Love, Lust, Romance and Sexuality

[Rudy]

In another thread, a brief, off-topic conversation arose:

i'm a straight asexual. so the other way would be homo-asexual. :p

If you don't have sexual desire, how do you distinguish between the two?

I ask this as a serious question.

Asexuals can have romantic attractions, just minus the sexual aspect.

I'm having difficulty determining what a romantic attraction is supposed to be, without sexuality, and how it differs from platonic affection/admiration.

For me, I don't say that there are "different kinds of love." I love my sisters, a few friends, some of the rest of my family, etc. I've come close to loving a romantic interest or two. These are all just "love," if in varying degrees. It inspires the same feelings of wanting to be around someone, or helping them, of giving up my good for theirs, etc.

When people talk about "romantic love", this seems to me to just be the love I am talking about, with the addition of lust and sexual attraction. If there something you think I am misunderstanding here?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

[zibber]

Roughly speaking, I can definitely draw some kind of line between the fuzzy feeling of love and the <bleep> feeling of lust. Dig? :)

That said, there is somewhat of a difference between what I feel for "romantic interests" and what I feel for friends. It doesn't have to be huge, though. I will readily admit that I've experienced flashes of the first while interacting with or thinking about female ("Platonic") friends, but with guys it's definitely different (most of the time!). If you think about things as a continuity/gradient, this would imply that I "love" female friends more, but I doubt that's the case. There must be some real difference between "Platonic" love (admiration/respect/etc) and "romantic" infatuation. (I'm thinking.. neurochemical?)

As for the link between infatuation and sexual attraction, that's hard to pinpoint. It's for damned sure that sexual attraction can occur (in me) apart from infatuation, but I can't say with certainty that I've ever experienced the opposite. (Maybe that's why I can't help but be a bit skeptical about certain claims of asexuality.)

(Pee ess: if people knew Plato (Socrates), they'd probably use that word a lot less ;))

[True Rune]

Well, my brand of asexuality is the non-romantic kind, thus gushy feelings just aren't there. I can't really define it, but I would guess it's pretty much as far as it goes without wanting sex. I imagine some "pretty" idealistic notions are involved, so you'd probably have to talk with an asexual who is actually in love to gain something of real worth.

[alphawolf]

Romantic love is about getting your emotional and physical needs met by the same person.

Remove the physical part and it's just friendship.

Remove the emotional part and it's just lust.


The emotional part is not completely satisfied by your romantic partner, though. For example, a woman does not want to hear about loneliness or sadness from her man. She needs a man who is strong; a leader, not a wimp.

What can a woman do to meet a man's emotional needs in a romantic relationship? Look into his eyes with absolute trust and complete vulnerability. Simply respect him for being a man (loud, aggressive, leading, dominating, strong, sweaty, etc), and not try to change him. Of course women jokingly complain about some of these things to their men, but trust me they don't really want those to change - it's a weakness test. Fail, and she is out the door.

What can a man do to meet a woman's emotional needs in a romantic relationship? Don't ever be a wimp or show signs of weakness. Be the kind of man that she can trust, look up to, and feel completely safe with. Give her wild screaming orgasms. Make her believe that she is beautiful, even with her flaws. Give her wild screaming orgasms. And finally, give her wild screaming orgasms.

[Frag]

crap
You were trying to be funny here, I hope?

[krapyrubsnif]

You were trying to be funny here, I hope?

Reading his posts is enough for me.

Im currently curious of this lust/love interaction myself.

In the way that people get insecure about stupid things sometimes, i recently thought it was a problem that my boyfriend has so much lust for me. Because i wanted him to 'love' me for my mental/emotional attributes not for my physical.

Romantic love is IMHO when there is passion and intimacy in a relationship. (Passion and intimacy both of course having sexual and non-sexual connotations.) Consummate love is when there is passion, intimacy and commitment. And a friendship is when there is intimacy and commitment.

This basically.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Rudy]

Given this triangle theory, I'm unconvinced that Commitment can exist without intimacy. I'm sure that passion can exist without intimacy, but do people commit to people that they are not intimate with?

Could you give an example of the "Empty Love" or "Fatuous Love" categories?





RudyHenkel added to this post, 7 minutes and 23 seconds later...

I've read up a bit on this triangular theory just now, and I'm not sure I buy the involvement of commitment at all. The reason being that it is an action, not an emotion.

Wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), for example, gives as an example of "Empty Love" an arranged marriage at the beginning, before any feelings have been developed, or a marriage where all the feeling has drained out of it. That is not a type of love at all, merely a social obligation.

Commitment can be caused by love, but it is not part of it.

EDIT: The article seems to be defining love, in part, through marriage, which is a fatuous thing to do. Marriage can be shaped, and defined, by love, but not the other way around.



RudyHenkel added to this post, 4 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Personally, I view the "ideal" love as a combination of lust, trust, respect, love (which I define as the willingness to put the needs of someone else before your own,) and friendship. What I am unconvinced about, hence the purpose of this thread, is that there is something unique about romantic love that distinguishes it entirely from these factors. Is it more than the sum of its parts, in other words? I think not, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

The comments made in the posts quoted in the OP seem to indicate that there is something to romantic attraction even if you remove sexuality from it. I cannot understand how this would differ from a good friendship.

[BostonIan]

From what I think I understand, there are two tracks of mating, one is the drive to mate and make babies, two is the bond to stick around, guard the pregnant woman and raise the babies you made.

Attraction from a distance, where you haven't touched, talked and laughed, to me, is entirely first-track. It's like seeing something you want in a window display. Even if you walk by, you think about it later, and want it, want it, uncomfortable not having it. I tend to think the more you get what you want, the more you want, and that this can be increased to drown out the second track.

The second track, I wouldn't have thunk it, but you can want to stare into someone's eyes, laugh, kiss, caress, etc. without wanting to go onto the first track. I like this track, so I've been on it with women I wouldn't intend to "first track" with - middle-aged women, unattractive women, unavailable women. Even so, of course, I would never want to do it with a guy or a relative; it's in the same spectrum as the first-track.

Now, I think the two tracks are supposed to be connected, doing the first will give you a shot of the second, doing enough of the second eases you into the first. It seems like people can have different degress of either. Stranger-to-stranger hookups seem like pure first-track. FWB seems like it could go either way, either a lot of like and a little lust or the opposite. A typical relationship would probably be both. No first-hand experience on what the asexuals are going through, but I assume what they and I and "puppy love" teenagers are doing is mainly the second track.

[Valielen]

Romantic love is about getting your emotional and physical needs met by the same person.

Remove the physical part and it's just friendship.

Remove the emotional part and it's just lust.


The emotional part is not completely satisfied by your romantic partner, though. For example, a woman does not want to hear about loneliness or sadness from her man. She needs a man who is strong; a leader, not a wimp.

What can a woman do to meet a man's emotional needs in a romantic relationship? Look into his eyes with absolute trust and complete vulnerability. Simply respect him for being a man (loud, aggressive, leading, dominating, strong, sweaty, etc), and not try to change him. Of course women jokingly complain about some of these things to their men, but trust me they don't really want those to change - it's a weakness test. Fail, and she is out the door.

What can a man do to meet a woman's emotional needs in a romantic relationship? Don't ever be a wimp or show signs of weakness. Be the kind of man that she can trust, look up to, and feel completely safe with. Give her wild screaming orgasms. Make her believe that she is beautiful, even with her flaws. Give her wild screaming orgasms. And finally, give her wild screaming orgasms.

My first instinct was to feel indignation at the chauvinistic way it was written... But to be fair it is all true. A strong woman will want an even stronger man to rely on in a relationship.

On top of the above definitions, I add that love is the higher understanding that you want everything the other person has to offer (flaws included) and you are willing to give yourself to him/her for it.

[alphawolf]

My first instinct was to feel indignation at the chauvinistic way it was written... But to be fair it is all true. A strong woman will want an even stronger man to rely on in a relationship.


Anger is passion.

I went out with a woman about a month ago - very nice looking, and very strong minded, fiesty, etc - a psychology grad student...

At the end of the lunch date, I gave her a kiss and put my hand around her throat while kissing her (not normal for me to do with someone I've just met, but she inspired that level of domination). She almost begged to take her back to my place (during the middle of the day) and have sex with her, but I refused because I had an upcoming meeting. She called me within a few hours and told me that no man ever kissed her like that before, and that she really wanted to slap me but her body simply would not let her do it. She was completely aroused and could not get over it. She has pursued me non-stop for a month now, constantly calling and texting, even though I told her that I am with other women.

The reason I won't go out with her again is because I she is pursuing me so hard. She is begging me to give her the reason why I won't see her again, but I won't do it.

If I ever agree to see her again, who do you think has all the power in this relationship? How exactly will she try to regain power? That's the part that scares the hell out of me.

[MaleVolentworld]

alpha beather grabher

a man (loud, aggressive, leading, dominating, strong, sweaty, etc)

The image that comes to my mind with these supposed characteristics of man, is a bear.

You forgot the defining characteristic of man, his mind, without it you're just a dumb raging piece of meat. If the women you date like that, then my advice to you is not to take them out on a date in the woods, she may see a bigger animal and leave you alone, with only a tree for company.

Alpha beather grabher, what do you like best? mating the female beast or telling everyone about your conquests?

[Frag]

I'm pretty sure it's the latter, or he'd be out there doing and not posting.

Still, I invite any female reading to provide us with a counter-example.
(Since anecdote does a good argument make, apparently)

[Maayan]

When people talk about "romantic love", this seems to me to just be the love I am talking about, with the addition of lust and sexual attraction. If there something you think I am misunderstanding here?

Rudy, have you read On Chesil Beach (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? Some people have suggested that one of the main characters, Florence, is asexual. (I've heard varying theories about this.)

[alphawolf]

You forgot the defining characteristic of man, his mind, without it you're just a dumb raging piece of meat. If the women you date like that, then my advice to you is not to take them out on a date in the woods, she may see a bigger animal and leave you alone, with only a tree for company.

You have apparently learned the technique of quoting something out of context, amplifying it, and then running off on a tangent with it. Brilliant; you might have a future in politics, or even political journalism.


I'm pretty sure it's the latter, or he'd be out there doing and not posting.

I have made less than 500 posts in 5 months (3 months actively posting)... How much time has that consumed?




Still, I invite any female reading to provide us with a counter-example.


Interestingly enough, one woman agreed with me. And she certainly does not appear to lack intelligence. Many other women will agree, but be unwilling to openly admit it. Props to those who have the courage to tell it like it is.

Women may get a little angered by the reality, but it's the men who will get the severely bruised egos - that is, if the shoe fits.

[Pandemonium]

When I say I am the epitome of masculinity people seem to laugh at me.

I have never been able to conclude what people actually want from others. It is the greatest damn mystery I have ever encountered. The definition of their relationships with others is intertwined with this mystery. I have an example.....(the second girl out the two)

There was a girl that I would regularly hang out with. We would talk about abstract theories and concepts, and our academic pursuits at school. I was first in our grade and she was second. We would talk about the creation of identity in self and society, our intimate thoughts, emotions and emotional definitions. We regularly had some great sex. We both stated that we were very content in our relationship with each other.

I took into account of all these factors and considered this girl to be my girlfriend (romantic relationship). However, I was mislead + misconstrued or what ever. She approached me one day and said she wanted a more defined, intimate relationship and was not fulfilling her needs and wants. Being my inquisitive self I asked her what are her needs and wants and she was not able to answer. Her words seemed to be a different language and when translated they meant she had a boyfriend. An overly protective aggressive one. My good friend.

Relationships, emotional needs and wants, definitions all seem to dumbfound me.

[alphawolf]

She approached me one day and said she wanted a more defined, intimate relationship and was not fulfilling her needs and wants. ........ Her words seemed to be a different language and when translated they meant she had a boyfriend. An overly protective aggressive one.


There you go, exactly what I said in my initial post in this thread...

She couldn't explain to you that you weren't aggressive enough, but she felt that something was missing. So she was out the door. Try to think back and remember if there were times that she tested you for aggressiveness and you failed. If you can identify it/them, then analyze them and learn from them.

[MaleVolentworld]

alphawolf

What should a man want in a woman? or what is a woman supposed to be? a scared little child with little brains that needs a man to look after her?

[Valielen]

alpha's description of a man is somewhat exaggerated but I have found that I did not stay very long with men lacking in assertiveness. They had great personalities and many interests in common but I never really understood what was lacking that made me dump shortly after.

Then I met my current partner. He is very strong and I can see this mostly in the way he interacts with others. He won’t be bullied at work into doing things that are unsafe or bend over to please the boss. Also despite me being his first (and hopefully last) girl, he soon found the confidence to show me how much he desired me. He was also strong enough to sit with me through my most depressive moments even though it hurt him to see me want to injure myself (he literally shook me out of it rather than just try to sympathize with me - in these moments it is difficult to get better if the person next to you is falling apart too). Being strong, aggressive etc does not mean he is going to bully me and beat me around in the house or that I have a guy with a BO problem…

There is more to the relationship to this... it is obvious. But in essence, what made me decide that I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him was his mental strength and reliability… And as an added bonus he is strong physically too.
It may not be what every woman wants, but this is my personal experience.



If I ever agree to see her again, who do you think has all the power in this relationship? How exactly will she try to regain power? That's the part that scares the hell out of me.

So is the scary bit the fact that she will keep testing you to challenge your power until you fail or that because you grabbed her throat she may end up grabbing something else if you meet again? ;)

[alphawolf]

So is the scary bit the fact that she will keep testing you to challenge your power until you fail or that because you grabbed her throat she may end up grabbing something else if you meet again? ;)

Neither. I worry that she will try to find things to blackmail me into staying, should I ever decide to leave her. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

[Harmony]

I just stopped talking to a guy because he appeared far too needy... I got to the point where I felt smothered because the constant phone calls and messages... And the constant questioning about whether I was still interested in him. It was actually the fact that he asked me three times a day if I was still interested that caused me to lose interest! He just showed that he was really insecure, which was ironic because he said he didn't need an insecure woman in his life.... Guess he mean that he didn't need one because he was too insecure himself...

I seem to be in this endless game of tag with a good friend of mine. (Alphawolf actually reminds me a lot of him) It's a constant game of cat and mouse, it's quite fun! Sometimes I'm the one that seems to be making the moves on him, sometimes he's the one making the moves on me. Yet, we've never really dated... We have been physical, but never claimed to be dating. It's just fun to play "tug of war" so to speak. :)

And to be back on topic...

I have a couple of guy friend's that I love dearly, but could never have a relationship with them. I know that they would be far too needy, and far too jealous, but they are nice guys and treat me well so they make excellent friends.

I also have a coworker here, that I'm extremely attracted to, but would never want a relationship with because I don't agree with his drinking habits... I just know that I could never stand to be in a relationship of any sort with him.

At the moment I have no serious romantic interests... I have a few what ifs in the back of my head... But until things calm down in my life, I won't even go there. ;)

[BostonIan]

Yeah, I actually agree with Alpha in many ways. I grew up with a fair amount of dangerous criminal types. One common theme was that they had the nicest wives, who would never dream of leaving them. My dad, as violent as he was, you knew he'd wrestle a bear for us, and, as a kid, that made me feel safe. People always gawk at the abusive guy who's married to the nicest woman, or the cultures where the women are docile and the men are brutal, as if the two weren't connected.

As far as intelligence being sexy, it isn't. The mark of genius is usually never having reproduced. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Newton, Leonardo, Einstein were bachelors, weren't they? The best genius can do is earn you status and wealth, in which case you're allowed reproduction. On the other hand, Manson had a harem, Khan fathered half of Asia, and serial killers are getting love letters, marriage proposals, and fathering children on death row, a la Ted Bundy.

Where I disagree is that I'm not sure it's healthy for anyone to know that serial killers and vampires are sexy to the majority of the robo-sensate population. If we get the fall to natural instincts that the pick-up artist types play off, civilization will dissolve into tribal violence, gang-rape, and cutting eachother's limbs off. Anyone who recoils at that is obviously not the baddest, sexiest dog in the pack, certainly no Khan or Manson. To me, it's better to keep violence and dominance in the cubbies of protection and leadership and leave them there.

Also, the orgasm thing. In the short-term, it'll work. Anger, excitement, novelty, disgust, they're all in the same area of the brain. But, long-term I'm pretty sure orgasms are what drives couples apart. If we "remove the physical part and it's just friendship", well, friendships can last more than six months without the turbulence that relationships have. The "physical part" is what drives couples apart, and there's only so much dirty talk and trampolines can do to counteract that. Men can't help themselves, but I'd assume the stablest marriages are in societies where females have the least amount of orgasms.

Excessive, but it kind of fits: "Look at Your Game, Girl" (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Rudy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Newton, Leonardo, Einstein were bachelors, weren't they?

Newton, apparently, died a virgin. Though he was also an enormous asshole, which probably contributed. Einstein was married with children. Couldn't speak to Leonardo.

[Josephine1012]

Also, the orgasm thing. In the short-term, it'll work. Anger, excitement, novelty, disgust, they're all in the same area of the brain. But, long-term I'm pretty sure orgasms are what drives couples apart. If we "remove the physical part and it's just friendship", well, friendships can last more than six months without the turbulence that relationships have. The "physical part" is what drives couples apart, and there's only so much dirty talk and trampolines can do to counteract that. Men can't help themselves, but I'd assume the stablest marriages are in societies where females have the least amount of orgasms.


I think you're right to a degree, but not the way you think you are. I think when a relationship starts with physicality people often ignore that they have nothing in common outside of great chemistry. So many relationships are formed for the wrong reasons. Eventually sexual attraction fizzles out, when a relationship is purely sexual the novelty wears off and you start seeing your inherent differences much clearer. I think sex is responsible for forming couples that should have never been together in the first place, and naturally once that goes the couple falls apart.

[Rudy]

Also, the orgasm thing. In the short-term, it'll work. Anger, excitement, novelty, disgust, they're all in the same area of the brain. But, long-term I'm pretty sure orgasms are what drives couples apart. If we "remove the physical part and it's just friendship", well, friendships can last more than six months without the turbulence that relationships have. The "physical part" is what drives couples apart, and there's only so much dirty talk and trampolines can do to counteract that. Men can't help themselves, but I'd assume the stablest marriages are in societies where females have the least amount of orgasms.

I wasn't implying, with my original post, that relationships without sex are meaningless. I just don't see where romance comes in if there is no sexual attraction. My original confusion stems from the fact that AliTree says she is asexual, but romantically prefers men. This is what I can't figure out. If you have any romantic preference at all, you would see to me to be sexual in some way.

Note that I distinguish asexuality from choosing to abstain from sex.

[Harmony]

I think you're right to a degree, but not the way you think you are. I think when a relationship starts with physicality people often ignore that they have nothing in common outside of great chemistry. So many relationships are formed for the wrong reasons. Eventually sexual attraction fizzles out, when a relationship is purely sexual the novelty wears off and you start seeing your inherent differences much clearer. I think sex is responsible for forming couples that should have never been together in the first place, and naturally once that goes the couple falls apart.

Oh I so agree! I remember I dated one guy that we started off with great chemistry, and then it just fizzled out... But when things were still good, we had so much in common and it was so great... And when things started dying out he fessed up that he didn't share the same interests as me, he just said he did so that I'd stick around. :rolleyes:

[Chain]

Given this triangle theory, I'm unconvinced that Commitment can exist without intimacy. I'm sure that passion can exist without intimacy, but do people commit to people that they are not intimate with?

Could you give an example of the "Empty Love" or "Fatuous Love" categories?





RudyHenkel added to this post, 7 minutes and 23 seconds later...

I've read up a bit on this triangular theory just now, and I'm not sure I buy the involvement of commitment at all. The reason being that it is an action, not an emotion.

Wikipedia (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), for example, gives as an example of "Empty Love" an arranged marriage at the beginning, before any feelings have been developed, or a marriage where all the feeling has drained out of it. That is not a type of love at all, merely a social obligation.

Commitment can be caused by love, but it is not part of it.

EDIT: The article seems to be defining love, in part, through marriage, which is a fatuous thing to do. Marriage can be shaped, and defined, by love, but not the other way around.



RudyHenkel added to this post, 4 minutes and 14 seconds later...

Personally, I view the "ideal" love as a combination of lust, trust, respect, love (which I define as the willingness to put the needs of someone else before your own,) and friendship. What I am unconvinced about, hence the purpose of this thread, is that there is something unique about romantic love that distinguishes it entirely from these factors. Is it more than the sum of its parts, in other words? I think not, but I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

The comments made in the posts quoted in the OP seem to indicate that there is something to romantic attraction even if you remove sexuality from it. I cannot understand how this would differ from a good friendship.

Contrary to fairy tales, emotion doesn't last forever. If love was just emotional, it would be temporary and easily replaceable. Commitment is the decision to keep feeding it, progressing it, choosing to keep it going after the initial stimulii have been exhausted. Emotion and action (including thought) are circular, not linear- they feed each other.

[MaleVolentworld]

There is a big difference between mental strength, which can be considered confidence in oneself and independence and only physical strength.

You fall in love with not only one aspect of a person, but a combination of character and body. So strength in character and body for man is an ideal to attain, whereas weakness in both is to be avoided.

But what I dislike is the physical man that fakes confidence by boasting, he desperately needs other people to show off to in order to feel confident, he manipulates people. Or, he has the ideal body but the mind of a rebellious teenager and thinks it manly to swear his head off, insult people here and there, get drunk and treat women disrespectfully.

I look more to a James Bond kind of man to look up to, a gentleman that is confident, while moderately physically strong, compared to some hip hop or rap star, who may be physically strong but behaves like a naughty teenager.

Apologies to Alphadog, I have not read many of your posts so I cannot evaluate you very well. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.

[Josephine1012]

There is a big difference between mental strength, which can be considered confidence in oneself and independence and only physical strength.

You fall in love with not only one aspect of a person, but a combination of character and body. So strength in character and body for man is an ideal to attain, whereas weakness in both is to be avoided.

But what I dislike is the physical man that fakes confidence by boasting, he desperately needs other people to show off to in order to feel confident, he manipulates people. Or, he has the ideal body but the mind of a rebellious teenager and thinks it manly to swear his head off, insult people here and there, get drunk and treat women disrespectfully.

I look more to a James Bond kind of man to look up to, a gentleman that is confident, while moderately physically strong, compared to some hip hop or rap star, who may be physically strong but behaves like a naughty teenager.

Apologies to Alphadog, I have not read many of your posts so I cannot evaluate you very well. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions.

I don't mean to speak for alpha, but I don't think that's what he had in mind when he made his post.

Strength is inherently very attractive in a man, that's an anthropological fact. How you define stregth is a personal matter.

I prefer my men to be stronger than me in every aspect. I'm a very willful and strong person, so emotional strength in a man is very important to me. On the other hand, I'm no amazon so as long as he is bigger and stronger than me I'm happy... being a hulk is not required.

I think you're getting hung up on the analogies he used to make a point, but I do think his post was open to personal interpretation.

[Rudy]

Contrary to fairy tales, emotion doesn't last forever. If love was just emotional, it would be temporary and easily replaceable. Commitment is the decision to keep feeding it, progressing it, choosing to keep it going after the initial stimulii have been exhausted. Emotion and action (including thought) are circular, not linear- they feed each other.

Passion may not last forever, but the emotions involved in committed friendship, which is part of real love, do. I was not implying that commitment was not to be valued; I think exactly the opposite. Rather, I mean to say that it is silly to define the emotion of love in part by whether two people are married, as the article does. If two people are deeply in love, and committed to one another, and choose to get married, the emotion itself does not magically change once the binding is legal.

I do not say this to denigrate marriage; I am a big proponent.

[alphawolf]

What should a man want in a woman? or what is a woman supposed to be?


A woman who is a good mother is at the very top of my list.

[dalidaisy]

For me, the difference between a friend & a romantic interest is that feeling in the pit of your stomach. The more the relationship grows, the more the feeling does. It can grow so much that you feel like you could burst. Then, it just sits at the back of your throat, wanting out, until finally, it just cannot be contained. It bursts out & covers you in a glow. Your eyes sparkle, there's a spring in your step & you you can't help but smile all the time.

Is this just me?

[Rudy]

Is this just me?

I can't say I've ever felt like that, but I do hope I will someday.

[Harmony]

For me, the difference between a friend & a romantic interest is that feeling in the pit of your stomach. The more the relationship grows, the more the feeling does. It can grow so much that you feel like you could burst. Then, it just sits at the back of your throat, wanting out, until finally, it just cannot be contained. It bursts out & covers you in a glow. Your eyes sparkle, there's a spring in your step & you you can't help but smile all the time.

Is this just me?

I have experienced this... but for me it's yet to last for a really long time. :( Well.. I take that back... I've had it for the past four years in regard to someone... But we're both too stubborn for it to ever work. :p

[Josephine1012]

For me, the difference between a friend & a romantic interest is that feeling in the pit of your stomach. The more the relationship grows, the more the feeling does. It can grow so much that you feel like you could burst. Then, it just sits at the back of your throat, wanting out, until finally, it just cannot be contained. It bursts out & covers you in a glow. Your eyes sparkle, there's a spring in your step & you you can't help but smile all the time.

Is this just me?

Not at all, it definitely isn't just you!

That sounds right and it feels so great when that actually happens. That feeling is so different from that feeling you get when you're faced with a challenge, adrenaline kicks in and you just want to win. I think a lot of times people confuse the two, even though these feelings are on two opposite ends of the spectrum. The former is significantly more rare and much more enjoyable. The latter is far more common and seldom leads anywhere good.

[Chain]

Passion may not last forever, but the emotions involved in committed friendship, which is part of real love, do.

No emotion lasts forever. Emotion is a temporary response.

[Harmony]

No emotion lasts forever. Emotion is a temporary response.

I'm actually inclined to agree with Chain... I have yet to have experienced anything that says otherwise. I would gladly welcome it though.

[Rudy]

No emotion lasts forever. Emotion is a temporary response.

I suppose I can't actually contradict you with experience, as I haven't lived that long, but I have felt the same abiding trust and friendship for my best friend for over a decade now. Do all such feelings disappear with time, you think?

[Chain]

I don't mean to speak for alpha, but I don't think that's what he had in mind when he made his post.

Strength is inherently very attractive in a man, that's an anthropological fact. How you define stregth is a personal matter.

I prefer my men to be stronger than me in every aspect. I'm a very willful and strong person, so emotional strength in a man is very important to me. On the other hand, I'm no amazon so as long as he is bigger and stronger than me I'm happy... being a hulk is not required.

I think you're getting hung up on the analogies he used to make a point, but I do think his post was open to personal interpretation.

I philosophically agree with one minor exception: When it comes to attraction, it's more about what the other believes you have, than what you do have.

[dalidaisy]

No emotion lasts forever. Emotion is a temporary response.

I agree with this, but I think it is possible to continue to create emotions in the right situation. In relationships I've had, it's true, most emotions fade away, but they are replaced by new emotions based on discovery & sometimes they're just based on comfort...





dalidaisy added to this post, 6 minutes and 36 seconds later...

I suppose I can't actually contradict you with experience, as I haven't lived that long, but I have felt the same abiding trust and friendship for my best friend for over a decade now. Do all such feelings disappear with time, you think?

My best friend & I have been together for over 25 years. We have grown & changed over that time & continue to feel a tight bond, even over long distances. It is the longest relationship I've had, by a long way.

I cannot say that there is one feeling there that binds us together. I don't necessarily feel emotional about her, unless a situation calls for it. I cannot explain our friendship or why it has lasted. We care deeply for one another & will always be there should one of us need the other.

I would call what we have together "love". It's gotta be some form of it. I do not feel romantic towards her in any way & think something along those lines would even cheapen what we have.

There's just something to say about finding someone who understands you, trusts you & feels comfortable with you & vice versa that forms that bond.

[Sinequanon]

No emotion lasts forever.
What does?

[countrygirl]

In another thread, a brief, off-topic conversation arose:







I'm having difficulty determining what a romantic attraction is supposed to be, without sexuality, and how it differs from platonic affection/admiration.

For me, I don't say that there are "different kinds of love." I love my sisters, a few friends, some of the rest of my family, etc. I've come close to loving a romantic interest or two. These are all just "love," if in varying degrees. It inspires the same feelings of wanting to be around someone, or helping them, of giving up my good for theirs, etc.

When people talk about "romantic love", this seems to me to just be the love I am talking about, with the addition of lust and sexual attraction. If there something you think I am misunderstanding here?

Any thoughts are appreciated.

I think you got it correct. Love is just that love. However, people want more of a discription of 'what kind' of love. They want to know if it is sexual and I think that is because in our society, one has to be exclusive with one's sexuality if one 'loves' someone. Sort of like a status symbol or a mark of ownership.

Definitions of love is usually a reflection of societies views about who you can love, why you can love them or how you should love them. Rather than perhaps valuing communication and understanding our wants and needs. These roles have been defined for us rather than figuring it out for ourselves.

That being said, I don't think there is anything wrong with guidance to help understand ourselves and other people but when that guidance becomes restrictive, and wants and needs becomes repressed, we have interpersonal problems and then greater problems within society.

And for the record, as a women I like alphawolf's posts. I like his honesty and bluntness. I'd rather have the company of a man like alpha than some guy who thinks the only way to get his needs met is by manupilating and lying. I am a very headstrong women and one of the reasons I married my husband is because I could not walk all over him. In fact, I don't even bother 'testing' him anymore. I know where I stand with him and there is respect, love and friendship btwn us.

[Josephine1012]

I philosophically agree with one minor exception: When it comes to attraction, it's more about what the other believes you have, than what you do have.

Yes, I completely agree with you. It's all a matter of perception. I guess we can never know the ultimate truth, so it's all in the way the other person believes you to be. A slight variation on the concept of beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

[Prunesquallor]

This whole "strong man" thing: um, for those that like stronger men, a more positive sign of strength is not being so bloody insecure that you have to shout about how manly you are. The whole "me big man I Tarzan you Jane" *beats manly chest* thing is comical and makes a person look like a twelve-year old. Just saying. Genuine strength is different.
(Personally I don't want someone who think's he's stronger than me because I hate entitlement (and that would also seriously limits my options) but I know some people like it.)

Emotional reactions - those don't last forever. Emotions - there are things like love and trust - and hate - that can be more static in nature. It's not so much a feeling as an emotional atttitude, as it were. Although I love my cats/friends/etc., I am not constantly filled with love all the time, or even every time I think of them. But that doesn't mean I've stopped loving them. It's a different thing altogether than all of a sudden hating someone because they said something stupid - and then forgetting it later, or suddently deciding you like someone for some reason...

[Chain]

What does?

Go back and look at the context. It appeared that what I said didn't register, so I over-simplified it.

My point is that there is more to "love" than merely emotional crap and "commitment" is a big part of it. All fires burn out if you don't continually choose to keep throwing more wood on them.

[Sinequanon]

Go back and look at the context. It appeared that what I said didn't register, so I over-simplified it.

My point is that there is more to "love" than merely emotional crap and "commitment" is a big part of it. All fires burn out if you don't continually choose to keep throwing more wood on them.
I think the best points made here was that love evolves and changes constantly. It doesn't have to last forever, it just needs to last, say, 50 or 60 years. Humans tend to have really limited views of what "forever" means.

I also thought the comments about loving one's friends for 10+ years and not having that diminish or dull over time were really relevant. I don't think the temporal nature of "love" itself is really important. Obviously the temporary nature of "lust" is something that's more of a concern.

[Chain]

I think the best points made here was that love evolves and changes constantly. It doesn't have to last forever, it just needs to last, say, 50 or 60 years. Humans tend to have really limited views of what "forever" means.

I also thought the comments about loving one's friends for 10+ years and not having that diminish or dull over time were really relevant. I don't think the temporal nature of "love" itself is really important. Obviously the temporary nature of "lust" is something that's more of a concern.

Forever is a measure of time and time is relative. What happens after your dead won't really matter much at that point, will it?

Even friendships require maintenance.

[Rudy]

Even friendships require maintenance.

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. When I said that friendship, and other feelings, can last forever, I did not mean that they always do last forever, or that they could last forever without any effort on the part of either party.

Also, when I talk about feeling love and friendship towards a person for over a decade, it does not mean that I am constantly experiencing the effects of those emotions; it simply means that interaction with them still, after all this time, produces those emotions.

[Sinequanon]

Forever is a measure of time and time is relative. What happens after your dead won't really matter much at that point, will it?
Right, which is why it's rather irrelevant whether "love", the complex set of emotions and attachments that make it up, only lasts 200 years, or whatever, if we only last 100.

Even friendships require maintenance.
Do you think maintenance and love are mutually exclusive or something?

[Chain]

I think we are talking at cross purposes here. When I said that friendship, and other feelings, can last forever, I did not mean that they always do last forever, or that they could last forever without any effort on the part of either party.

Also, when I talk about feeling love and friendship towards a person for over a decade, it does not mean that I am constantly experiencing the effects of those emotions; it simply means that interaction with them still, after all this time, produces those emotions.

Right, which is why it's rather irrelevant whether "love", the complex set of emotions and attachments that make it up, only lasts 200 years, or whatever, if we only last 100.


Do you think maintenance and love are mutually exclusive or something?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[countrygirl]

This whole "strong man" thing: um, for those that like stronger men, a more positive sign of strength is not being so bloody insecure that you have to shout about how manly you are. The whole "me big man I Tarzan you Jane" *beats manly chest* thing is comical and makes a person look like a twelve-year old. Just saying. Genuine strength is different.
(Personally I don't want someone who think's he's stronger than me because I hate entitlement (and that would also seriously limits my options) but I know some people like it.)

Emotional reactions - those don't last forever. Emotions - there are things like love and trust - and hate - that can be more static in nature. It's not so much a feeling as an emotional atttitude, as it were. Although I love my cats/friends/etc., I am not constantly filled with love all the time, or even every time I think of them. But that doesn't mean I've stopped loving them. It's a different thing altogether than all of a sudden hating someone because they said something stupid - and then forgetting it later, or suddently deciding you like someone for some reason...

Describe genuine strength.

[cereza]

You were trying to be funny here, I hope?

I hope so too..

[alphawolf]

I hope so too..

You will note that I do not have much of a sly sense of humour; it's very corny, and you will notice for sure when I am joking.

[cereza]

You will note that I do not have much of a sly sense of humour; it's very corny, and you will notice for sure when I am joking.

To try and see things from your angle, I can understand why you would think that women want to be dominated.. but you`re thinking in the traditional Americanized ideology of masculinity. How would your argument hold up in a matrilineal society where the females do most of the work, have the more aggressive behavior and the men are artsy and care more about the children and their appearances? How would it hold up in a society where both men and women do work and carry themselves in what you would deem an "effeminate" manner..? How can you say that women internally, biologically want a man who is faster, stronger, smarter.. for her own protection?

I suppose my point is that while what you assert *may* hold true for most women in some societies, what women want from men is a reflection of how the society views masculinity and masculinity's role in the society in question. It has little to do with biology, in my opinion. I`ve seen the opposite in different contexts. I want to understand where you`re coming from, don`t take this as an attack of some sort.. Simply poking holes to test the strength of your claim.

[Storm]

(Which I think he overstates the reality)

First, we have to assume by "woman" and "man" we mean the average person, not someone with a personality complex or security issues.

He says (paraphrased) that a woman wants a strong man, a man who is not a pushover.Well, this is true, but that doesn't imply that men want a pushover themselves. Men also want a strong woman, not a pushover.

Conclusion: People don't like pushovers.

"Effeminate" or "masculine" mannerism (defined by the culture), voice volume, sweatiness, choice of clothing really have nothing to do with not being a pushover.

[SeaCzar]

I would think that any of you who say emotions do not last forever do not have kids, and have lost your parents (if they were good parents). In my case, and maybe I am just really, really lucky, my friendships do not need maintainence.

[Chain]

I would think that any of you who say emotions do not last forever do not have kids, and have lost your parents (if they were good parents). In my case, and maybe I am just really, really lucky, my friendships do not need maintainence.

I have a daughter and one blood parent.

[Pandemonium]

There you go, exactly what I said in my initial post in this thread...

She couldn't explain to you that you weren't aggressive enough, but she felt that something was missing. So she was out the door. Try to think back and remember if there were times that she tested you for aggressiveness and you failed. If you can identify it/them, then analyze them and learn from them.

There was probably a number of factors. A year before I was put in the gifted program with this girl I was talking about I had some sort of viral infection which caused me to loose 15kg or around 32.5 lbs and have not been able to put the weight back on. Hence, I am stuck in this pseudo feminine body of mind. As for aggression..........all my emotions and impulses are controlled.

I have been in the nice guy category many times. People fail to realise that I am not a nice person. The only area that altruism takes place is in a holistic approach to society. In all reality I am an evil son of a bitch. The perks of being immersed in such culture for long periods of time.

When I am old and decrepit I will most definitely look and act similar to Mr. Burns. My family joke about it all the time.

Last night I was hanging with a girl that has put me into the "nice guy" category. Some strange reason she approaches me in a mannerism where she thinks I am interested in her........How annoying!........ She was looking at the moon and said something along the lines of "WOW thats beautiful". I replied with "Isn't it amazing how we normally take looking up for granted". The girl turned and bloody pounced on me. I believe what I said was not profound.......I am still pretty much confused about what people want from other people. For what I wanted, I once had.

[DanteFalling]

Romantic love is about getting your emotional and physical needs met by the same person.

Remove the physical part and it's just friendship.

Remove the emotional part and it's just lust.


The emotional part is not completely satisfied by your romantic partner, though. For example, a woman does not want to hear about loneliness or sadness from her man. She needs a man who is strong; a leader, not a wimp.

What can a woman do to meet a man's emotional needs in a romantic relationship? Look into his eyes with absolute trust and complete vulnerability. Simply respect him for being a man (loud, aggressive, leading, dominating, strong, sweaty, etc), and not try to change him. Of course women jokingly complain about some of these things to their men, but trust me they don't really want those to change - it's a weakness test. Fail, and she is out the door.

What can a man do to meet a woman's emotional needs in a romantic relationship? Don't ever be a wimp or show signs of weakness. Be the kind of man that she can trust, look up to, and feel completely safe with. Give her wild screaming orgasms. Make her believe that she is beautiful, even with her flaws. Give her wild screaming orgasms. And finally, give her wild screaming orgasms.



I completely disagree, even though you enticed me with the orgasms. But then again, I am an INTJ female, so I suppose I want something different.

I do want to hear about loneliness and sadness from a man, if it's there. The idea of a "wimp" is a male-needed dichotomy. I don't want a "wimp" and I don't want to BE one. I want a man who is adult enough to be real and open with me and adult enough to take time to himself. I don't want someone who just makes me feel like a cute little doll or a p*ssy on a pedestal. I want a man to be my partner. Honesty and intelligence are important in that regard.
If a woman can " Look into his eyes with absolute trust and complete vulnerability" why can't a man do the same? I think it is an immature and silly woman who can't handle real emotion from a man. Pathetic idiocy to get some vasopressin and oxytocin is one thing, but real ideas from a man--those are sexy. I love a man who likes a challenge, not a demeaning contest in front of people or something meant to destroy our feelings of competence, but a genuine bullsh*t meter in which we can help each other grow, flirt, and generally express affection ALONG with respect.

That said, any kind of woman or man who wants to change their partner in order to love them, is perhaps a little naive.





DanteFalling added to this post, 1 minutes and 21 seconds later...

