a girlfriend, I had distinct feelings for her. But only when she was awake. If she was asleep, I felt nothing. I just saw a lump of flesh on the bed. I guess, I have a fetish for the mind. Human bodies all look the same to me.

Either way, I'm still unconvinced that relationships of any kind are a good thing.

As for genies, I'd be careful about such wishes. Here's a joke for you:

Bear and rabbit meet at a crossway. There's a lamp in the middle of the road.

Bear picks it up and rubs it.

A genie appears and says, "I'll grant you 3 wishes."

"I want all bears except me in this forest to be females," says the bear.

"Done. What is your second wish?"

"I know. I want all the other bears on this continent to be female."

"Done."

"Oh, fuck it. I want to be the only male bear in the world!"

"Done." The genie looks at the rabbit. "So, what do you wish for?"

"I want a helmet."

"You're stupid, rabbit," sais bear.

"Done."

A helmet appears on rabbit's head.

"What is your second wish?"

"I want a motorcycle."

"For the fuck's sake." Bear facepaws.

Rabbit climbs on the motorcycle that appeared before him, starts it up and accelerates down the road. He turns around and yells, "for my third wish, I want the bear to be gay!"

3422074

I intended to play games for the rest of my life. Now, I'm not sure if I'll ever be a gamer again.

Why?

I agree. Just speaking your mind is not good enough. Understanding and shaping listener's perception of the information you're relaying is what I understand as 'not being deceptive'.

Right.

When their actions differ from the actions they would take if they had objective perspective of the truth, then they've been deceived.

What is an objective perspective?

Regardless, it's not about deceiving them or leaving anything out. There will be no scenario in which they learn something and then suddenly think "Hey, that person tricked me! :flutterrage:". People are easier to get along with than we think. The only reason it seems so hard is because the hard-to-get-along-with people are acting within the parameters of a goal. Someone who wants to kill you for example, you can't sit down and try to reason with them about how not killing you is a better idea than killing you because they're determined to do it. In order to stop them from doing that using words, you'd have to attack their determination, and to attack their determination you'd have to know more about why they're taking action. Sometimes, their determination is unassailable, but that's not always the case.

It does, but it's soulless. You can trade even with strangers. I'd like to think that harmony is something more than buying bread in a bakers shop.

I don't understand why it is "soulless". I find it difficult to attribute anything to that.

As far as trading with strangers go, I can only trade with strangers when a) there's a system in place that makes me virtually the same as everyone else on the planet they'd trade with or b) I can afford to lose what I traded. Otherwise, I'm not interested.

When I'm alone, the potential of things I can do is endless. When there are people around, I have to take them into account since they result in consequences to my actions. It's cutting off my potential freedom. It's an obligation and it takes extra thinking time.

With other people, I'm also stepping outside my 'game field'. It's not just my rules anymore.

For instance, Twilight doesn't mind sitting. She can sit all day long if she wants and can be happy about it. However, with other beings being around her, the same action can become daunting.

Well, in that situation, you could just give less of a fuck. Then people pressures won't matter as much. I used to be so worried all the time about what people think to the point where I started to behave perfectly, but people still thought stupid shit about me so I stopped caring and withdrew from them. Now that I'm slowly coming back, I will say or do anything I want now. I mean, I try to consider other people, but after consideration? Fuck it. I skimmed through tentacle hentai the other night. I don't even like tentacles.

But I was thinking more like... that there's something that causes it to be draining when you're around others. I doubt it's people pressure all day every day, but it could be. Whatever it is, we need to figure it out because it seems like one of the major things holding you back. There should be a way to enter a relationship, stay the same person you are, and not be drained, but something somewhere has to change to have that effect.

I think all people are draining me.

Do you drain yourself?

....Don't answer that. :fluttershyouch:

The thing is, I don't really care about physiology.

When I had a girlfriend, I had distinct feelings for her. But only when she was awake. If she was asleep, I felt nothing. I just saw a lump of flesh on the bed. I guess, I have a fetish for the mind. Human bodies all look the same to me.

Either way, I'm still unconvinced that relationships of any kind are a good thing.

I do.

Weird way of looking at that, but I guess it's better than "u r so bootiful".

So, you're saying friendship isn't magic?

As for genies, I'd be careful about such wishes. Here's a joke for you:

:twilightsheepish:... So you're saying you'd use your wish to make me both female and subservient to you?

