Subjecting myself to ridicule for your entertainment... [Archive]

SmoothBaller

Sat, February 11th, 2006, 04:28 PM

I used to refuse to go deeper than the idea of "casual" simply because it served my own selfish needs. Personally, it looks like that type of diary is more reaching out for attention and satisfying the ego than entertainment, but that's just one opinion.

Sure, I agree with you to a degree that I'm serving my own selfish needs. I'm looking to meet, hook up, and date girls regardless of the fact that I'm not looking for something long-term right now. I KNOW I'm too focused on myself to put forth the effort to sustain a long-term relationship. I'm trying to concentrate on my work, school, and laying the foundation for my career all before I even think about sustaining a long-term relationship. However, I plan on enjoying the dating scene and looking for girls that want something more casual and similar to what I want at this point in time. In a relatively small college town where there is 20,000 girls between the ages of 18-21, there are plenty that aren't looking for long-term, but still want to enjoy the dating scene. I knew that the romantic relationships that I had with the girls I dated in high school weren't going to amount to anothing serious over the long-run, but we still enjoyed each other's company and the experiences helped me to learn a lot about myself.

I was planning on making this a private journal at first. But then, I realized that there are a ton of guys out there that have no idea how to approach a girl that they like. They are scared to death of rejection and let opportunites slip through their hands. Hell, I've done this before too. I thought maybe they could learn from some of the mistakes I make and be inspired to work up the courage approach that cute girl in Algebra class that they never talk to. And for those that don't have anything they might learn, then they can laugh at me and say "look at this loser who keeps falling on his face week after week".

What "skills" are needed beyond just being yourself, the true you?

While I believe that you have to be true to yourself, most guys weren't just born with the ability to effortlessly approach women and walk away with a phone number and a date 15 minutes later. I personally believe that meeting girls and having success must be LEARNED like anything else. I'd like to be able to confidently walk up to the hottest girl I see in the room, strike up a conversation, and leave with a date the next week. I definitely CANNOT do that right now. It's too far out of my comfort-zone, but like I expressed in the journal - I'm going to try to put myself outside of my comfort-zone and build the skills and confidence required to have that kind of success.

JeremyLikness

Sat, February 11th, 2006, 05:06 PM

That's good to know. Believe me, I'm not coming from a condescending point because I have BEEN THERE ... my ego was my BIGGEST problem when I was younger.

I think your idea from that perspective sounds interesting. I was actually the shy guy ... I couldn't approach a woman for ANY reason. My mouth would get dry, I used to have friends laugh at me in clubs because I'd literally stutter and not be able to get any words out when I tried to approach anyone. It was that bad!

In the end, I found I didn't require skills, just self confidence. When you're happy and comfortable with who you are, it's easy to approach others because you don't condition yourself to believe it's important how they accept you or not (that's their choice, not yours). When there is no agenda, there is no reason NOT to say "hey" and sit down and ease into a conversation.

Many people spin their wheels trying to find the right approaches, pick up lines, small talk, etc, when the true work is just on getting comfortable that "I am me, and happy to be me" and realizing the rest is no longer needed with that.

Thanks for all of the explanations and best of success with your journey.

Jeremy

Sure, I agree with you to a degree that I'm serving my own selfish needs. I'm looking to meet, hook up, and date girls regardless of the fact that I'm not looking for something long-term right now. I KNOW I'm too focused on myself to put forth the effort to sustain a long-term relationship. I'm trying to concentrate on my work, school, and laying the foundation for my career all before I even think about sustaining a long-term relationship. However, I plan on enjoying the dating scene and looking for girls that want something more casual and similar to what I want at this point in time. In a relatively small college town where there is 20,000 girls between the ages of 18-21, there are plenty that aren't looking for long-term, but still want to enjoy the dating scene. I knew that the romantic relationships that I had with the girls I dated in high school weren't going to amount to anothing serious over the long-run, but we still enjoyed each other's company and the experiences helped me to learn a lot about myself.

I was planning on making this a private journal at first. But then, I realized that there are a ton of guys out there that have no idea how to approach a girl that they like. They are scared to death of rejection and let opportunites slip through their hands. Hell, I've done this before too. I thought maybe they could learn from some of the mistakes I make and be inspired to work up the courage approach that cute girl in Algebra class that they never talk to. And for those that don't have anything they might learn, then they can laugh at me and say "look at this loser who keeps falling on his face week after week".

While I believe that you have to be true to yourself, most guys weren't just born with the ability to effortlessly approach women and walk away with a phone number and a date 15 minutes later. I personally believe that meeting girls and having success must be LEARNED like anything else. I'd like to be able to confidently walk up to the hottest girl I see in the room, strike up a conversation, and leave with a date the next week. I definitely CANNOT do that right now. It's too far out of my comfort-zone, but like I expressed in the journal - I'm going to try to put myself outside of my comfort-zone and build the skills and confidence required to have that kind of success.

SmoothBaller

Sat, February 11th, 2006, 05:35 PM

Chameleon

Sun, February 12th, 2006, 01:47 AM

Thanks. In no way did I take anything as condescending. I know that you speak from experience and I fully respect that and put a great deal of weight on that fact. Since I'm still relatively young, I'm still going through the journey and trying to learn from experiences.

I actually used to be pretty shy too, but for me, being shy made it a lot harder not just to meet girls, but also to meet friends. I grew up a military brat moving every couple of years and I found that if I didn't take a more outgoing and proactive approach I ended sitting home on the weekends by myself.

I look at this whole thing as a bit of a confidence builder within itself. Maybe I'll look back on this as a valuable experience that helped to build my confidence with the opposite sex and learn some things along the way. Then again, I may find that I never needed to step outside of my comfort-level and that I already possessed all the confidence I needed. I guess that's the fun of the journey though. :tu:

I understand the military brat thing... my dad was in the airforce and if we weren't moving one of my friends was... moving around like that you really don’t get a chance to know people for more than about two or three years at the most... I was on the 'not so shy' side of the fence... if I saw someone new I'd walk right up and say hi, introduce myself and try to get to know them... I didn't have much fear at all... I did eventually (unfortunately) start to get a bit self conscious, especially in high school... but I was still really open and friendly and was friends with all kinds of people because of it... my brother on the other hand was the exact opposite, he was overly shy and barely had any friends at all... I don't know for sure if it was the knowledge that he wouldn't get to know anyone for very long, or if he just didn't know how to approach people... but at the time I wasn't too concerned for him :whistle:

I think you have shown a lot of maturity in this thread, I haven’t read your journal but if you really feel the way you say you do, then you’ll get along great in the dating world… just have the balls/self confidence to walk up and say hi… that really is the hardest part for most people… don’t overanalyze any situation, don’t worry about whether or not they ‘might’ turn you down… just go over with the intent to say hello and see if she even has a compatible personality… it may turn out that she’s just a pretty face that would drive you insane, in a bad way, in a hurry… always remember that you are not the only one putting themselves out there, she is too, so she may be just as nervous about a first meeting as you are:gl:

Discrepancy

Sun, February 12th, 2006, 03:54 PM

i just find more value in solid relationships as opposed to what you are doing;)
What is a solid relationship? What seperates a solid relationship from a casual relationship where everything is already on the table?
Sometimes appearing casual isn't really being casual at all. Many people use that as a front because they're either too afraid to reveal their inner emotions, or as a desperate attempt to gain attention and with a subconscious belief that somehow the casual relationship can turn into something serious.
Some people do just prefer casual relationships though. :D

What "skills" are needed beyond just being yourself, the true you?
You need superiority. It sounds like a dickish thing, but to set yourself apart in a good way you just need to be better than other people. You don't have to act it, if you don't want, but you can fake it. No one is ever going to know "the true you" if they never notice any of you in the first place. Demonstrating a higher social value, and creating social proof, as the e-dating retards would say.