(Which I think he overstates the reality)

First, we have to assume by "woman" and "man" we mean the average person, not someone with a personality complex or security issues.

He says (paraphrased) that a woman wants a strong man, a man who is not a pushover.Well, this is true, but that doesn't imply that men want a pushover themselves. Men also want a strong woman, not a pushover.

Conclusion: People don't like pushovers.

"Effeminate" or "masculine" mannerism (defined by the culture), voice volume, sweatiness, choice of clothing really have nothing to do with not being a pushover.

Kudos.

[JustMel]

I can appreciate an attractive man or woman and think "wow, if I were single I'd do him/her" and the jolt of lust (for lack of a better word). I wouldn't act on it because it would be cheating and I don't go there. Husband and I both agree that you can look at the menu but you have to eat at home.

According to my dad who is 72 and been married twice: "being in love and being in heat feel the same in the beginning". Meaning that the chemistry you have in the beginning sometimes burns out and sometimes flashes then settles into a steady flame.

I have friends that I enjoy their company but have no attraction to at all. I can hang out with and laugh and have a good time but I don't want them physically and there's nothing they can do to change that for me.

My husband and I have known each other since high school and hung out with the same people just at different times so we didn't interact much. When I met back up with him he was married and so was I. We hung out as couples and did the movie and dinner thing quite a bit, played cards, etc. Eventually we realized we were attracted to one another but both of us knew we were married and refused to cheat or consider the option of cheating. We found ourselves single around the same time. His ex left with a 19 yr old kid when she was 32 and I caught my ex cheating with some online chickie for the 2nd time. We started hanging out and spent a lot of time talking. It took a couple of weeks for the physical to happen and it was intense for a while but now it's settled down. It's still there and there are flashes of the original lust but it's not like that all the time and I'm grateful that after the flash of lust there was substance.

This is the same man that held me when I cried at the loss of my mama and the same man that I hold when he grieves for his daughter that passed away. We share our emotions with one another and I don't think any less of him for those tears. I'm actually grateful that he can lean on me when things are tough.





JustMel added to this post, 4 minutes and 18 seconds later...

That said, any kind of woman or man who wants to change their partner in order to love them, is perhaps a little naive.

Totally agree. If your intent is to change them you're in the relationship for the wrong reasons.

[Shinqui]

While we certainly live in a time that has brought about the death of the man as we previously understood him, what we have been left with is often distasteful. I will agree with Alphawolf in his statements that a physically and emotionally strong man are desirable qualities for men to emulate and women to enjoy, however I do feel that in this case, the pendulum is indeed swinging to far. I would in fact attribute his success to an over abundance of women who are secretly sick of the modern man and his desire to be feminine.

A strong man with the capacity for gentleness, for love and for emotion, without allowing these things to interfere with his sense of duty to both the world and his family; well, in my opinion that is part of what makes a man attractive. A man that does not allow his life partner to support him during times of need is a man that is missing much from life. Obviously we don't want needy people, well perhaps some of us do, but the truth is that we all need people sometimes.

The all encompassing motherhood that permeates the divine nature of femininity includes the ability to comfort their men. This is not something to be denied, or taken lightly.

Like anything else, this is a fine line to walk.

As for love, I have little in the way of opinions. It looks like I can experience love, but there is not enough data to work with in order to come to a conclusion as to why this has happened. I imagine that it may defy logic.

Peace

[AliTree]

;0; oh my goodnesss.
it seems all i ever talk about on here is my asexuality, i swear.
ok, there's sexual, physical, emotional, and psychological attraction. i feel all of those for some males, except sexual attraction. i have never felt sexual attraction of any kind towards anyone. i also have no urge to have sex and have never wanted to.

i'm seriously tired of trying to explain myself on here...

[JohnDoe]

;0; oh my goodnesss.
it seems all i ever talk about on here is my asexuality, i swear.
ok, there's sexual, physical, emotional, and psychological attraction. i feel all of those for some males, except sexual attraction. i have never felt sexual attraction of any kind towards anyone. i also have no urge to have sex and have never wanted to.

i'm seriously tired of trying to explain myself on here...
Do you feel all of those to women too? (SERIOUS QUESTION). Or how does this work? If you've answered this before feel free to just link it.

[Storm]

Here's the link to the original discussion: Asexual tendencies? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

BTW Alitree, you might be having to explain it so much because you talk about it all the time, while simultaneously posting in the Post pictures of People You're Sexually Attracted To "Ideal mate thread." It's a little confusing. But I don't think anyone is challenging you in this thread. Actually, it's turned into quite an interesting discussion on "What is love?"

[AliTree]

Do you feel all of those to women too? (SERIOUS QUESTION). Or how does this work? If you've answered this before feel free to just link it.

i don't feel physical attraction what so ever to any women. as i've stated, i despise the female body. and have never felt emotional attraction to a woman either. my close friend mel, who's an INTP, and i have felt a psychological attraction towards because we are so similar and we understand each other and such.

Here's the link to the original discussion: Asexual tendencies? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

BTW Alitree, you might be having to explain it so much because you talk about it all the time, while simutaniously posting in the Post pictures of People You're Sexually Attracted To "Ideal mate thread." It's a little confusing. But I don't think anyone is challenging you in this thread. Actaully, it's turned into quite an interesting discussion on "What is love?"

I don't bring it up the majority of the time, thank you.

[cereza]

If a woman can " Look into his eyes with absolute trust and complete vulnerability" why can't a man do the same? I think it is an immature and silly woman who can't handle real emotion from a man. Pathetic idiocy to get some vasopressin and oxytocin is one thing, but real ideas from a man--those are sexy.

Indeed. A strong man wouldn`t want a weak, frail-minded (or bodied) woman to compliment him. He`d expect the same. And as someone said earlier, its not about what you actually have, but what the other person believes you have..


;0; oh my goodnesss.
it seems all i ever talk about on here is my asexuality, i swear.
ok, there's sexual, physical, emotional, and psychological attraction. i feel all of those for some males, except sexual attraction. i have never felt sexual attraction of any kind towards anyone. i also have no urge to have sex and have never wanted to.

i'm seriously tired of trying to explain myself on here...

Do you watch porn? Serious question..

Also, do you think you might be mistaking yourself for asexual because you lack the mental attraction that stimulates you? I used to call myself asexual, but that`s only because I don`t "get off" on looks alone. My friends will drool when they see someone they think is handsome and I could care less. I usually have no sexual desire for a man until he piques my interest mentally.. After chess, its on. :)

A strong man with the capacity for gentleness, for love and for emotion, without allowing these things to interfere with his sense of duty to both the world and his family; well, in my opinion that is part of what makes a man attractive. A man that does not allow his life partner to support him during times of need is a man that is missing much from life. Obviously we don't want needy people, well perhaps some of us do, but the truth is that we all need people sometimes.

The all encompassing motherhood that permeates the divine nature of femininity includes the ability to comfort their men. This is not something to be denied, or taken lightly.

Nicely said.

This is the same man that held me when I cried at the loss of my mama and the same man that I hold when he grieves for his daughter that passed away. We share our emotions with one another and I don't think any less of him for those tears. I'm actually grateful that he can lean on me when things are tough.


Nobody wants an emotional rock.

Understand that I don`t want a man who cries at every whim, but I`d rather him be emotionally responsive and display his emotions when he genuinely feels the urge. It`s a part of humanity.

[AliTree]

Do you watch porn? Serious question..

Also, do you think you might be mistaking yourself for asexual because you lack the mental attraction that stimulates you? I used to call myself asexual, but that`s only because I don`t "get off" on looks alone. My friends will drool when they see someone they think is handsome and I could care less. I usually have no sexual desire for a man until he piques my interest mentally.. After chess, its on. :)


no i do not and will never. truthfully, i would probably gag if i had to watch anyone doing anything of that sort.
i stated that i DO feel all types of attraction to males except sexual. so i have had psychological attraction to some males. it does not create any sexual attraction, though.

[cereza]

no i do not and will never. truthfully, i would probably gag if i had to watch anyone doing anything of that sort.
i stated that i DO feel all types of attraction to males except sexual. so i have had psychological attraction to some males. it does not create any sexual attraction, though.

That`s because penises are ugly. :)

[JustMel]

We do watch porn. Together and separately. It's not a taboo thing in our house or relationship. Yes, I've been with females and can have a relationship if I want with one too. I don't. I love my husband but if we weren't together and I fell for a female to me it would be no different.





JustMel added to this post, 0 minutes and 40 seconds later...

That`s because penises are ugly.

so true but them the vaginal area isn't all that gorgeous either.

[JohnDoe]

AliTree:
So um, don't take this the wrong way, but have you ever had a doctor draw some blood and make sure that everythings normal? There are lots of physiological imbalances that can manifest as asexuality; some medicines can cause it too.

Edit: This isn't to say that if it was physiological you'd have to get it fixed, but it might be interesting to find out if there was something causing it.

[tp6626]

JustMel added to this post, 0 minutes and 40 seconds later...



so true but them the vaginal area isn't all that gorgeous either.
Lol, so the consensus is that we're all ugly down there!?

:laugh:

:p << Nearly put this, but decided it wasn't appropriate, but then I found it funny, which merited this explanation, haha!

[cereza]

We do watch porn. Together and separately. It's not a taboo thing in our house or relationship. Yes, I've been with females and can have a relationship if I want with one too. I don't. I love my husband but if we weren't together and I fell for a female to me it would be no different.





JustMel added to this post, 0 minutes and 40 seconds later...

so true but them the vaginal area isn't all that gorgeous either.

Sure isn`t, though I have many "man friends" who argue about that all the time.

Lol, so the consensus is that we're all ugly down there!?

Yes sir. All function, no form. :laugh:

[AliTree]

That`s because penises are ugly. :)

so true but them the vaginal area isn't all that gorgeous either.

they're both disgusting. breasts are disgusting too.

AliTree:
So um, don't take this the wrong way, but have you ever had a doctor draw some blood and make sure that everythings normal? There are lots of physiological imbalances that can manifest as asexuality; some medicines can cause it too.

i don't think anything wrong with me chemically. i'm pretty sure, actually. and it's not due to a drug since i've been this way since birth. i don't see not feeling sexual attraction nor wanting sex as a problem. also, there is a common thought that testosterone levels may be low in the people with low-no libidos. i have a significant amount of testosterone, though (as evident by my ring finger being significantly longer then my pointer). so that's not the reason i don't have a libido also.

[LaoTzu]

I wasn't implying, with my original post, that relationships without sex are meaningless. I just don't see where romance comes in if there is no sexual attraction.

I think the 'romance' is actually a carry-over feeling from childhood....kin to that feeling one gets when positively engrossed in some abstract fantasy world.
I can't recall it at will, but I can name it when I see it. (ever so rare with aging).

It's a light feeling, a world full of benevolent power, no evils or harms to divert the mind, no cause for any distress at all. Nothing but pure bliss. Wonder and amazement at the simplest things.

That kind of romance... I think that's what was being discussed. The right person can bring that out in us, if we let them.

And if I recall correctly, sexuality had little to do with those feelings.




All that as it is.... y'all need to relax on alphawolf ;) He's not bragging....he's just correct.

[tp6626]

Yes sir. All function, no form. :laugh:You know in design there is a mantra that says form is function.

So there :p!

[Synamon]

also, there is a common thought that testosterone levels may be low in the people with low-no libidos. i have a significant amount of testosterone, though (as evident by my ring finger being significantly longer then my pointer). so that's not the reason i don't have a libido also.
True, low libido in women is linked to low testosterone. False, the length of your ring finger is not an indication of your testosterone level. You have no idea what your testosterone levels are unless you get a blood test for it.

[AliTree]

True, low libido in women is linked to low testosterone. False, the length of your ring finger is not an indication of your testosterone level. You have no idea what your testosterone levels are unless you get a blood test for it.

i've just been told there's a link, sorry. i could go get it tested. i wouldn't mind. i'm sure it'd be interesting to know anyways.

[JohnDoe]

i don't think anything wrong with me chemically. i'm pretty sure, actually. and it's not due to a drug since i've been this way since birth. i don't see not feeling sexual attraction nor wanting sex as a problem. also, there is a common thought that testosterone levels may be low in the people with low-no libidos. i have a significant amount of testosterone, though (as evident by my ring finger being significantly longer then my pointer). so that's not the reason i don't have a libido also.

Well no but there are plenty of things like thyroid problems that can cause other long term problems and lower libido too. Low libido is one thing; nonexistant might be worth getting checked out just to make sure that its not caused by something more serious. Sex hormones are not the only things that can effect libidos; lots of other things do too. I don't see the lack of it as a problem either, but all I'm saying is it may be worth getting checked out to make sure that its not a symptom of some larger problem that will bite you later in life. Endocrine problems are not to be screwed with.

[AliTree]

Well no but there are plenty of things like thyroid problems that can cause other long term problems and lower libido too. Low libido is one thing; nonexistant might be worth getting checked out just to make sure that its not caused by something more serious. Sex hormones are not the only things that can effect libidos; lots of other things do too. I don't see the lack of it as a problem either, but all I'm saying is it may be worth getting checked out to make sure that its not a symptom of some larger problem that will bite you later in life. Endocrine problems are not to be screwed with.

eh, whatever. i think i'm supposed to die young anyways.

[countrygirl]

I think the 'romance' is actually a carry-over feeling from childhood....kin to that feeling one gets when positively engrossed in some abstract fantasy world.
I can't recall it at will, but I can name it when I see it. (ever so rare with aging).

It's a light feeling, a world full of benevolent power, no evils or harms to divert the mind, no cause for any distress at all. Nothing but pure bliss. Wonder and amazement at the simplest things.

That kind of romance... I think that's what was being discussed. The right person can bring that out in us, if we let them.

And if I recall correctly, sexuality had little to do with those feelings.




All that as it is.... y'all need to relax on alphawolf ;) He's not bragging....he's just correct.


Romantic love usually recognized as being started in the Middle ages where it was about expressing the emotions not the physical towards any female whether or not they were married. In fact, there were rules and codes to be followed.

However, the modern expression refers to the expression of emotion as a prelude to the physical act.

As to Alphawolf being correct LaoTzu, you speak from experience? :cheesy:

[JohnDoe]

eh, whatever. i think i'm supposed to die young anyways.

I'll drop it after this, but you might find this link interesting: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If nothing else it has some nice peer reviewed papers on the subject :)

[AliTree]

I'll drop it after this, but you might find this link interesting: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. If nothing else it has some nice peer reviewed papers on the subject :)

yeah, i'm a member of that forum. not a real fan of it, personally, for a number of reasons. thank you though.

[cereza]

All that as it is.... y'all need to relax on alphawolf ;) He's not bragging....he's just correct.

Do tell why you think so. :)





cereza added to this post, 1 minutes and 32 seconds later...

You know in design there is a mantra that says form is function.

So there :p!

It`s okay if you think you have a pretty penis, I`m NOT judging. :laugh:

[tp6626]

Do tell why you think so. :)





cereza added to this post, 1 minutes and 32 seconds later...



It`s okay if you think you have a pretty penis, I`m NOT judging. :laugh:
It's like a swiss army knife... ;)

[cereza]

It's like a swiss army knife... ;)

:faint: you`ve gotta be kidding me. *swoon*
:laugh:

[Autoptic]

Isn't strength being conflated with socially approved traits? It seems more a matter of form than function itself. Personally, my psychological strengths usually get a negative reaction.

As far I can tell courtly love and it's offspring are just a hollow memetic disease related to religion and morality. Real emotional states are being judged by massively arbitrary and often truly inhuman rules.

so true but them the vaginal area isn't all that gorgeous either.

I disagree. I thought most guys would.:huh:

[JustMel]

:faint: you`ve gotta be kidding me. *swoon*
:laugh:

Now, now you know men find comfort in the perceived beauty of thier penis......:blank:





JustMel added to this post, 2 minutes and 37 seconds later...

Originally Posted by JustMel
so true but them the vaginal area isn't all that gorgeous either.


