Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.



View Active Topics       View Your Posts       Latest 100 Topics       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Why we should stop really giving a f**k about women

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: fschmidt, jamesbond

Postby publicduende » January 28th, 2013, 7:07 pm

S_Parc wrote:I think, in conclusion (nowadays esp), men should learn to be functional and content, without the companionship of women.

I'm the 30-something polar opposite of publicduende, basically asserting 'been there, done that, and got the T-shirt'. I believe I provide a counterexample to his Lennon-McCartney worldview, without constantly using bitter experiences to validate my perspective.

In the end, what any person does is his prerogative. But given the current trend towards mass westernization (plus automation), and the disintegration of cohesive societies, it's best to be aware that what may have worked for let's say the avg Joe, born in 1950, may not be the case come 2050, in any society in the world.


Not to reopen this particular "fiber" of the thread, but my takeaways are, effectively, your polar opposites. It's definitely to your credit that you won't fatten up the collective list of reasons why US/Anglo/Western/all women should be hated and/or beaten up and shown less attachment than that reserved to your latest iGadget.

Yet...I have to admit I am still just as puzzled as before at the sight of a perfectly decent and rational 30-something man who has chosen to live loveless despite not going through any tragical or traumatising experience in his past relational life.

You're right, free will is the prerogative of every human being. Nobody here will deny the pleasure of expressing, or better releasing, one's own sexual urges in a mindless, NSA sexual act, as it could be with a sex pro, whether once a month or once a day. Yet, the way I was brought up and went through my own experiences leads me to believe that every man and woman will naturally tend to receive the most pleasure from feelings of a higher quality, such as those expressed in a deep and sincere relationship that involves the full gamut of charitable human emotions. From tenderness to sex, from empathy to love. This is not a Lennon-McCartney overly cheesy outlook of life. This is the principle that guides the love life of much part of the world population to date, want it or not.

And you may also be right to say that the requirements of a modern man aren't necessarily those of a man lived 100 or 50 years ago. Yet, isn't precisely this degradation of human relationships due to technology mediation, materialism, mass westernisation, etc., that you guys have been attacking from all sides? Why is OK to see those issues as the nasty effects of all that's wrong in modern society, and then tolerate them when wanting to justify a life hooked on the lowest common denominator of human relationships?
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: November 30th, 2011, 6:20 pm





Postby abcdavid01 » January 28th, 2013, 7:33 pm

Yes, we have been attacking them. That's why I think S_Parc is wrong in his predictions. I think as materialism advances there will only be increases in the number of people relatively dropping out. The needs of men or even people as a whole haven't changed just because the social environment has. This unnatural twisting of our natures will eventually have a correction. When a society faces this much depression it only leads to nihilism and demographic extinction.

I'm reading E.F. Schumacher right now. He presents this concept called "Buddhist Economics" that's effectively anti-consumption. Production should have value instead of just blind waste. I'll keep reading him though.
中国人万岁! 中国美女万岁!
abcdavid01
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1580
Joined: November 18th, 2012, 7:52 am
Location: On the run

Postby S_Parc » January 28th, 2013, 7:48 pm

publicduende wrote:Not to reopen this particular "fiber" of the thread, but my takeaways are, effectively, your polar opposites. It's definitely to your credit that you won't fatten up the collective list of reasons why US/Anglo/Western/all women should be hated and/or beaten up and shown less attachment than that reserved to your latest iGadget.

Yet...I have to admit I am still just as puzzled as before at the sight of a perfectly decent and rational 30-something man who has chosen to live loveless despite not going through any tragical or traumatising experience in his past relational life.


What you call loveless... I call not emotionally codependent. Remember, the classmate's mother, 25 years older than me. Someone in your camp would be in constant pursuit of someone, 15 to 25 years younger, who mimics her personality. For me, that's being needy, not at peace with the universe. I've accepted the fact that the space-time continuum has created an unpalatable situation & my name isn't Dr Who :wink:


publicduende wrote:You're right, free will is the prerogative of every human being. Nobody here will deny the pleasure of expressing, or better releasing, one's own sexual urges in a mindless, NSA sexual act, as it could be with a sex pro, whether once a month or once a day. Yet, the way I was brought up and went through my own experiences leads me to believe that every man and woman will naturally tend to receive the most pleasure from feelings of a higher quality, such as those expressed in a deep and sincere relationship that involves the full gamut of charitable human emotions. From tenderness to sex, from empathy to love. This is not a Lennon-McCartney overly cheesy outlook of life. This is the principle that guides the love life of much part of the world population to date, want it or not.