While I believe that you have to be true to yourself, most guys weren't just born with the ability to effortlessly approach women and walk away with a phone number and a date 15 minutes later.
Most. I've met a couple of naturals in my short time on this Earth. I'm very jealous. I think the only naturals are those that have sex either before or around the start of puberty (and it wasn't a traumatic experience), because social pressures and sexual frustration and angst never really become something they have to deal with. They aren't afraid to approach because they weren't brought up with a fear of rejection. It's a catch-22, to have a better chance with women you need to be naturally confident and happy, and it can be difficult for people to get there without having been with women. I think it should be some kind of federal law that if a kid hasn't lost his virginity by his 20th birthday and it's not because of religion he should be set-up with a prostitute. It should be a state sponsored program, too. I bet you it would cut down on a lot of killings and you'd see fewer serial killers.

tashimarie

Sun, February 12th, 2006, 04:58 PM

What is a solid relationship? What seperates a solid relationship from a casual relationship where everything is already on the table?

committment
love
connection

sure you can have those to a very small extent in a casual relationship, but its not comparable. i've had a few casual relationships in my lifetime and experience wise i can definately say that it takes a MUCH higher level of communication, committment, respect, and honesty to hold a real relationship together. many casual relationships end badly once one of the people enters a committed relationship.

you can 'love' many people, but to give your love to just one takes a greater understanding

we were all young once and made our mistakes, and i can say that if i ever divorced my husband i would keep only casual relationships for a very very long time due to the fact that i have children and they are my only priority. but once they grow older and have lives of their own im sure i would desire companionship and committment once again

Discrepancy

Sun, February 12th, 2006, 05:31 PM

committment
love
connection
You can have all three of those things in a casual relationship. Committment is relative. I would be there if someone needed help, but I wouldn't derail my life for someone. Committment for the sake of children is not committment, it's being haunted by your biological clock and social pressure. Committment because someone is your 'favorite' so far is not committment, it's settling for fear of the unknown or because you're tired of trying. True committment requires sacrifice, and not little sacrifices but big huge gigantic sacrifices, and that can destroy a connection and when the connection goes feelings of love sour. Love requires understanding and compassion, but has nothing to do with committment when talking about a significant other (children are another matter). Connection sexually fades over time (it has to, we all get ugly eventually), connection mentally will die out unless the couple does new things together or has the 'perfect relationship': never talking to each other so they never have time to realize how their relationship has failed.
sure you can have those to a very small extent in a casual relationship, but its not comparable.
Why not? So I don't want to sacrifice forever. I'm not afraid of blood and guts and I'm not afraid of sick people and I'm not afraid of death. I'd stay with a close friend if they were dying and I don't care if I had to clean up their vomit and help feed them. That's committment, and that's committment most people who claim to be committed will never know. There are different kinds of love, and subjugating 'soul mate' love to the mystical and horrifying world of the long term relationship is doing a disservice to reality.
MUCH higher level of honesty to hold a real relationship together.
... Are you serious? You will never be able to be more honest than in a casual relationship. The fact that the relationship is casual and that is known by both parties is already a level of honesty and forwardness you will never see in any long term relationship.
you can 'love' many people, but to give your love to just one takes a greater understanding
Until you find someone better, and newer, and you find out the one you loved wasn't so great. Maybe you stay together for the kids. Maybe you stay together for the money. Probably you stay together over fear of not finding someone else. The rare loves- the ones that last forever, hold terrible secrets and involved massive amounts of sacrifice. It's not to say it can never work, but no 'pure' love and survive that. Maybe once you reach older age, and you're settled, and you're able to know what you want and who you want to share the rest of your years with. But before the age of 50 you are constantly changing (and still after, but to a lesser extent).

That is the way people work, if we never changed we'd never improve and we'd still be hitting women in the head with clubs and dragging them back to caves... Which now that I think about it is actually preferrable to the dating scene, but I digress. Everyone is constantly changing. Committment you can have. Committment is easy to have. Really, really easy, as long as you're not afraid of life, which a lot of people seem to be. Love you can have, too, but love is transitory, no matter what other people say. Love isn't defined by the gut-wrenching feeling you get when you realize it's over, that's just you coming down from the endorphin high, and that's the same feeling you get a couple months after you've been in a relationship and you realize everything isn't as great as you thought it was, just on a larger scale. Love is what you feel in the now, it's the high, and it can last for a while, but it has to be transitory. Unless you mentally dominate someone, which with my mother being a psychologist who's worked with abused women I've seen more than once (but that love is never mutual), love will eventually fade as people grow apart. It's not bad, it's not immoral- it's natural. And to say otherwise is to be wrong. Evolutionary biology, behavioral psychology and logic are on my side, and unless you're starting 1992 Dream Team you're going to have a hard time against that trio.

Connections aren't rare, I make connections everyday, the connections that stick with you good or bad eventually become something more but it's not worth listing that along with what you need in a long term relationship because a connection eventually turns into love anyway. Or hate, I guess. People say there's a fine line there, I don't think the line is that fine, but it's probably much easier to stumble over it when you're drunk. :D

tashimarie

Sun, February 12th, 2006, 06:09 PM

ok well thats your opinion, which will change many times over the next few years. so i wont debate this...but good luck

Discrepancy

Sun, February 12th, 2006, 06:44 PM

ok well thats your opinion, which will change many times over the next few years.
As will yours. ;)

Andrew

Sun, February 12th, 2006, 07:26 PM

I think it should be some kind of federal law that if a kid hasn't lost his virginity by his 20th birthday and it's not because of religion he should be set-up with a prostitute. It should be a state sponsored program, too. I bet you it would cut down on a lot of killings and you'd see fewer serial killers.

:blank:

guava

Sun, February 12th, 2006, 09:24 PM

Interesting. I've been hesistant to add my opinion here, but I will finally express these thoughts that came to mind.

A "player" by definition is playing a game; taking on a role and acting out a fantasy. The game may be fun, and may sometimes be even more enjoyable than real life, but it is different from reality. It lacks depth, it stalls growth, and it can hurt people who do not realize they are being drawn into the game.

Smoothballer, communication tips can indeed be learned and I wish you luck in this experience. Games can be played, but it essential that all players are perfectly clear on the rules right from the start. Of course, even once this is taken care of, it's still very easy to become hurt. Also, game-playing can be a defense mechanism. You want to be a player, because then the women who reject you will be rejecting the make-believe you; not the true you.

Discrepancy, I can hear that you have been hurt and you have very little faith in society in general; in giving and sharing equally. I hope that your pessimistic attitude will improve as you mature.

People don't kill because they've been sexless. People kill because they don't see value in themselves or other people. If you value yourself, other people will as well. If you lack respect for yourself, others will respond likewise.

As my signature says, you don't attract what you want, you attract what you are.

TarSeal

Sun, February 12th, 2006, 10:34 PM

I was a player, and a damn good one... till I met my wife. :lol: Isn't that how it always works?

Chameleon

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 12:26 AM

Discrepancy... I think you have a lot of growing up to do before you could possibly know as much as you think you do about love... I think Guava is right too.. it sounds like you've been hurt recently and you're striking out at love as a defense mechanism... don't try to over analyze love, it's not black and white, and it doesn't fall into nice little lines and patterns for you... it's complicated and it's real, and while people do change, so does their love for one another... I can tell you from personal experience that while I have changed, and Roger has changed, so has our fourteen year relationship.. and it's been for the BETTER not the worse... you are FAR to cynical for a 17 year old.

Discrepancy

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 07:25 AM

A "player" by definition is playing a game; taking on a role and acting out a fantasy.
If you've ever been around the club scene in a major city you know that everyone there is playing a game, male and female alike. Some people are dragged out by friends, but the majoirty go of their own volition, and it's peacocking, which is a term created by some stupid dating guru in Canada who was a drug addict. People trying to impress other people with the eventual goal of making a sexual connection. The only people that get hurt are the ones that actively try and deny the truth of the situation they put themselves in or the real assholes who are manipulative, and both of those kinds of people exist in both genders.
You want to be a player, because then the women who reject you will be rejecting the make-believe you; not the true you.
Most "PLAYAZ 4 LYFE WORD" probably got into it out of insecurity. Some maybe got really rich and their entire lives they've been having casual sexual relationships, and that's all they know, but I'm sure the majority who've actually taken the time to learn about social dynamics are coming from some kind of failure in younger life. It's less that your persona is being rejected but more an idea that the opinion of one woman doesn't matter. I think that's an important mindset to have, and I think not a lot of people have it.