3429197

Why?

I made a pact with myself, that I won't waste my time pursuing some higher goals that last until the day I die. I wouldn't waste my time for some future happiness that would never come. That is why I intentionally decided to become a gamer. I wanted to enjoy life here and now.

2 things happened. First thing was, playing Anno 2070. The game was just short of saying directly: "Here's how you can waste your time". Almost no gameplay, just a mechanism for wasting time. The other games try to cover up this concept, but I started to notice it in every other game I played as well.

The second thing was MLP. It was the ultimate escapism. It hooked me and it still holds me firmly. I feel almost guilty when I'm doing anything that isn't MLP related. I'm addicted. Perhaps it won't be permanent, but I don't see any weaning in my MLP interests.

What is an objective perspective?

There's just one truth out there. When you have all information you see it. If you have good relevant information you can see its estimate. When you see only glimpses of parts of the truths or maybe even untruths than the image of truths is blurred and is no longer objective perspective.

attack their determination

I don't want to put people down. It brings me displeasure.

I don't understand why it is "soulless". I find it difficult to attribute anything to that.

I have a soulless relationship with my computer. I supply it power and in return the computer does an array of things for me. Maybe this strategy should be used in human relationships as well. You bring your spouse a chocolate as a gift and in return you get a massage in the evening. Never chocolate because your spouse likes it. And never a massage because you like it. Always trade.

There's nothing wrong with it. Trade is good. But in relationship the barting starts. If you don't barter back, you start getting bad trades. Giving more than you're getting in return. And if it were at least simple. It's not simple. It's a huge emotional system that you can't even wrap your mind around. It's like going to the store blindfolded. You don't know exactly what you'll get from it and you're not sure how much you'll have to pay. It's all so undetermined. No security for the future.

I stopped caring and withdrew from them.

That's what I'm doing now. When I'm around people, I wish I was away from them, doing my own thing.

I skimmed through tentacle hentai the other night. I don't even like tentacles.

Is that an example of you being inconsiderate toward other people? I'm not sure I get the example. Either way, I think tentacles are sexy.

it seems like one of the major things holding you back.

The way I see it, people are holding me back. Less people, more freedom.

There should be a way to enter a relationship, stay the same person you are, and not be drained, but something somewhere has to change to have that effect.

Relationships of any kind take effort. If you don't put in work, the persons involved start drifting apart.

I'd have to see something really positive in relationship to persist in it. I can't see what that would be, though. Maybe escapism of some sort. However, relationships are the last place to look for that.

Many people can cope with it by being brainwashed to believe you have to get married and create kids. If you don't, then you're a failure in life. I don't have a luxury of being brainwashed that way. Not anymore at least. Getting a girlfriend was a thing I just had to do, but I already checked that out on my list.

Do you drain yourself?

....Don't answer that.

Why shouldn't I answer it? It's a legitimate question.

I don't drain myself. I really like my company. I can mold myself into anything I want, I can make myself do anything I want. I'm in full control.

How's your relationship with yourself?

So, you're saying friendship isn't magic?

I used to think that it is. I thought that trust was an intrinsic element of friendship. Trust is good. It provides security.

I trusted my one of my best friends... to much. I was too naive. I've fixed that now.

Anyway, I really like friends, but only when there are no strings attached. Strings mean trust and that is a variable. I don't like variables.

So you're saying you'd use your wish to make me both female and subservient to you?

I just wanted to tell a joke. I wasn't trying to imply anything.

Also, slaves are a big responsibility. I can't even own a plant. To demanding.

3430469

I made a pact with myself, that I won't waste my time pursuing some higher goals that last until the day I die. I wouldn't waste my time for some future happiness that would never come. That is why I intentionally decided to become a gamer. I wanted to enjoy life here and now.

My hook was and always has been fighting games. As long as good fighters are coming out and they're accessible on PC, I'm stuck. MLP didn't hook me that way. In fact, only anime and games have.

There's just one truth out there. When you have all information you see it. If you have good relevant information you can see its estimate. When you see only glimpses of parts of the truths or maybe even untruths than the image of truths is blurred and is no longer objective perspective.

It's possible to have all of the information possible and still think something completely different from everyone else. Perception is so deep that it's hard to tell what's deception and what's perceived exactly as it should be. Can't tell without a God's eye view of things.