And you may also be right to say that the requirements of a modern man aren't necessarily those of a man lived 100 or 50 years ago. Yet, isn't precisely this degradation of human relationships due to technology mediation, materialism, mass westernisation, etc., that you guys have been attacking from all sides? Why is OK to see those issues as the nasty effects of all that's wrong in modern society, and then tolerate them when wanting to justify a life hooked on the lowest common denominator of human relationships?


I'd say it guides some of the world's population. There are a lot more marriages of convenience, arranged marriages, and so-forth. What modern society does is liberate people from prior behavioral constraints, however, since humanity doesn't understand agape, seeing the universe as a greater brotherhood, they turn to eros, as a form of spirituality or cultural achievement. Technology is now showing that focal point, as the primary Lennon-McCartney-esque definition of love, or perhaps Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, to be a not-so perfect ideology, as we discover things about imprinting, neurotransmitters, and the subconscious mind.
16 years ago, the Best Picture of 1999, "American Beauty", telegraphed the message of Happier Abroad to the world.

Beware of long term engagements with AWs, you may find yourself in a coffin.

AB discussion thread

BTW, despite settling down with an AW, myself, the warning is still in effect.
S_Parc
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: November 12th, 2010, 8:01 pm

Postby publicduende » January 28th, 2013, 7:59 pm

abcdavid01 wrote:Yes, we have been attacking them. That's why I think S_Parc is wrong in his predictions. I think as materialism advances there will only be increases in the number of people relatively dropping out. The needs of men or even people as a whole haven't changed just because the social environment has. This unnatural twisting of our natures will eventually have a correction. When a society faces this much depression it only leads to nihilism and demographic extinction.

I'm reading E.F. Schumacher right now. He presents this concept called "Buddhist Economics" that's effectively anti-consumption. Production should have value instead of just blind waste. I'll keep reading him though.


Small is Beautiful? Immense read. For once I could advise you another seminal book I read almost in parallel with SIB. "Natural Capitalism" by Paul Hawken and the Lovins. http://www.natcap.org/
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: November 30th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Postby publicduende » January 28th, 2013, 8:48 pm

S_Parc wrote:
publicduende wrote:Not to reopen this particular "fiber" of the thread, but my takeaways are, effectively, your polar opposites. It's definitely to your credit that you won't fatten up the collective list of reasons why US/Anglo/Western/all women should be hated and/or beaten up and shown less attachment than that reserved to your latest iGadget.

Yet...I have to admit I am still just as puzzled as before at the sight of a perfectly decent and rational 30-something man who has chosen to live loveless despite not going through any tragical or traumatising experience in his past relational life.


What you call loveless... I call not emotionally codependent. Remember, the classmate's mother, 25 years older than me. Someone in your camp would be in constant pursuit of someone, 15 to 25 years younger, who mimics her personality. For me, that's being needy, not at peace with the universe. I've accepted the fact that the space-time continuum has created an unpalatable situation & my name isn't Dr Who :wink:

publicduende wrote:You're right, free will is the prerogative of every human being. Nobody here will deny the pleasure of expressing, or better releasing, one's own sexual urges in a mindless, NSA sexual act, as it could be with a sex pro, whether once a month or once a day. Yet, the way I was brought up and went through my own experiences leads me to believe that every man and woman will naturally tend to receive the most pleasure from feelings of a higher quality, such as those expressed in a deep and sincere relationship that involves the full gamut of charitable human emotions. From tenderness to sex, from empathy to love. This is not a Lennon-McCartney overly cheesy outlook of life. This is the principle that guides the love life of much part of the world population to date, want it or not.

And you may also be right to say that the requirements of a modern man aren't necessarily those of a man lived 100 or 50 years ago. Yet, isn't precisely this degradation of human relationships due to technology mediation, materialism, mass westernisation, etc., that you guys have been attacking from all sides? Why is OK to see those issues as the nasty effects of all that's wrong in modern society, and then tolerate them when wanting to justify a life hooked on the lowest common denominator of human relationships?