There are of course some people that just generally want to have sex with different people. There's no point in decrying them. No one else is better than them. The only thing they could be doing wrong from a moral perspective is knowingly spread STDs or not take care of offspring, but that's not all of those people.
Discrepancy, I can hear that you have been hurt and you have very little faith in society in general; in giving and sharing equally. I hope that your pessimistic attitude will improve as you mature.
Why am I pessimistic? :confused: Most relationships are failures. Not all. I think love can last for a very long time. But love is transitory, even in old age. Love wouldn't be so talked about if it wasn't different, if it wasn't new, if it wasn't always changing. I can't say I've ever really been hurt. I hit my head on a pipe one time and cracked it open, that might explain some things. :lol: My family is pretty terrible, but I have my mother who's nice enough even though she's kind of an emotional trainwreck, but I've never really had to depend on my family. I'm surprisingly well-adjusted. I'm infinitely more well-adjusted than people who put their heads in the sand and think that love is the end all be all and that it lasts for ever and that kids can fix a failing relationship and that the Pope is from outerspace (although I've been warming to that last idea lately).
People don't kill because they've been sexless. People kill because they don't see value in themselves or other people. If you value yourself, other people will as well. If you lack respect for yourself, others will respond likewise.
This I disagree with. When talking about pathological killers, they generally have a 'target demographic.' And there have been plenty of serial killers that killed women because they were rejected at a time when they were emotionally susceptible to outside influences (puberty generally being the time when the combination of peer and sexual pressures hit you at once). Yes, many kill because they had terrible childhoods or some kind of overriding emotional trauma during their early years which they never could fully comprehend and which led to some form of desensitization, but trust me, a fair amount have been bred from the extremes of teenage angst. You can say I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm young, and I would respond that you don't know what you're talking about because you're not as young as I am.

People say we're in an oversexed culture. They're wrong. We're in a undersexed culture. Maxim, FHM, overseas the women are nude. Here they're teases. If everybody got laid more often there would be a lot less frustration there. We're in a society that somehow believes that abstinence is actually something that can be adhered to by a teenager in a public school going through massive hormonal shifts. Maybe a full-formed adult can beat biology, but children are less likely to deny urges, and you can't protect them from some, nor should you. The fact that the there is so much teasing, and that peer pressure is at an all time worst in most highschools and that teenagers face sexual pressures you can't even dream of leads to people getting into hardcore pornography or decrying women and calling them all whores if they're even with a man or whatever (and a fair amount of rapists are the result of that second group), and none of that is healthy. Trust me, if everyone just got their first time over with, it would be a lot easier. Give everyone a condom and send them to get a blowjob or something. It's never good anyway. I think it's kind of anticlimatic, and would relieve stress on most teenagers. After I had sex for the first time I barely even though about it, and I kind of understand where the "naturals" come from, and why they're attractive to women. Everyone who I went to school with constantly thought about sex, and it was right infront of them, but the problem was no one was ever actually getting it, despite what some people might think.
:blank:
:moon:
Discrepancy... I think you have a lot of growing up to do before you could possibly know as much as you think you do about love... think Guava is right too.. it sounds like you've been hurt recently and you're striking out at love as a defense mechanism... don't try to over analyze love, it's not black and white, and it doesn't fall into nice little lines and patterns for you...
I don't think there's a lot to know about love. You experience it, and that's great, and then it fades for most people. You'll grow apart the fastest when you're the youngest, and it all slows down as you get older. Love and marriage are two seperate things. Marriage literally is settling, it's why people say you're settling down. Of course they don't mean it that way, but it's what the word means. You don't need to have a long term relationship to love someone. Love is endorphins. If you want a 'small' taste of love go eat some chocolate.

And no, I agree, love isn't black and white. It's very not black and white. If anything, it's probably hot pink, because it's fucking crazy. And that is what makes it great, and that's why people say they're crazy about each other, because in times where social standards are as strict as they are and everyone is apart of the herd through marketing and the media whether they know it or not it's the one thing that allows you to break out, it's a real feeling when most other feelings have been watered down. But it is transitory. Love is a feeling, by definition, you feel love. Feelings are transitory, just like people are transitory. That is why love is special. Love is not a job, a job never moves. Well, unless you're getting your job outsourced... But uh, bad example. Love is a connection with another person. I don't think love is bad, I think love is good. I also think anyone who thinks that love is something you have forever is delusional, either because they want desperately to believe, or it's been something that's been drilled into their heads since they were born.
I can tell you from personal experience that while I have changed, and Roger has changed, so has our fourteen year relationship.. and it's been for the BETTER not the worse...
And that's great. But you are not the standard, you are the exception. Most people don't change together, and that is one of the things that ends love. Maybe it's because of work, or someone else comes along and someone gets new friends and they stop doing things together because they've branched out into a topic the other person knows nothing about. Maybe kids have taken away something in a relationship, when the people that had them thought they would add to it, not comprehending the responsibility of children. Many people who get married aren't in love, and many who are in love that get married see their love fade due to the FUNDAMENTAL transitory nature of humanity, and those marriages fail faster. Marriage is committment, committment doesn't require love. I would say the most efficient marriages are those based purely on need. Both people go to work, both come home, they have a couple of kids, everyonce and a while they go out, their kids have kids, they retire and ignore each other, they die. It's not the Notebook. Life isn't a movie, real love that goes until you're 80 is so rare and can be so easily warped that expecting it is like expecting to win the lottery. You are incredibly lucky if you do, and some people win $500 and thought they win, and then they piss it all away and realize maybe they didn't win after all. It's not a bad thing, but it's not what people make it out to be.
you are FAR to cynical for a 17 year old.
Hehe, I knew age would come into this.

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW TO THE RESCUE

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

tashimarie

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 09:05 AM

My family is pretty terrible, but I have my mother who's nice enough even though she's kind of an emotional trainwreck, but I've never really had to depend on my family.

these are the magic words, you may THINK you are 'well adjusted' and may even think you are 'mature' for your age, however your way of thinking in terms of love and relationships is LEARNED, not fact.

and age DOES play a big part in ones definition and understanding of relationships.

TarSeal

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 09:19 AM

My family is pretty terrible ."
This explains it.

Give everyone a condom and send them to get a blowjob or something. It's never good anyway.."
:eek: :doh: :nono: Maybe the one(s) you've gotten were not good, but trust me, they are GOOD. :tucool:

I don't think there's a lot to know about love. If anything, it's probably hot pink, because it's fucking crazy.."
I'm starting to think you've never actually been in love. I think you know what infatuation is, not love. And that's ok. When you are actually, really, completely in love, the hot pink may change into a much deeper hue, one that reaches into the depths of your soul. You will be willing to "derail your life," because this will BE your life.

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW TO THE RESCUE

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."

Good quote, and very true, when he said it... Accurate observation requires adequate personal experience though.

An ABE LINCOLN quote comes to mind:
"It is better to be thought a fool than to open
one's mouth and remove all doubt."

I'm not calling you a fool Discrepancy. I think you have made some good observations, and it is perfectly normal to feel the way you do. Maybe this is how you will always feel. Just know it is quite jaded, pessimistic, and cynical. It may not be so becoming on a 17 year old to act like a pissed off old geezer with 5 failed marriages under his belt. Just keep this in mind when you are "playing" the chicks, they will see the real you, and it is apparently pretty negative when it comes to romance. As the more experienced posters in this thread have pointed out to you (or tried to point out) the ladies who may appear casual may not actually be so. Unless the girl in question is in a self destructive phase of excessive drinking/drugging/partying or extremely naive and inexperienced then they will see past any front you can erect, and steer clear quickly. In any case, you will regret at some point any time you take advantge of a girl in any of the above situations. This only comes later with reflection.

You can have plenty of one night stands, even with your attitude, because there are plenty of oblivious, drunk young girls out there. Even a "casual relationship," which I assume will involve at least some converstion will be difficult to attain with your outlook. Once she sobers up and hears your take on the transitory nature of love, and the failure rate of marriage etc... she'll probably move on pretty quick. :nod:

I'm all for you playing the field at your age. Hell, I did. It was great. Just try to leave the door open to great things that you don't comprehend yet...

You'll get it figured out. :gl:

Chameleon

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 09:35 AM

Bluestreak

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 09:36 AM

And that's great. But you are not the standard, you are the exception. Most people don't change together, and that is one of the things that ends love.
People do change together - if they communicate and have a desire to make a relationship work. We're living, breathing proof.

Maybe it's because of work, or someone else comes along and someone gets new friends and they stop doing things together because they've branched out into a topic the other person knows nothing about. Maybe kids have taken away something in a relationship, when the people that had them thought they would add to it, not comprehending the responsibility of children.
These are external influences. If people let these things grow between them without communicating the start of such a fissure in a relationship, then the failure, once again, is their own. People seem to have problems taking responsibility for the fact that failed relationships are not a function of external circumstances; these are nothing more than convenient excuses for failures allowing people to mask the deeper roots of their problems that likely extend beyond a failed marriage and further into their lives - they'll blame jobs, upbringing, anything they can to deny the roots of a problem larger than a failed marriage.

The true failure on their part is the inability to nurture the relationship between the parties involved. "Nurturing a relationship" entails a dynamic process I can't put into a post of any short length, but a lack of it is most certainly why relationships fail.

Marriage is committment, committment doesn't require love.
Marriage is an antiquated concept. The commitment it implies is not. However, commitment of that kind does requires love. A lack of love will fail a relationship. One cannot commit to someone for a lifetime without the presence of love, and have that lifetime be a meaningful one. I suppose there are exceptions to every rule, but by and large, I think you'd be extremely hard-pressed to present one.

Hehe, I knew age would come into this.
Age matters. Your maturity for your age appears admirable, but you have a great deal of life lessons and revelations that only come with time ... and age. Younger people very often try to invalidate the lessons that time impart to the more aged by citing maturity with eloquence. While this is a more solid argument, it doesn't hold the water you (and every other teenager) would like for it to. The relationship between maturity and wisdom is not linear or predictable, and at age 17, quite bluntly, there is a lack of life experience for you to truly substantiate an argument on a subject like love without having experienced it over appreciable amounts of time in its various forms. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Embrace it and grow, or reject this notion and continue your arguments.

I'll give you one guess which one I'd do. I've very recently been reminded that age brings wisdom and experience the likes of which I can't combat at 32.

-R

Discrepancy

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 10:26 AM

these are the magic words, you may THINK you are 'well adjusted' and may even think you are 'mature' for your age, however your way of thinking in terms of love and relationships is LEARNED, not fact.

and age DOES play a big part in ones definition and understanding of relationships.
Oh, I'm sure most of it is learned. Some of it is fact, though. And a lot more of what I say is fact than what you say, so if we're grading on a curve here I should probably win some sort of award. I like to take the time to study some of the basics of evolutionary biology and how it plays into social dynamics. I hardly take one book to be canon but I've read several and drawn my own conclusions of them. If there's any part of my arguement you can refute go for it, if there's one thing I've learned it's that I'm wrong a lot, but I'm not a big fan of being judged by someone on the internet who only has my age and a vague family history to go on. You're not a psychologist, you think they're magic words. I was raised in a family of mental help professionals who probably needed the mental help themselves. I could probably sleep my way through a doctorate (except for that pesky research work. tsk tsk :nono: daddy no like worky) in psychology as a result of my upbringing. I have flaws, so does everyone else, but my family flaws don't affect my ability to understand the basic constructs of human interaction, and any work related to that subject was not done by me so it wouldn't be biased to my views on the matter.
This explains it.
No, it doesn't, but you're free to believe it's done.
:eek: :doh: :nono: Maybe the one(s) you've gotten were not good, but trust me, they are GOOD. :tucool:
I've never talked to anyone who thought their first time was that amazing, even people who 'saved themselves' didn't have great sex their first time. You're fidgety, you're nervous, it ruins the ambiance. I have managed to actually have really good sex despite myself, but my first time was tremendously underwhelming.
I'm starting to think you've never actually been in love. I think you know what infatuation is, not love. And that's ok.
I'm well aware of what infatuation is. Keep in mind I'm 17, and while you can use my age to try and make my opinion hold less weight I am around fickle emotions all day long and everyone who's been dating two weeks is in love. I've had a girl tell me she was in love with me after I took her to play minigolf, and it was our first date. I think I can identify infatuation. I can also identify batshit crazy, which I have found to be a useful skill.
When you are actually, really, completely in love, the hot pink may change into a much deeper hue, one that reaches into the depths of your soul. You will be willing to "derail your life," because this will BE your life.
I've heard this before. If you've got that, you're lucky- but it's not the standard, and it's not something everyone will experience, and if you think it is I'd like to direct you to current divorce rates which are even lower than they should be if you take into account people staying together for children or out of financial need. I bet your experiences with different women made you more apt to seeing what was special and different about your current relationship, and most men don't have your experience, so they wouldn't be able to tell love from anything else.
Good quote, and very true, when he said it... Accurate observation requires adequate personal experience though.
I doubt many people have "adequate" personal experience. Though I suppose it depends on your definition of adequate. If adequate is being older than 17 years old- then yeah, you've got me there. If adequate is having been in several relationships (the human variable) and actually spent free time to study (http://tinyurl.com/c5a6m) literature (http://tinyurl.com/d4md3) generally (http://tinyurl.com/b2w73) associated (http://tinyurl.com/99nc2) with (http://tinyurl.com/7bt26) this (http://tinyurl.com/dbojk) field (http://tinyurl.com/bf9e6) (the scientific variable, I guess) then I should have adequate experience in your eyes.
An ABE LINCOLN quote comes to mind:
"It is better to be thought a fool than to open
one's mouth and remove all doubt."
QUOTE BATTLE :cool: (it is like a rap battle but with lofty intellectualism!)

"Do you think that the things people make fools of themselves about are any less real and true than the things they behave sensibly about? They are more true: they are the only things that are true."
Just know it is quite jaded, pessimistic, and cynical.
I don't know why people in this thread seem to be assuming this about me. I'm not pessimistic at all, I try not be jaded, and I only come off as cynical when I'm talking to someone who has no idea what they're talking about (as I was yesterday when someone was telling me Kobe Bryant was the greatest basketball player ever). I think love is good. I think relationships are good, and necessary. I have no problem with any of this. I have a problem with people who think love is not transitory. It has to be transitory, because it is an emotion, and every single emotion is transitory.
It may not be so becoming on a 17 year old to act like a pissed off old geezer with 5 failed marriages under his belt.
My future ex-wives... :lol:
Just keep this in mind when you are "playing" the chicks, they will see the real you, and it is apparently pretty negative when it comes to romance.
I am a hopeless romantic. I am also a hopeless realist, and I suppose the combination of hopeless forms some kind of outer prick shell. I hope the shell is made from white chocolate.
As the more experienced posters
I don't think so. A long term relationship is well... Long. You can't have experience of them if you haven't had a few of them. Two isn't enough, neither is three. Anyone who would think two or three long term relationships would make them an expert on the subject would be wrong. It's too small a pool. Only an 80 year old guy who's been in 20 relationships that have latest atleast 2 years can come in here and pretend to be an expert about the human variable. I may be 17, but you're only 30. And I believe the two others who responded to me were 28 and 32, respectively. If you think being a little less than twice my age gives you enough experience on this Earth to pull the "Sonny, why when I was your age..." card then I would have to disagree with you.
Unless the girl in question is in a self destructive phase of excessive drinking/drugging/partying or extremely naive and inexperienced then they will see past any front you can erect, and steer clear quickly. In any case, you will regret at some point any time you take advantge of a girl in any of the above situations. This only comes later with reflection.
If you think those are the only women you can have a casual relationship with then I don't know who's supposed to be the adult here. Drug addicts, alcoholics, party girls. Or extremely naive and inexperienced girls who are easily taken advantage of. How about young, intelligent honest girls who know that they're young and in a phase of their life where a long term relationship is not an option for them and they want to have fun now?
Even a "casual relationship," which I assume will involve at least some converstion will be difficult to attain with your outlook. Once she sobers up and hears your take on the transitory nature of love, and the failure rate of marriage etc... she'll probably move on pretty quick. :nod:
My experience disagrees with your findings. Though my experience probably doesn't count because I'm 17. :rolleyes:
I'm all for you playing the field at your age. Hell, I did. It was great. Just try to leave the door open to great things that you don't comprehend yet...
I'm open. Way open. Very open. Always open. Except for Scientology, then I'm closed. Very closed. Way closed. Erecting a wall made of steel around me closed.