I don't want to put people down. It brings me displeasure.

I said attack their determination; I didn't say attack them. Attacking their determination means doing or saying things that causes them to drop what they were doing and fall in line with what you want. It's usually effective and can be done without looking like or being a bad guy, though there are numerous bad guy ways of doing it.

Besides, if some determined person stands against your interests, better to try and give them the idea to act in your favor on their own than let things run their course to where they get so deeply screwed up that you're forced to take actions to avoid detriment.

I have a soulless relationship with my computer. I supply it power and in return the computer does an array of things for me. Maybe this strategy should be used in human relationships as well. You bring your spouse a chocolate as a gift and in return you get a massage in the evening. Never chocolate because your spouse likes it. And never a massage because you like it. Always trade.

There's nothing wrong with it. Trade is good. But in relationship the barting starts. If you don't barter back, you start getting bad trades. Giving more than you're getting in return. And if it were at least simple. It's not simple. It's a huge emotional system that you can't even wrap your mind around. It's like going to the store blindfolded. You don't know exactly what you'll get from it and you're not sure how much you'll have to pay. It's all so undetermined. No security for the future.

I don't think that analogy holds up. Your computer doesn't care if it's supplied with power. It's not doing you any favors. It's a thing that can only do what it's built to do and what we tell it to while it's functionally capable of doing it, because it's been manipulated to be that way.

I'm just having a hard time seeing something inherent in it that's soulless. The way I view trade, I do something and I get something back. You can trade with your brother or cousin, you can trade with the king, you can trade with the devil even. It's just... you know, my heart is beating. Right now. And the blood has worth to me because it does what it's supposed to. All I need do is breathe, eat, and drink. I don't think of eating and drinking to live as a soulless trade, I think "meh, whatever". I don't get why it is you're attributing soulless to it.

Additionally, what about when you're making a steal in every trade? Does that mean you appreciate them less?

That's what I'm doing now. When I'm around people, I wish I was away from them, doing my own thing.

That describes me to a tee.

Is that an example of you being inconsiderate toward other people? I'm not sure I get the example. Either way, I think tentacles are sexy.

I'm not necessarily inconsiderate, I just stopped caring soooooooooooo much about stuff. As long as I look like I'll try, people will either care or don't care. If they find something wrong with what I'm doing, it's because they have some sort of goal rather than me doing something that's completely incorrect. If I have not been told what the goal is or it is otherwise not obvious, implied, or hinted at, I don't care what happens.

It's an example of me doing whatever I want after consideration. I like fat girls. I've been thinking though, I don't know if I can like girls if I became one.

The way I see it, people are holding me back. Less people, more freedom.

Ironically, the opposite of that is probably true. The less people you have in your life, the less allies you have. The less allies you have, the less power you'll have. I see power and freedom as inextricably linked. Then again, not everyone needs the power to lift the planet onto their back. Some just need enough power to survive day in and day out.

Relationships of any kind take effort. If you don't put in work, the persons involved start drifting apart.

Yes, but is the point to avoid effort or is it to avoid drain? Even masturbating takes effort, but it's only draining if like... I dunno. You're sleepy and/or drunk. Friends are over. You can't watch porn or get a nice moment of time to imagine stuff. No privacy. Annoying girlfriend trying to sleep with you. Things like that.

I'd have to see something really positive in relationship to persist in it. I can't see what that would be, though. Maybe escapism of some sort. However, relationships are the last place to look for that.

Many people can cope with it by being brainwashed to believe you have to get married and create kids. If you don't, then you're a failure in life. I don't have a luxury of being brainwashed that way. Not anymore at least. Getting a girlfriend was a thing I just had to do, but I already checked that out on my list.

I have to agree. Even I don't see much merit in relationships. Particularly when it's nothing exciting to me. You seem to want it though, just not the bad stuff that comes with it. Like, even if we go through this whole thing and I end up convincing you and we come up with a way for you to find the kind of relationship that's perfect for you and you then decide that relationships aren't for you, I'd be satisfied with that. But this just gives me a feeling like.. you're fooling yourself, or something, and you'll die fooled. That would be tragic.

Why shouldn't I answer it? It's a legitimate question.

I don't drain myself. I really like my company. I can mold myself into anything I want, I can make myself do anything I want. I'm in full control.

How's your relationship with yourself?

I see I'm the bigger pervert between the two of us. I was thinking drained like draining the emotion lotion.