I'd say it guides some of the world's population. There are a lot more marriages of convenience, arranged marriages, and so-forth. What modern society does is liberate people from prior behavioral constraints, however, since humanity doesn't understand agape, seeing the universe as a greater brotherhood, they turn to eros, as a form of spirituality or cultural achievement. Technology is now showing that focal point, as the primary Lennon-McCartney-esque definition of love, or perhaps Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet, to be a not-so perfect ideology, as we discover things about imprinting, neurotransmitters, and the subconscious mind.


Emotional co-dependency is a nice definition... By all means I salute your platonic relationship with your classmate's mother. What if the same person who gives you those vibes could also give you sex, and everything that's in between? Even if that mythological creature that has it all didn't exist, wouldn't looking for it be in itself something quite exciting to do?

And what if, after dissecting and studying the complete wheelworks of our body and mind, having experimented every ideology and its opposite, every high and low of social and personal evolution; what if, when all is said and done, we were to conclude that the essence of human existence, indeed that of every sentient being in the universe, is simply enjoying feeling close to our peers? Perhaps just a few of them, if we had to choose?

You might have read Contact, the Carl Sagan book, and certainly watched the movie. I'll never forget reading what the higher Entity who speaks to Ellie in the shape of her dead father says.

"See, in all our searching, the only thing we've found that makes the emptiness bearable...is each other".

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIXKvPWFpEg[/youtube]
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: November 30th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Postby S_Parc » January 28th, 2013, 9:51 pm

publicduende wrote:Emotional co-dependency is a nice definition... By all means I salute your platonic relationship with your classmate's mother. What if the same person who gives you those vibes could also give you sex, and everything that's in between? Even if that mythological creature that has it all didn't exist, wouldn't looking for it be in itself something quite exciting to do?


What you're essentially depicting is the forward motion of your imprinting. In other words, that aspect of your unconscious mind is never at peace, because in it, there's an enneagram of that 25yr+ mom (Mrs X). And yes, in time, it then irks you that you can't bend/fold time & be with her back in 1975. So then, your subconsciousness, giving up on an H.G. Wells solution, decides to start pining for this person, in every woman you meet. From my camp's perspective, that person is prisoner, a virtual slave to an ideal.


publicduende wrote:And what if, after dissecting and studying the complete wheelworks of our body and mind, having experimented every ideology and its opposite, every high and low of social and personal evolution; what if, when all is said and done, we were to conclude that the essence of human existence, indeed that of every sentient being in the universe, is simply enjoying feeling close to our peers? Perhaps just a few of them, if we had to choose?

You might have read Contact, the Carl Sagan book, and certainly watched the movie. I'll never forget reading what the higher Entity who speaks to Ellie in the shape of her dead father says.


What makes you think that the souls of Mrs X and myself aren't always dancing when we're in communication? The light which vibrates from within, is greater than meeting up with aliens in a wormhole. Unless of course you work on the X-files and then, it's your only purpose in life :wink:

And finally, I don't believe that the Romeo/Juliet crowd has experimented with every ideology or spiritual development. I think they're stuck in Don Quixote land, not on the road to a StFrancis or a Bodhidharma.
16 years ago, the Best Picture of 1999, "American Beauty", telegraphed the message of Happier Abroad to the world.

Beware of long term engagements with AWs, you may find yourself in a coffin.

AB discussion thread

BTW, despite settling down with an AW, myself, the warning is still in effect.
S_Parc
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2421
Joined: November 12th, 2010, 8:01 pm

Postby publicduende » January 28th, 2013, 10:11 pm

S_Parc wrote:What makes you think that the souls of Mrs X and myself aren't always dancing when we're in communication? The light which vibrates from within, is greater than meeting up with aliens in a wormhole. Unless of course you work on the X-files and then, it's your only purpose in life :wink:

And finally, I don't believe that the Romeo/Juliet crowd has experimented with every ideology or spiritual development. I think they're stuck in Don Quixote land, not on the road to a StFrancis or a Bodhidharma.


A big platonic crush, that's all right and good if you ask me :)
Let's put it like this and make it even: the Romeo and Juliet crowd does want to keep the dream alive, because that's (part of) what keeps them alive, too.
User avatar
publicduende
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2882
Joined: November 30th, 2011, 6:20 pm

Previous

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests