Posted on 10/22/2002 11:24:51 AM PDT by shrinkermd
What I do is refuse to interact substantively with people unless what they have to say stands up to logical analysis. I don't have to make it perfect, and it's infantile to expect I should.
It has worked quite well once the various women in my life ( I point to women in this instance because they have been most resistant to logic as it's very hard to "spin.") become convinced that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and swims like a duck, there better be a logical explaination as to why I should not understand it to be a duck. If they can't do that, they are immediately discounted.
"Communication" is easy; having conversations is much more difficult.
Conversations involve feelings, emotion, intuition, and "knowing," that is, things that cannot be expressed in words or "logic." To limit oneself to logic is to have a one-dimensional relationship with someone else.
What a waste that would be!
Then we're in agreement, basically. My only point was that the only power I have is in my own choices for my own life and how I will interact with others. Maybe I misunderstood you, but you really did seem to be arguing against that.
I point to women in this instance because they have been most resistant to logic as it's very hard to "spin."
That's only because we are made that way. And the current society uses that to the advantage of their "movements", wedging resentment into what could and should be a workable difference between the sexes.
See, my last post to you seemed very logical *to me*. Yet, apparently, still didn't lay any common ground for communication.
I don't know what your beliefs are or how you view the differences between men and women as created by God, but using logic as the main and dependant basis of communication with women is gonna take patience . I wish you the very best of luck!
I will not tackle religion, since it is not the subject here, even though it is related a bit. The male desire for sex and relationship is different from the female, and hence the age old conflict. It has been dictated on males to live a monogamous life, and disregard their sexual urges to spread their seeds at any and all the females that they are attracted to. That unnatural constraint causes psychological dilemma for most guys, and is the root cause of most divorces. Certain societies allowed polygamy, under some kind of guidelines, which alleviated the pressure on guys to put up with inattentive females, who are too busy raising their children. The task of motherhood is very unique, and most of the time requires lots of energy from the females. Hence, they become preoccupied with the babies then with their primary female sexual partnership with their males.
The sexual revolution, and the women economic independence contributes to younger guys urge to avoid marriage or at least push it back as much as possible. Our society needs to revisit the old concept of polygamy as well as the divorce laws in order that the conditions become more attractive to the young males. Young black males, for example are already ahead of the white male in our society. They have much less intention to follow the old monogamy and attachment to the tradition of marriage. They are causing the black community to change their idea of family unit? More restrained white guys will follow soon.
One easy solution to this mess, if Cosmo, and the other women magazines would start addressing the gender sexuality difference more honestly. Insulting 50% of the population, as men are dogs, is too irresponsible. We need to understand the genetic impulses, and the best honest way to deal with them.
Well, I'm was born in '71, I grew up with the feminists infiltrating my elementary education. I don't consider it to have given me greater enlightenment. Rather I would say that it decidedly muddied the waters, as the chaos in our current culture proves out.
I will not tackle religion, since it is not the subject here, even though it is related a bit.
I admit, my general perceptions are very tied to my religious beliefs, I like to hope that I can debate certain issues on the level I'm engaged, how well I do is for others to decide. BUT there are some issues that I can't seperate from religion because it is the foundation of my opinion and beliefs on them.
The male desire for sex and relationship is different from the female, and hence the age old conflict. It has been dictated on males to live a monogamous life, and disregard their sexual urges to spread their seeds at any and all the females that they are attracted to
With all due respect, I would have to disagree with you. There are many cultures now and throughout history in which the women were allowed just as much promiscuity as the men. And they embraced it wholeheartedly! Women are as enthusiastic and appreciative as men in that regard.
The only differences would be those imposed by childbirth. You're right. It definitely slows them down for a time but in the cultures that practiced more community-type child raising, it didn't keep them slow for long.
It has been dictated on males to live a monogamous life, and disregard their sexual urges to spread their seeds at any and all the females that they are attracted to. That unnatural constraint causes psychological dilemma for most guys, and is the root cause of most divorces.
What imposed the monogomous life in many cultures was religion. It imposed it on both the men and the women. As you can see today, women without any boundaries of religion or society are just as promiscuious as men.
It is not the women alone that uphold the monogomous lifestyle. In my personal relationships, men are quite adamant that if I am with them, I am with THEM. Not several others at the same time. They are fully in favor of my maintaining a monogomous relationship. Many women do not and it isn't due to suppressing their natural, sexual urges, but rather following them. :)
Do you disagree, though, that cultures that maintained a stable family unit of one husband/one wife by far out-produced and were by far more advanced that the cultures that lacked such a stability?
(I tried to debate this minus my religios beliefs up to here...but my last point has to tie it in. ) The final analysis is that the relationship between a man and a woman is most beneficial, most complete, and most fulfilling to BOTH and to society as a whole when it follows the teaching of the originator of the relationship in the first place.
In the end, I guess I basically agree with your final comment:
We need to understand the genetic impulses, and the best honest way to deal with them.
LOL
I'm = I , of course!
LOL, I went OCS for my woman.
Amen, GirlNextDoor!
It's been a very long time since I've played the dating game, and this thread is a real eye opener.
I'm reminded of the movie The Matrix, in which all of society is deceived into what "reality" is. I fear that in regards to male-female relationships of any kind, our own society is just as clueless as the characters in the movie.
Modern culture has devolved relationships into preludes to sex. In response, some people have taken advantage of that, blinding themselves to what a real relationship can be. Others have run quickly in the other direction, hesitating to have any kind of relationship with the opposite gender, they, too, blinding themselves to what a real relationship can be.
One of the final thoughts in The Matrix was "how do you 'rescue' an entire world that's been deceived?"
I'm afraid that's above my pay grade.
MINE, TOO!
And ain't I grateful! ;-)
really wish I knew what that was...I can only think of Officer Candidate School.
Over choppy seas.
It would be if you didn't distinquish between conversation and communication. The trick is knowing when the conversation is communication, and responding accordingly. You converse about what you want the garden to look like. You communicate about how much you are willing to spend on it.
OIC!
LOL, CUL.
I am actually 20 years older, and consequently not familiar with the promiscuity of young females. From my own experience, guys wanted to spread their seeds, and gals were obsessed to get married to have children. I am not sure if they messed around after they got married? Or if they were constantly fighting the urges to have sex with other guys, for the sport of it?
The cultures were women have more promiscuity are essentially a few Amazon tribes, which are not good or fair representation of the human race.
The religion thing is a very interesting angel. King Solomon, reportedly had 1000 wives, Abraham, David, all throughout the bible the guys had many wives, and they were allowed to have sex with their slaves as well. In that time a rich man can have many slaves! Therefore, it amuses me to see the believers disregard the polygamy and the slavery aspect of these so called men of God?
I actually learned that in Europe, only a couple of hundred years ago, the master of the house was allowed to have sex with his female workers, and girls as young as 9 years old were permitted to marry and have sex at such young age. The religion component of sexual relationship is fascinating. Thanks again for your learned reply.
I am not sure if they messed around after they got married? Or if they were constantly fighting the urges to have sex with other guys, for the sport of it?
I think the answer's the same as for the guys. Many did, many didn't, and pretty much for the same reasons.
The cultures where women have more promiscuity are essentially a few Amazon tribes, which are not good or fair representation of the human race.
Currently that's true. (But again-how much more advanced would they be minus that factor? I really don't know.)
**My religious beliefs aside**
History argues many cultures allowed rampant promiscuity w/o batting an eye. North American Indians, Papuans of New Guinea, Soyots of Siberia, Igorots of the Philipinnes, Polynesians, Tahitians...(BTW, at the same time prostitution was practically non-existent, OBVIOUSLY! *L*)
Many argue that when the institution of property began it was the men that instigated and enforced the issue of a woman's virginity at marriage and her fidelity after marriage in order to insure HIS property actually went to HIS heirs. Once this was established practice it's interesting how divorce became accepted and abounded. Just another way to remain promiscuous (sp?) ?