I don't exist.

I used to think that it is. I thought that trust was an intrinsic element of friendship. Trust is good. It provides security.

I trusted my one of my best friends... to much. I was too naive. I've fixed that now.

Anyway, I really like friends, but only when there are no strings attached. Strings mean trust and that is a variable. I don't like variables.

The only things I try to trust are effects and reasoning. People are too volatile to be considered constants. Wherever there is possibility and people, and those possibilities work against you, expect those people to ruin absolutely everything.

I just wanted to tell a joke. I wasn't trying to imply anything.

Also, slaves are a big responsibility. I can't even own a plant. To demanding.

Okie.

The good thing about human slaves is they can take care of themselves if you give them the necessities. Like hamsters. Besides, the only thing I need besides food and water is a computer with internet connection and a desk for that computer.

3431947

It's possible to have all of the information possible and still think something completely different from everyone else.

I don't think it is. If you take the time to process the complete information set, only one conclusion could be drawn from it. If perception differs, than some piece of the puzzle is still missing.

Of course, you can never know everything completely, but you can get close to the truth.

I said attack their determination

I still have issue with it. For instance, if you're running against someone in the writing competition, downvoting his stories would be a way to attack their determination for writing. It's an indirect attack, but I still couldn't do something like that.

there are numerous bad guy ways of doing it.

I guess the above example fits into that. So, what are the good guy ways of attacking someone's determination?

I'm just having a hard time seeing something inherent in it that's soulless.

I have no problem with a trade. But seeing relationships as nothing but a trade. It just doesn't strike me as harmonious. I know that that's how successful relationships work. I just don't like the system of constant bartering, that's all. It's like being trapped in the store with the employees constantly offering you things you can buy. I don't mind buying the things I need, but doing the buying all life long... No!

I don't know if I can like girls if I became one.

Many girls like girls. Many boys like boys. Nothing wrong with that.

The less allies you have, the less power you'll have.

With great power comes great responsibility. I'm not really that into responsibilities and obligations. I can handle them, but they do drain me. Maybe less power is better.

Even masturbating takes effort

If relationships were so gratifying, then I would consider them. The point is, they aren't. At least not to me. Sex is good, but that's 1%. It just doesn't cut it if the 99% of it is crap.

You seem to want it though, just not the bad stuff that comes with it.

Ignoring intimacy, there’s nothing in the relationships that I want.

Like, even if we go through this whole thing and I end up convincing you and we come up with a way for you to find the kind of relationship that's perfect for you and you then decide that relationships aren't for you, I'd be satisfied with that.

But, I’ve been through that before. Why would repeating it change anything?

But this just gives me a feeling like.. you're fooling yourself, or something, and you'll die fooled. That would be tragic.

Incidentally, that is my worst fear. Being old and figuring out that my life was a lie and I wasted it. It would be tragic indeed.

What makes you think that I’m fooling myself? What am I fooling myself about? I thought I was being rational about this.

I was thinking drained like draining the emotion lotion.

There might be some phrases missing from my repertoar. I blame it on my non-native English language knowledge base.

I see I'm the bigger pervert between the two of us.

The jury is still out on which one of us is a bigger pervert. I must say that things aren’t looking good for you, though. You don’t even like tentacles...

Besides, the only thing I need besides food and water is a computer with internet connection and a desk for that computer.

What you’ve just described is a perfect life. If that comes with being a slave, than I want to be one.

3433285

If perception differs, than some piece of the puzzle is still missing.

If you have all of the pieces of the puzzle and perception differs, you are working on puzzle 21389, whereas they are working on puzzle 98324.

...My analogies are starting to get worse. The point is that you have two completely different focuses and these focuses color what you see.

Example, people think that it's a bad thing to have a thief in your group when you're in a survival situation. One person I talked to went so far as to say he'd kick out/kill even a thief that revealed themselves to be a thief when asked about his former occupation. I thought that was absolutely outrageous. I, on the other hand, think that having a thief would be a very good thing, especially if they were at least decent at it. For one, you could have sort of a counter-thief. Two, if you need to break into some place, they could help with that. I think that guy's logic amounted to "thieves are generally bad people and can steal from you", but by that logic, you should also kick fighters out of your group because people that can fight well aren't necessarily on your side and an effective fighter can take your life.