TheRyanator

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 10:40 AM

Where is Sigmund Freud when you need him eh?

Discrepancy - even though I agree with what most people have replied to your comments, I DID get quite a kick out of your comments about Scientology. Made me LOL right here at my desk. Keep em' coming. :tu: :lol:

Roger, if you and your wife met when you were 17/18, how long have you been married??

Bluestreak

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 10:45 AM

Roger, if you and your wife met when you were 17/18, how long have you been married??
I was 18 and a few months when she turned up in my world. How long married? Depends on how you look at it. If'n you ask me, we were "married " sometime in late 1995. "For the record", we were married in May 2001.

Actually, as it's nearing the end of February, we're about to pass 14 years together. We met in February 1992.

-R

Discrepancy

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 10:49 AM

he's pretty well convinced that at 17 years of age with almost NO real personal experience, that he has it all figured out...
:blank: I guess like I have it all figured out you have me all figured out.
he doesn't want to hear what we are saying
Sure I do, I like hearing differing views. More information is always good. I don't even disagree with most of you, but I disagree with the way you see love and relationships in general. They're not as solid as you think, I think. (there is a lot of thinking going on here)
hell at 17 I thought I was in love too... I was even engaged:rolleyes: ... I, thankfully, broke it off before I made a big mistake, however I didn't want to hear that I might have made a mistake... I had to figure it out for myself... which I did BEFORE I got married... four months after I broke off my engagement, I met Roger and learned what REAL love was, and we took it slowly, so that we were both sure of each other before we took our relationship to other levels... what I had thought was love before, was really just puppy love or infatuation
So let's assume you had a couple relationships before you got engaged. And then maybe one for the four month period before you met Roger. Do you honestly think that's enough to act like a definitive authority and tell me I'm wrong because I think love is just like every other emotion?
experience is the only thing that will teach something like this... when he HAS the real, personal, experience then he will see that he may have been wrong, but until then, he won't see it.
I guess I'll go get engaged then.
People do change together - if they communicate and have a desire to make a relationship work. We're living, breathing proof.
I said most. I try and say most a lot, not because I'm trying to skirt dissenting views by going "hurr, well uh, I DIDN'T SAY EVERYONE" but people who change together are the exception. And that's a great way to keep a relationship together. And not everyone has the ability to communicate well and the desire to make a relationship work. "Love conquers all." If that's not a pitfall of logic that opens the door to people assuming it'll all be okay while their relationship crashes and burns and they do nothing about it I don't know what is.
If people let these things grow between them without communicating the start of such a fissure in a relationship, then the failure, once again, is their own.
Not everyone is strong enough to stop it. Or, a great exposition for the realiziation that your relationship isn't all it was cracked up to be even though you think the other person loves you: they don't want to take the time to change and stop things. Either they brush it off and say that the relationship is okay, or maybe they've found joy in other things. Transitory nature of humanity, and all that. I'm not saying no one can have a successful relationship, I'm saying putting yourself forth as the standard would be misleading.

Marriage is an antiquated concept. The commitment it implies is not. However, commitment of that kind does requires love. A lack of love will fail a relationship. One cannot commit to someone for a lifetime without the presence of love, and have that lifetime be a meaningful one. I suppose there are exceptions to every rule, but by and large, I think you'd be extremely hard-pressed to present one.
I present you: rich people with hectic jobs. Good looking kids, nice happy family, enjoyable social circle. I've seen a lot of those families living where I live, and I've heard of and seen the parents growing old together. And they never talked. Denial can work. You don't need to have love in committment (you can have children instead :D ), but you do need to have committment in love if you want it to last. There are loveless marriages that work.

treacherous

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 11:29 AM

This guy's newsletter has really helped me immensely in my quest for more a$$... :D

http://www.doubleyourdating.com

Chameleon

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 11:31 AM

I present you: rich people with hectic jobs. Good looking kids, nice happy family, enjoyable social circle. I've seen a lot of those families living where I live, and I've heard of and seen the parents growing old together. And they never talked. Denial can work. You don't need to have love in committment (you can have children instead :D ), but you do need to have committment in love if you want it to last. There are loveless marriages that work.

the bold underlined section is the EXACT reason a lot of marriages DON'T work and don't stay together... communication is KEY, if you can't communicate then how does the other person in the relationship know what you think/feel/want??? hmmmm... I know you think that the number of relationships is the best way to meaure 'experience' in your opinion.. you did state that... however... it's not the number of relationships that matters.. it's how good the relationship was and how long it lasted that matters more... not how many you had... quality not quantity is what matters

and yes, no matter how much you THINK age doesn't matter and no matter how many books you've read on the subject... experience means a LOT more than book learning in this instance... I'm not saying I know more than anyone else, actually I know I don't, I am constantly learning in this arena... what I am saying is that at a younger age, you just don't have the experience yet.. you will though.. just give it time... and I admitted having a bad relationship at 17... and I'll go on to say that I did date a LOT when I was in high school... however they weren't good relationships with good communication and no matter how much I though I knew about love then, I know NOW that I didn't know squat when I was your age... but I thought I did :nod:

communication is one of the most important factors in any relationship... most relationships fail because of a lack of communication... take a couple who's married but never tells the other person what's bothering them... the person who cheats is usually just looking for someone to listen to their problems, because they don't feel they can communicate with thier spouse... and that innocent relationship is what usually starts to bloom into something more because they have a communication link that the original relationship didn't... TALKING to each other and keeping each other appraised of wants, needs, issues, etc, is how a relationship can stay strong and happy indefinately... and ANYONE can do it... ANYONE can keep thier relationship strong and good if they put the time and effort into it and TALK to each other... discuss your problems and concerns with each other... but most people don't do this :nope:

Discrepancy

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 12:09 PM

This guy's newsletter has really helped me immensely in my quest for more a$$... :D

http://www.doubleyourdating.com
David DeAngelo is probably the least insane of the dating gurus, but he's also the best marketer, so a lot of his stuff is watered down. You'd be better off downloading some of his videos then reading his newsletter which is a regurgitation of all his matieral.
the bold underlined section is the EXACT reason a lot of marriages DON'T work and don't stay together... communication is KEY, if you can't communicate then how does the other person in the relationship know what you think/feel/want???
Marriages based on necessity do work. I don't advise them, but they do. You don't have to talk to have a marriage that lasts a long time. A long lasting marriage doesn't mean a successful marriage, though.

hmmmm... I know you think that the number of relationships is the best way to meaure 'experience' in your opinion..
Everyone thinks it's the best way to measure the human variable. That's what everyone in this thread has told me, including you.
quality not quantity is what matters
Quality is what matters in reality, but during debates what matters is experience, whether it be good or bad. You can have one great relationship that lasts forever, but then you can't speak definitively as to the generalities of relationships because the majority of relationships don't go that way.
and yes, no matter how much you THINK age doesn't matter and no matter how many books you've read on the subject... experience means a LOT more than book learning in this instance... I'm not saying I know more than anyone else, actually I know I don't, I am constantly learning in this arena... what I am saying is that at a younger age, you just don't have the experience yet.. you will though.. just give it time...
In male/female relations there is the scientific and the human variable. I have less experience with the human variable than you do, but I have some. Do you have experience with evolutionary biology, or evolutionary and behavioral psychology? It's not one or the other, it's both, and talking from the perspective of the human variable is only any good if you want to be the next Dr. Phil and tell people they're too fat and you just need to work harder. You keep telling me I don't have experience, yet apparently I have more experience with facets of human interaction than you do.
no matter how much I though I knew about love then, I know NOW that I didn't know squat when I was your age... but I thought I did :nod:
I've had two very good relationships that had to be ended due to 'oncoming' distance issues that were going to arise. If your litmus test for knowing about the human variable of love is successful relationships, then I pass.
communication is one of the most important factors in any relationship
And yet many of the relationships that last the longest involve little to no communication.
most relationships fail because of a lack of communication
Most relationships fail because people don't care as much as they thought they did about their relationship. Most relationships fail because people are fickle. Most marriages might fail because of a lack of communication, but general relationships can fail for any number of ridiculous reasons.
take a couple who's married but never tells the other person what's bothering them... the person who cheats is usually just looking for someone to listen to their problems, because they don't feel they can communicate with thier spouse...
I've seen plenty of relationships where cheating is accepted, and many of those people are pretty happy. A case in point would be some old neighbors I had, who had been together for 40 years. The man was tired of sex, and preferred golf, and I really liked him. He was funny and interesting. The wife was okay, I guess, I never really knew her well. They never really talked about the bad things, and the man was fine with her cheating, and she was fine with him if he ever did it. That's pretty disgusting, right? But so are casual relationships. Their relationship lasted a long time. So which is it, are casual relationships hollow, or was their relationship bad even though it was long lasting (and I believe they're still together, this was around 3 years ago)? If their relationship was bad, why? They loved each other, it seemed. And they both understood (although it was a pretty fucking huge thing to accept) that they weren't interested in each other sexually.

Does that relationship not live up to your unbelievably vague standards? Is a casual relationship any worse because the same understanding and accepting is there, though it's there for a different reason?

TALKING to each other and keeping each other appraised of wants, needs, issues, etc, is how a relationship can stay strong and happy indefinately
That's what your experiences with your relationships has taught you. At 32 years old, with only a few relationships under your belt, most of which were in highschool and could probably not even be called real relationships.

My experiences have taught me similar things, but I have different realiziations, and I'm more open than you are.

We're very alike. You think my experience is insufficient, and I feel the same way about you. The one difference between us is that I have studied the science behind it (not so I can argue on the internet, but because it's interesting to me) and you have had one very long relationship. And if we're going to judge each other on that, when talking about the majority of relationships and the current dating scene, well... I'm going to side with myself, and I imagine you're going to side with you. So it appears we have made little progress.

Chameleon

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 12:41 PM

David DeAngelo is probably the least insane of the dating gurus, but he's also the best marketer, so a lot of his stuff is watered down. You'd be better off downloading some of his videos then reading his newsletter which is a regurgitation of all his matieral.

Marriages based on necessity do work. I don't advise them, but they do. You don't have to talk to have a marriage that lasts a long time. A long lasting marriage doesn't mean a successful marriage, though.

Everyone thinks it's the best way to measure the human variable. That's what everyone in this thread has told me, including you.

Quality is what matters in reality, but during debates what matters is experience, whether it be good or bad. You can have one great relationship that lasts forever, but then you can't speak definitively as to the generalities of relationships because the majority of relationships don't go that way.

In male/female relations there is the scientific and the human variable. I have less experience with the human variable than you do, but I have some. Do you have experience with evolutionary biology, or evolutionary and behavioral psychology? It's not one or the other, it's both, and talking from the perspective of the human variable is only any good if you want to be the next Dr. Phil and tell people they're too fat and you just need to work harder. You keep telling me I don't have experience, yet apparently I have more experience with facets of human interaction than you do.

I've had two very good relationships that had to be ended due to 'oncoming' distance issues that were going to arise. If your litmus test for knowing about the human variable of love is successful relationships, then I pass.

And yet many of the relationships that last the longest involve little to no communication.

Most relationships fail because people don't care as much as they thought they did about their relationship. Most relationships fail because people are fickle. Most marriages might fail because of a lack of communication, but general relationships can fail for any number of ridiculous reasons.

I've seen plenty of relationships where cheating is accepted, and many of those people are pretty happy. A case in point would be some old neighbors I had, who had been together for 40 years. The man was tired of sex, and preferred golf, and I really liked him. He was funny and interesting. The wife was okay, I guess, I never really knew her well. They never really talked about the bad things, and the man was fine with her cheating, and she was fine with him if he ever did it. That's pretty disgusting, right? But so are casual relationships. Their relationship lasted a long time. So which is it, are casual relationships hollow, or was their relationship bad even though it was long lasting (and I believe they're still together, this was around 3 years ago)? If their relationship was bad, why? They loved each other, it seemed. And they both understood (although it was a pretty fucking huge thing to accept) that they weren't interested in each other sexually.

Does that relationship not live up to your unbelievably vague standards? Is a casual relationship any worse because the same understanding and accepting is there, though it's there for a different reason?

That's what your experiences with your relationships has taught you. At 32 years old, with only a few relationships under your belt, most of which were in highschool and could probably not even be called real relationships.

My experiences have taught me similar things, but I have different realiziations, and I'm more open than you are.

We're very alike. You think my experience is insufficient, and I feel the same way about you. The one difference between us is that I have studied the science behind it (not so I can argue on the internet, but because it's interesting to me) and you have had one very long relationship. And if we're going to judge each other on that, when talking about the majority of relationships and the current dating scene, well... I'm going to side with myself, and I imagine you're going to side with you. So it appears we have made little progress.

*sigh* this is my last response because I just don't feel like talking to a wall anymore:bang:... ONE... I did not ever say experience = number of relationships... I did say TIME gives you more and more experience, and whether you like it or not... I do have twice as much time on this plant... no it does not make me an authority, however I do have more experience than you do, by default... people like Justita has more experience than I do... my grandmother has more than both of us... and by the way.. my grandparents were married for more than 50 HAPPY years and had a wonderful marriage with LOTS of communication and 9 children... just sayin'... oh and the only reason I say 'were' is because my grandfather passed away a few years ago.

TWO... if someone say's "yes dear you can go have sex with the neighbor" then it is no longer cheating because your spouse is OKAY with it and has knowledge of it... cheating is when you go behind your spouses back and LIE to them about it... there is a distinct difference

THREE... we both need to stop using the word MOST in this thread... SOME marriages end because of communication problems, SOME end because one is more ambitious than the other, SOME end because they grow appart and don't want to grow back together, SOME just end

That's what your experiences with your relationships has taught you. At 32 years old, with only a few relationships under your belt, most of which were in highschool and could probably not even be called real relationships.

look who's talking. :rolleyes:

FOUR... science is good and all.. but it is really pretty moot when discussing a concept... concepts are best studied by experiencing them... love is like faith... etiher you have it and understand it... or you don't.

text books can not adequately tell you how you will feel or act while in love... all they can do is tell you what has happened with some people in the past and study patterns

I know people who are extremely book smart but have almost no common sense... I am not saying this is your case... however... book learning can only get you so far... the rest has to be experienced to learn... and LOVE fall's into this category

I'm done here... b'bye

edit: hehe I missed this the first time...

My experiences have taught me similar things, but I have different realiziations, and I'm more open than you are.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
if only you knew exactly how open I am :rolleyes: :lol: you know nothing about me so why don't you stop trying to label me... I haven't done that to you
(and I know you'll probably say I have because I mentioned your age... but that is not a label.. it's a fact.. you ARE 17 and you can't help that.)

Discrepancy

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 01:53 PM

I did not ever say experience = number of relationships...
Well then, you might not be saying it, but I am. You can't understand all the variables in a relationship if you don't experience them.
I did say TIME gives you more and more experience, and whether you like it or not...
If you're experiencing one thing, time gives you more and more experience with one thing.
my grandparents were married for more than 50 HAPPY years and had a wonderful marriage with LOTS of communication and 9 children... just sayin'...
Terrific.
TWO... if someone say's "yes dear you can go have sex with the neighbor" then it is no longer cheating because your spouse is OKAY with it and has knowledge of it... cheating is when you go behind your spouses back and LIE to them about it... there is a distinct difference
Oh, I'm glad we cleared that up.
THREE... we both need to stop using the word MOST in this thread... SOME marriages end because of communication problems, SOME end because one is more ambitious than the other, SOME end because they grow appart and don't want to grow back together, SOME just end
There's nothing wrong with most. Most implies the majority. When I say most I mean to imply the majority, or I wouldn't say most.
look who's talking. :rolleyes:
I never went to highschool. ;)
FOUR... science is good and all.. but it is really pretty moot when discussing a concept... concepts are best studied by experiencing them... love is like faith... etiher you have it and understand it... or you don't.
I guess you have never even attempted to study the science of human interaction, which is unfortunate. Evolutionary & behavioral psychology and evolutionary biology are very interesting topics. I have never agreed with everything in any one book, but you put things together over time. If you think there is no science behind 'concepts' because concepts require active participation then uh... I don't know what to say to you. I don't think you understand how the scientific process works with regard to behavioral psychology.
text books can not adequately tell you how you will feel or act while in love... all they can do is tell you what has happened with some people in the past and study patterns
They can't really even tell you what happened with some people. Emotions are hard to describe. They can shed light on human interaction and explain the way the mind works when you're in love, though, and that's all pretty interesting.
I know people who are extremely book smart but have almost no common sense... I am not saying this is your case... however... book learning can only get you so far... the rest has to be experienced to learn... and LOVE fall's into this category
Everyone has a different definition of love. I've seen plenty of people who've said they're in love who aren't. Not just teenagers, either, people older than you. Atleast they aren't by my definition. So you're telling me that "book learning" can only get you so far, well, I imagine experience can only get you so far as well. You need a little from column A and a little from column B to properly form your own opinions. If you've only got one kind of knowledge you just sputter incoherently describing abstract concepts you don't fully grasp.
I'm done here... b'bye
Bye!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
if only you knew exactly how open I am :rolleyes: :lol: you know nothing about me so why don't you stop trying to label me... I haven't done that to you
It's not an insult. I'm more open than anyone I've ever met (though I've probably only met like 4 people since I'm 17 rite?).

Bluestreak

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 01:58 PM

Mud-wrestlin' with pigs 'n all that, baby...

-R

Chameleon

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 02:07 PM

Mud-wrestlin' with pigs 'n all that, baby...

-R

*sigh* yea... I know ;) :p :lol:

I did say I was done responding to him though... and I am ;) love ya babe

JeremyLikness

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 02:12 PM

I actually typed a few responses and stopped myself, and wasn't even going to touch this further, but I do feel I can add some value, not necessarily for Discrepancy but the others trying to participate.

This really isn't an argument you can make or convince with. It is fine to try and share your ideals, but let's face it ... there is a certain time in people's lives where they aren't receptive to the information, and have to learn it themselves.

We've been there before. I think most of us went through that phase where we thought we knew it all. It's typical: "The world doesn't understand me, I'm advanced for my age, if they could only see me for how mature I am and not how many years I have, etc" ... we've been there. We know what it's like. It's that time in life where you feel every adult is stupid and somehow magically forgot what it was like to be a teenager, or that it must have been completely different for them, because they just don't undrestand.

Arguments won't work here, only experience.

Discrepancy, I appreciate you sharing your cause and thoughts. If there IS a lesson to learn, it's to be humble enough to realize that you will learn new things and transform your views many times in life.

You can argue all you want that what you share is fact, but you'll learn as you grow that even "facts" are based on opinions. So, it's okay to have yours, and it's okay for us to have ours, but don't fool yourself into thinking you know it so well that it's not flexible to change. Evolution isn't a fact, it's an opinion. That emotions are chemical is also an opinon. The science only shows that certain chemicals are triggered as the result of emotions, it's still very unclear of where the emotion itself comes from ... I can choose to be sad at any moment and my body will chemically respond, but where did the CHOICE itself come from? Love is like that choice in a way that I cannot explain to you, and only you can come to understand through your own experiences in life.

Having been a teenager and raised a teenager, I am very familiar with that phase in life. It is denial to simply say we don't understand because what we're saying conflicts with what you've chosen to filter and believe. I also don't believe any of us are in a position to judge you or your beliefs, but rather respect them and understand you have your own lessons in life that you will learn just as we all are experiencing our own ... like the day you discover how love is so far from transitory (you state facts, but I see facts, too, in my own world ... my 80-year old grandparents who have been in love their whole life, our 4th of July celebration where we express love for our country's Independence, or every Sunday when I share my love for a teacher who died 2,000 years ago ... doesn't get any less transitory than that!)

Jeremy

SmoothBaller

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 02:13 PM

Yikes! I knew that Discrepancy's first post would open up a whole can of worms, but as long as everyone keeps it civil...no problem with a little debate.

I wanted to address a few points though:

My first, to Guava:

I agree with you that people see the term "player" as someone who plays a game. I have heard a ton of different explanations and definitions about the term, from playing with someone's emotions as if it were a game to just being an active particpant in the world of dating. I was weary to use that word since it has a lot of different meanings and connotations, but I wanted something that would maybe catch someone's eye to look a little further. For myself, I'm using the term "player" to be someone who has great success with women - I prefer to do this while keeping true to my moral values (ie honesty, respect for women, etc). I prefer not to be a manipulator to deceive and use women. I've actually found that an honest approach will garner much more respect. It takes a lot more confidence to be up-front and honest rather than lie and tell girls what they want to hear.

(Slightly off-topic but, funny thing is, I've been had experience being "played" by a girl who told me she liked me and it looked like we had a relationship going, but then after a formal dinner/date she tells me that she has to be home relatively early, but come to find out she actually went to hook up with another guy. On the other hand, I've had casual hookups with girls whom I thought could blossom into a potential relationship, but they were up front with me by saying they really weren't looking for anything long-term at the moment, but that honesty was refreshing and I respected them for it, whereas the alternative may have been stringing me along to not hurt my feelings - which in reality would lead to a lot more hurt. One of the girls and I had GREAT chemistry and we had a lot of fun nights and we were both fine with the fact that things weren't going to head into a long-term relationship - she's still a great friend of mine to this day. I guess I just wanted to throw out these two personal examples to show that guys can be on the other side too.)

Basically, I'm trying to cultivate skills that are applicable not only to success with women, but in all aspects of life.

Second, to Discrepancy:

Firstly, I've had a bunch of great girlfriends in the past and I expect to have many more in the future. I know that every relationship I'm in most likely will not lead to marriage, but that's part of the point of dating. I wouldn't call any of my relationships failures just because they didn't last in the long-term. I had a chance to touch someone's life in a positive way and they did the same to me. Plus, I learn a lot about myself and what I'm looking for with every relationship that I have.

I haven't read every single one of your posts in this thread, but I will say this. Maybe you have everything figured out and maybe you don't, but at least have the foresight to see that your paradigm may shift with more age and experience.

I know that about 4-5 years ago when I was 17 I had a different view on relationships, and a lot of things in life for that matter, than I do now - even at the still young age of 21. I also realize that in another 5 years my views on a multitude of subjects may change once again based on what I've experienced and learned. I find it incredibly bold that both you and tashimarie state that each other's view will change, because, in all honesty, neither one of you two might ever change your views. Like somebody else said earlier in this thread: relationships aren't black and white. It seems that you are open to differing views, which is definitely a positive. Just try to be a little less cynical, relationships can be a great thing.

At your age I took relationships lightly - I didn't expect any of them to last once I headed to college. In high school, very few have the skills to make a relationship last and blossom into a lifelong commitment. The maturity and experience isn't fully there yet. Just keep an open mind my friend, and you'll do just fine. :tu:

Bluestreak: Great post!

I was a player, and a damn good one... till I met my wife. Isn't that how it always works?

Haha :lol: , I think so! I haven't heard much about my father's relationships in high school, but I've garnered that he was a bit of a lady's man. Apparently, he was dating my mother and another girl at the same time (and they both knew about it and didn't care) before he married my mother. My father is a GREAT man (soon to be General in the Air Force - actually VOLUNTEERED to go to Iraq a couple of years ago, but his boss said he was too important in his current job to send him overseas) and him and my mom have an awesome marriage (I think around 25 years)!

Discrepancy

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 03:12 PM

*sigh* yea... I know ;) :p :lol:

I did say I was done responding to him though... and I am ;) love ya babe
Hey, if you want to show that you're more open than me, read some of the books I listed. Sperm Wars is a little on the pessimistic side, but The Red Queen is pretty good. I wouldn't take it as canon, the author really needs to make more citations if he wants his book to be taken seriously as a work of science, but it's good. Phantoms in the Brain is absolutely wonderful if you're interested in neuroscience, which I am, though it can be difficult to read at times and the author gives off a Dawkins-esque vibe of arrogance. If you don't really have any experience with psychology I'd stay away from Vital Lies Simple Truths, but if you do, it's very very good. The Moral Animal is okay, it's basically heavily simplified biology, but it's interesting none the less.

Or you could not read into the subject and always be right because you're married and I'm 17 or however that is supposed to work.
You can argue all you want that what you share is fact, but you'll learn as you grow that even "facts" are based on opinions.
All my ramblings on the way relationships go sour is totally opinion.
So, it's okay to have yours, and it's okay for us to have ours, but don't fool yourself into thinking you know it so well that it's not flexible to change.
I know my views will always change, and I know I'm wrong about a lot, we all are. The people that are most often wrong are the people who don't think they're wrong. The smarter you get the stupider you realize you are and all that. I have always been amused as opposed to frustrated by people who use age as a litmus test for rationality, though. The older I get the more I assume I'm right, and you'd think it would be the other way, and it explains a lot to me about the way the world works and why I've always preferred talking to children and old people who are very to the point and usually lack arrogance. I've had a couple of conversations like this, and I always found out that the people who were arguing it with me had been divorced several times or had children with different people and it always made me laugh.
Evolution isn't a fact, it's an opinion.
Evolution is an opinion like gravity is an opinion. The only debate around evolution is from people who were never taught the fundamentals of evolution by a competent teacher (which is fine, there's no shame in being uneducated, there's only shame in pretending to be educated in topics you know nothing about) or they're delusional. Or possibly they're just a moron, I don't know, I guess there are a lot of possibilities there. The only debate within the scientific community is related to semantics.

As for the idea that theories are opinions, well, I guess they are. In the same way that the opinion held by many that Terrell Owens is a prick is an opinion. You observe, you compile, you form an opinion. A scientific theory is a little deeper than that, but I guess that's the gist of it.

Though a scientific theory is much different from a theory I once had that Taco Bell was trying to screw me over by not putting as much meat in my soft tacos as my friends soft tacos. A scientific theory is subjected to much scrutiny, internally before it is published, and externally after it is. The fact that evolution stands as a theory today with unanimous support behind it from the biology community to the point where they don't even think about arguing it with people is a testament to its reliability.

You don't have to believe man came from monkeys (although it wasn't monkeys, and it's a common descendent) to believe in evolutionary principles.
That emotions are chemical is also an opinon.
Welp, goodnight kids.
The science only shows that certain chemicals are triggered as the result of emotions, it's still very unclear of where the emotion itself comes from
There is a reason chocolate is commonly considered comforting. Chocolate has phenylethylamine, which is similar to amphetamine. Endorphins are similar to morphine, which is why the longer you're in a relationship and you're close (emotionally and physically) the more likely you're going to stay in it. Endorphins are addictive.
... I can choose to be sad at any moment and my body will chemically respond, but where did the CHOICE itself come from?The joys of consciousness and self awareness, they never disappoint.
Love is like that choice in a way that I cannot explain to you, and only you can come to understand through your own experiences in life.
There are different methods of understanding, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying.
Having been a teenager and raised a teenager, I am very familiar with that phase in life. It is denial to simply say we don't understand because what we're saying conflicts with what you've chosen to filter and believe.
I don't think you don't understand, I don't think people take the time to think about it. While there are many disadvantages to being disattached, the advantage is seeing the big picture. The majority of relationships fail. The vast majority. How many relationships are most people in in North America over the course of their life? Let's say 5. Presumably, atleast 4 of those failed. Because the people in this thread are experiencing success now blinds them to some of the truths of male/female interaction. Truths that have been documented, truths that I have seen in action en masse. I have to say studying some of this stuff has kind of screwed me, because now I like to watch how people interact just to see if they're going to act the way I think they will. Ruins my focus when I'm talking to other people.

I'm happy that they're happy, but just because they're happy it doesn't mean they're right.

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."

I think I'm overusing the poor dead spirit of George Bernard Shaw, but he's my dawg, and we go way back to the hood so he probably won't mind and I'm not articulate enough to get my points across most of the time.
I also don't believe any of us are in a position to judge you or your beliefs, but rather respect them and understand you have your own lessons in life that you will learn just as we all are experiencing our own ... like the day you discover how love is so far from transitory (you state facts, but I see facts, too, in my own world ... my 80-year old grandparents who have been in love their whole life, our 4th of July celebration where we express love for our country's Independence, or every Sunday when I share my love for a teacher who died 2,000 years ago ... doesn't get any less transitory than that!)
And it's wonderful that your grandparents are still in love. Truly. But for your grandparents, there are a hundred other grandparents, who have been married and remarried and dislike the person they're currently married to as well. But I guess that makes for funny conversation during Thanksgiving and Christmas.

I'm going to start cackling manically now.

JeremyLikness

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 03:34 PM

I see your points!

My philosophy in life is just different.

I don't choose to focus on thousands of relationships that failed, I choose to focus on the few that succeeded. That way I can focus on the success of mine, not the failure.

I take the same approach to other areas in life. For example, when I started my business, I was well aware of the statistic that 9 out of 10 businesses fail. I could have used that as an excuse that my business would fail, and I could have gone to the 9 businesses and said, "What did you do wrong?" (Kind of like saying love is a lost cause, look at all the people who have failed). Instead, because I wanted a SUCCESSFUL business, I chose to look at the 1 business that succeeded, and said, "What did you do right?"

Here's another perspective: my very first business didn't last long, just under a year. It didn't fail per se, i.e. I didn't get into debt or have to file bankruptcy, but it never gained momentum. I could have, again, said, well, 9 out of 10 failed and I'm one of the 9, so that's that. Instead, I decided, okay, so 9 out of 10 fail? GREAT! Then I only have 8 more tries before I'm guaranteed success.

Personally, I'm fine if you want to focus on the majority that is not in love, in a rotten relationship, unsuccessful, etc. That's fine by me, because it stacks the odds more in my favor when I choose to look at the 1% who are succeeding. I blew my ACL, and didn't heal it by looking at all the ways an ACL surgery or rehabilitation could go wrong. I focused on what could go right. I don't live healthy by focusing on illness, I focus on wellness. It's just a perspective most people don't adopt, so it's no wonder it's an experience the majority of people don't have.

Jeremy

Chameleon

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 03:39 PM

dodus

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 03:46 PM

That's a good point Jeremy...and no doubt your proactive/positive outlook did it's part in bringing you success. May things only continue to improve! But I don't think it's quite on point to infer that Discrepancy's arguments are the opposite, ie. cynical or pessimistic. Rather, (and correct me if I'm wrong), he's advocating liberation from the burden of illusions.

Discrepancy

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 03:49 PM

My philosophy in life is just different.
I don't think our philosophies differ as much as you think. I try to be optimistic. But there is a difference between optimism and mindless optimism. People who go well you know when you're in love and love lasts forever and bunnies and butterflies and look at how happy these 3 couples I know are is not accurate, and I'm sorry if I have to sound like a downer.
I was well aware of the statistic that 9 out of 10 businesses fail.
And 9.99 out of 10 restaurants. :lol:
Instead, because I wanted a SUCCESSFUL business, I chose to look at the 1 business that succeeded, and said, "What did you do right?"
That's not any different from how I look at life. But when you only look at the successes of the successful businesses and never take time to look at the failures of the failed businesses you're doing yourself a disservice.

When talking about the generalities of relationships, you have to look at the 9 as well as the 1, and put the 1 in proportion to the 9, which makes the 1 much less impressive. This conversation was started about fear over people getting hurt and oh well if you try to be with multiple people you don't understand deeper connections and yadda yadda, it was not started on a question of how to have the most successful relationship. If it was, it would be a totally different story.

SmoothBaller

Mon, February 13th, 2006, 03:51 PM