The religion thing is a very interesting angle. ... it amuses me to see the believers disregard the polygamy and the slavery aspect of these so called men of God?
I just knew you were gonna go there. ;) How am I supposed to seperate my religious views from THIS one?
I don't know how other's see it but speaking for myself...
**OK. Religious content begins**
From the start, Adam was given one wife by his Creator and there's no record of his ever having another.
Lamech is the first biblical record of a man having two wives. But then, he was also a murderer and a direct descendant of Cain, the first murderer - another action not approved or designated by God.
But Noah followed the original model of Adam, one wife. So did his three sons.
Abraham originally had one wife. It was actually his wife that told him to take her handmaid as a concubine in order to get a child. God had already promised Abraham a son, but rather than patiently wait, Sarah decided to develop her own plan.
From her plan we were all gifted with Ishmeal - whose descendants today gift us with all that wonderful peace we're enjoying in the Middle East! (OK, blame it on a woman, but Abraham sure didn't complain. ;)
Jacob also had two wives. He also deceived his father and went through alot of troubles because of it.
I also know of David, Solomon, etc. Actually, the Bible attributes Solomon's eventual downfall of turning from God to the very fact that he had so many wives.
Other than that, I have to admit I'd be hypocritical if I pretended I wasn't confused as to why these examples weren't matter-of-factly condemned as unacceptable to God. I don't understand.
But I DO know that in the very begining God established His plan to be:
" Thus shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife (singular), and they two shall be one flesh."
And I'm unaware of anyplace in His laws that presented or allowed the practice of polygamy or promiscuity.
**And ends**
Another point about polygamy in the cultures today -- It seems to be a practice inseperable to cultures that vigorously oppress their women, even to the point of brutalization. Again, not the relationship God had in mind.
Personally, I believe both the issues of polygamy and promiscuity (in men AND women) just shows some other methods invented by humans following their own urges/ideas and deviating from the original balanced relationship intended by God. Pretty much like the feminist movement today.
The religion component of sexual relationship is fascinating.
True, but then again, really now -- Dontcha think just about any component of sexual relationship is fascinating? ;-D
You poor thing -- my longest post ever.Yikes!
My apologies. I suspect that we may be closer in age than you might have initially speculated. The manner in which it is normally expressed to Me is without the "Dude" addition, although some of the women closer to My biological age sometimes use the word "Man" in lieu of it.
I, too, have little experience with females who want to 'hang' (most of them have other intentions in mind), and the majority of the ones who utilize this utterance do so in the manner of "Hey, man, what's happening?" My intuition about this thread was that there were some younger FReepers lurking -and some of the ones posting appear to be of the younger generation as well- that might find the topic of interest, and was attempting to align My response in a manner that might most probably resonate with their experiences to date. I made the presumption, therefore, that the more experienced of us offering up our comments would understand this and extrapolate the relevant theme to a more applicable vernacular, having read My other postings over time and remembering My previous comments. I see now that not all of us immediately assume thusly, and will take pains in the future to specify more directly the postulations presented.
It has been My experience that "the tendency to reflect back a slight accent when conversing with someone who exhibits a strong one." is not merely a 'Male Thing', but an instincive one for anyone who encounters someone from another land. Call it a 'resonance', if you will. I have a slight accent at times Myself, and many people -including females- tend to attempt to mimic it sometimes -especially when first meeting Me. I do not take offense, realizing that mimicry (even if 'attempted' mimicry) is the sincerest form of flattery. What all of these strangers (in a non-defamatory manner of descriptor) do not realize is that My accent becomes even more pronounced in times of stress. That is, if I become upset, or irritated, or surprised, or angry... My accent becomes more distinct. The more the emotion strikes Me, the more I forget how to, ummm, shall we say, 'properly pronounce' (in the american dialect) the words and phrases I am attempting to enunciate, so the 'accent' they are attempting to emulate is one that tends to vary according to the circumstance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.