I still have issue with it. For instance, if you're running against someone in the writing competition, downvoting his stories would be a way to attack their determination for writing. It's an indirect attack, but I still couldn't do something like that.

I guess the above example fits into that. So, what are the good guy ways of attacking someone's determination?

I'm pretty sure that if people knew it was you downvoting all of his stories, they would consider that to be a bad guy move. I don't think there's a way to attack their determination in that situation and still claim to be a good person. Such manipulation is accepted only within the context of a game. Doing that isn't part of the game. In a writing contest, there's no interaction between the writers unless they specifically seek it out. Even if you, say, gave friendly criticism on all of his stories, if the sole purpose of that was to make him lose confidence in his ability to write and cause him to drop out, people would still think it's a bad guy (okay, I need a better word -- malevolent?) move, even though 1) that was the nicest way you could've done that and 2) it could've backfired on you and made him into a stronger writer.

I have no problem with a trade. But seeing relationships as nothing but a trade. It just doesn't strike me as harmonious. I know that that's how successful relationships work. I just don't like the system of constant bartering, that's all. It's like being trapped in the store with the employees constantly offering you things you can buy. I don't mind buying the things I need, but doing the buying all life long... No!

You plan to have someone do all your shopping for you? :rainbowhuh: You will literally have to buy things all of your life.

I can see not liking it. The question now is if the element you dislike can be modified, or if your dislike for it can be modified. Though perhaps a focus on the latter.

Many girls like girls. Many boys like boys. Nothing wrong with that.

...I'd have too hard of a time explaining that without showing you a very important erotic video that would help me make my point very clear.

If relationships were so gratifying, then I would consider them. The point is, they aren't. At least not to me. Sex is good, but that's 1%. It just doesn't cut it if the 99% of it is crap.

I agree for the most part. Sex can be disturbingly good though. Even if I cut through all of the crap and was able to get pure sex only, I don't know how I'd feel about that. And like I told someone else here, I can feel that I would become a horrible person if I were to get into a relationship with someone. I'm the best I can be while unattached.

Ignoring intimacy, there’s nothing in the relationships that I want.

:ajsleepy: Maybe we should start seriously considering seeking out professional cuddlers.

But, I’ve been through that before. Why would repeating it change anything?

I meant attempting it in a new way, the way you'd want after discovering how to slip past everything that harms you, not "same shit, part 2".

Incidentally, that is my worst fear. Being old and figuring out that my life was a lie and I wasted it. It would be tragic indeed.

What makes you think that I’m fooling myself? What am I fooling myself about? I thought I was being rational about this.

Mainly, you keep hinting at a distaste for effort even though it's an excess of effort that's been weighing on you. That makes me think that you're associating effort with drain. Effort is just putting in work to create some outcome, whereas drain is tiring yourself out physically or emotionally just to get something done, and half the time it's still not done or not done well and so you have to put in even more effort. And it's not as though you're guaranteed to rest well after that, you may be required to do things that are just as tiring the next day. I don't mind effort but I'll only allow drain if I get something incredible from it.

There might be some phrases missing from my repertoar. I blame it on my non-native English language knowledge base.

English isn't your first language...? You could've fooled me.

The jury is still out on which one of us is a bigger pervert. I must say that things aren’t looking good for you, though. You don’t even like tentacles...

I probably would if I were a girl. As a guy, they're not doing much for me, either as a bystander or... if they came to get me.

What you’ve just described is a perfect life. If that comes with being a slave, than I want to be one.

It makes me feel a teeny bit happy and awkward that I could be so many people's soulmate if I could just somehow turn into a chick.

3438491

The point is that you have two completely different focuses and these focuses color what you see.

True. Having all the information is not enough. You have to process it all as well. When all parties involved take all of the information into account from all the aspects, then the opinions shouldn't differ.

Things are either logical or they aren't, and just like with objective truth, there's also just one objective logic that can be applied to the set of information.

With thief example, it's easy to determine if it's a good thing or not. You just weigh in the positive effects to the potential negative effects. The opinions probably differ only because some have a lot of bad experiences with thieves and some don't. Different sets of information can lead to different opinions. However, if everyone knew everything there is to know about that certain thief, then the opinions shouldn't differ.

make him lose confidence

So, what are the good guy's techniques to attack their determination?

The question now is if the element you dislike can be modified

Trading drains me. It demands mental focus. In shops it's easy, as the rules are set. In relationships, you have to be constantly on a lookout for the good trades and avoid the bad trades. It's really hard to win. You loosen up your focus for one moment and you're starting to lose ground under you.

That is why I don't consider trade to be harmonious. In harmonious relationships, you'd know you have your back covered and that your spouse would never hurt you by promoting a bad trade for you. When a trade proposal would be made, you'd know it's a good one. You would also only make good trade proposals that would be beneficent to both of you, or beneficial to your spouse and acceptable to you.

I'd have too hard of a time explaining that without showing you a very important erotic video that would help me make my point very clear.

I do like clarity. You can send it to me via PM if you have a link to it.

I can feel that I would become a horrible person if I were to get into a relationship with someone.

I have the opposite problem. I become a perfect person in their eyes, but at the same time, I die inside.

Maybe we should start seriously considering seeking out professional cuddlers.

I'd do that if they were free. However, the truth of the matter is, that they are very very expensive.

It's the same with food. I'm okay with spending some $ for food, but I'd never spend a 100$ for a meal, no matter how good it was. It's just not worth it. Same with professionals.

discovering how to slip past everything that harms you,

I don't think that's possible and here's why. I've been a logical thinker since a young age. I've found out about people's ego. I saw how that brain functionality can distort a person's view of the reality. The truth of the world always attracted me. To know there is a mechanism that prevents me from seeking it out was daunting to me. Yet, I saw that same mechanism in myself. The ego, the wants and desires that promoted the illusion of rightness in face of evidence. I couldn't stand for it. So, I annihilated it. I reprogrammed my behavior to rely, not on intuition natural flow of actions, but on calculated rationalization.

With my core ego out of the way, I was able to mold myself into anything I wanted. However, there was a price to pay. There's a reason for the existence of ego, that I didn't account for. It's not just an evil enchantress that blurs the view of the world. It's a guardian, protection one from the strikes from the environment. It was a shield. A barrier that I choose to shed off of me.

It takes a full set of information for the logical functionality to work its magic. In situations where only limited information is available, the ego usually provides a consistent and strainless response. If you have it, that is.

The only relationship that could work for me would be a well defined one. Ignoring 'the professional cuddlers', relationships simply don't work like that.

That makes me think that you're associating effort with drain.

I am, actually. Little effort means little drain. Lots of effort means a lot of drain. Just like you, I can take the drain, but not without a big reward. With relationships being unrewarding, I'm only left with drain.

English isn't your first language...? You could've fooled me.

There's a reason why I self-edit my stories up to a 100 times (don't read this, btw).

I don't even dare to comment on the forums without doing a Google Doc spell check on what I wrote. In this very comment, the mistakes I fixed were:
oppinions -> opinions (4x)
detirmine -> determine
rulles -> rules
lossen -> loosen
beneficient -> beneficent
clearity -> clarity
anihilated -> annihilated
reprogramed -> reprogrammed
relly -> rely
racionalization -> rationalization
blures -> blurs
sheed -> shed
ussually -> usually
spellcheck -> spell check
behaviour -> behavior

It makes me feel a teeny bit happy and awkward that I could be so many people's soulmate if I could just somehow turn into a chick.

You don't have to be a chick to be someone's soulmate. That's not dependent on a gender. At least not from my perspective.

I guess, being a chick would help if you wanted to get your uterus drilled and hammered at. Anything other than that, however, is a unisex gamefield.

3439278

I'm just gonna apologise in case I have not read something in here that renders what I am about to say useless. There is a lot of shit that has already been written and I'm lazy.

Trading drains me. It demands mental focus. In shops it's easy, as the rules are set. In relationships, you have to be constantly on a lookout for the good trades and avoid the bad trades. It's really hard to win. You loosen up your focus for one moment and you're starting to lose ground under you.

The fact that you think a relationship is something similar to trading, something where you can get good or bad deals, something that you can win or lose, already shows me already that you don't really know what a long-term committing relationship is.

You can't win in a relationship. Sure, you can have good times and bad times, you can have good relationships and bad relationships where trust has been broken or was never really there in the first place. But you can't win or lose them. Relationships aren't some sort of game, they are an active and very real part of life.

If you are going from experience and saying it is like trading or you can win/lose them, than i'm sorry to say that those relationships were never as big as true love and were not going to last

  • Viewing 1 - 50 of 63