I disagree. I thought most guys would.


Most guys I know get off on looking at breasts, butts and legs. Rarely do they mention the vagina. Most of the women I know don't think they're all that either.

[JohnDoe]

As far I can tell courtly love and it's offspring are just a hollow memetic disease related to religion and morality. Real emotional states are being judged by massively arbitrary and often truly inhuman rules.


Just because you don't like it don't judge the rest of us who do. Love has nothing to do with religion or morality.

[cereza]

Now, now you know men find comfort in the perceived beauty of thier penis......:blank:


I know. [taps fingers] Bad cereza.. bad, bad, girl.

[Autoptic]

Most guys I know get off on looking at breasts, butts and legs. Rarely do they mention the vagina. Most of the women I know don't think they're all that either.

You can see the rest through clothing at least far more and far more often. Cameltoe does get mentioned when applicable thus the term.

Just because you don't like it don't judge the rest of us who do. Love has nothing to do with religion or morality.

It's survives only in indoctrination as religion and morality. There are rules about what should and shouldn't be which don't originate from direct experience but actually dictated largely to it. While I do indeed dislike it, that doesn't change my assessment of the glamored construct's nature.

[JohnDoe]

You can see the rest through clothing at least far more and far more often. Camel toe does get mentioned when applicable thus the term.

Thats a bit messed up.


It's survives only in indoctrination. Like religion and morality, there are rules about what should and shouldn't be which don't originate from direct experience but actually dictated largely to it. While I do indeed dislike it, that doesn't change my assessment of it's nature.

I disagree. What most people may call love may just be them trying to meet some societal standard, but I don't agree that there are no cases that measure up to the ideal.

[LaoTzu]

As to Alphawolf being correct LaoTzu, you speak from experience? :cheesy:

I share the same views is all. The practice however....? I'm more like a disillusioned lawyer who quits it all, and prefers working an ice-cream stand. Alpha's running the BAR Assn. :P

What women want, and what they say they want; are very distinct things.
Remove all fear/doubt/shame from a woman and her sexuality? ....

...just-> wow....
From what alpha has said in the past, he's quite capable of setting that stage. From what I've seen in my own past, it's one hell of a play.

[countrygirl]

I share the same views is all. The practice however....? I'm more like a disillusioned lawyer who quits it all, and prefers working an ice-cream stand. Alpha's running the BAR Assn. :P

What women want, and what they say they want; are very distinct things.
Remove all fear/doubt/shame from a woman and her sexuality? ....
...just-> wow....

From what alpha has said in the past, he's quite capable of setting that stage. From what I've seen in my own past, it's one hell of a play.

Now that would be equality btwn the sexes. And unfortunately the worst comes from other women.

[JustMel]

You can see the rest through clothing at least far more and far more often. Cameltoe does get mentioned when applicable thus the term.



It's survives only in indoctrination as religion and morality. There are rules about what should and shouldn't be which don't originate from direct experience but actually dictated largely to it. While I do indeed dislike it, that doesn't change my assessment of the glamored construct's nature.

Camel Toe: eTo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Most women would tell her that the Barbie called and wanted its clothing back if they saw a woman flashing the toe. CT is soooo NOT attractive.

Love for me has nothing to do with religion or morality. I love him because he is who he is and not because he's Catholic or because the church says I should love him before I bed him. I don't believe in religion or god so my love has nothing to do with either of them.

I do believe love is a biological response first and emotional one second.

[alphawolf]

What women want, and what they say they want; are very distinct things.

Yes, this is the mistake most guys make - taking what the woman says she wants as the truth. You have to understand a bit of psychology here... Women just do not want to feel guilty. If a man looks good, smells good, flirts well, and lets her know that he is naughty (lessens her own shame and guilt), her sexual interest starts to climb like the mercury on a hot summer day.



Remove all fear/doubt/shame from a woman and her sexuality? ....


Women want sex just as much as men, as I have said. The recurring theme from every woman I have been with in my life is:

- you're terrible (not in bed, but for seducing me)
- you do this all the time, don't you?
- that was not what I had in mind...
- i bet you've got 5 or 6 girlfriends, don't you?


It is simple transfer of guilt. If you accept it, she will continue to run to your bed. If you take offense, then you likely won't see her naked again.

Like it or not, it's the truth.

[phoenix]

Women want sex just as much as men, as I have said. The recurring theme from every woman I have been with in my life is:

- you're terrible (not in bed, but for seducing me)
- you do this all the time, don't you?
- that was not what I had in mind...
- i bet you've got 5 or 6 girlfriends, don't you?


It is simple transfer of guilt. If you accept it, she will continue to run to your bed. If you take offense, then you likely won't see her naked again.

Like it or not, it's the truth.

Except, this woman just took this exact tactic with a man. Pursued him, seduced him, bedded him, and took his guilt. (True, the man is INFP and apparently needed that.) Thankfully, he doesn't think I "do this all the time," and is more than happy to continue returning to my bed.

He LOVES the fact that I seduce him. He LOVES knowing he is desirable. And I have no need to be the weak one in the sexual portion of our relationship. There are other aspects where he is strong and I am weak. But when it comes to the chase, I am definitely the predator, not the prey.

[Rudy]

Except, this woman just took this exact tactic with a man. Pursued him, seduced him, bedded him, and took his guilt. (True, the man is INFP and apparently needed that.) Thankfully, he doesn't think I "do this all the time," and is more than happy to continue returning to my bed.

He LOVES the fact that I seduce him. He LOVES knowing he is desirable. And I have no need to be the weak one in the sexual portion of our relationship. There are other aspects where he is strong and I am weak. But when it comes to the chase, I am definitely the predator, not the prey.

*wishes that there were more women like this, but sadly knows that they are the delightful exception, not the rule*

[Valielen]

Except, this woman just took this exact tactic with a man. Pursued him, seduced him, bedded him, and took his guilt. (True, the man is INFP and apparently needed that.) Thankfully, he doesn't think I "do this all the time," and is more than happy to continue returning to my bed.

He LOVES the fact that I seduce him. He LOVES knowing he is desirable. And I have no need to be the weak one in the sexual portion of our relationship. There are other aspects where he is strong and I am weak. But when it comes to the chase, I am definitely the predator, not the prey.

About the chasing part, I have to agree here. There was only one time when I was surprised by being kissed first without me making the first move. And the whole guilt thing lasted only with my first partner. After that it was open season :) I have a weak spot for shy guys so if I didn't make the first move I could be sat waiting forever. That doesn't mean they were weak in the sexual part... They just needed some guidance.

But it still doesn't change that in a life-long partner I chose to stay with the one which I believe to be the strongest.

One question: Do you think your social environment has contributed to the way you acted or is it just your personality?

[alphawolf]

*wishes that there were more women like this, but sadly knows that they are the delightful exception, not the rule*

Word.

[krapyrubsnif]

Yes, this is the mistake most guys make - taking what the woman says she wants as the truth. You have to understand a bit of psychology here... Women just do not want to feel guilty. If a man looks good, smells good, flirts well, and lets her know that he is naughty (lessens her own shame and guilt), her sexual interest starts to climb like the mercury on a hot summer day.

Women want sex just as much as men, as I have said. The recurring theme from every woman I have been with in my life is:

- you're terrible (not in bed, but for seducing me)
- you do this all the time, don't you?
- that was not what I had in mind...
- i bet you've got 5 or 6 girlfriends, don't you?

It is simple transfer of guilt. If you accept it, she will continue to run to your bed. If you take offense, then you likely won't see her naked again.

Like it or not, it's the truth.

Errr -WHAT!

My relationship with my boyfriend sounds rather too similar to what alphawolf is saying... That my boyfriend has rather large amounts of guilt (in every way alpha mentions) and im the one who swallows the guilt for him...

:confused:

Would you mind going into a bit more detail and what the guilt has to do with you chasing/dating/being in love with women?

[alphawolf]

Errr -WHAT!

My relationship with my boyfriend sounds rather too similar to what alphawolf is saying... That my boyfriend has rather large amounts of guilt (in every way alpha mentions) and im the one who swallows the guilt for him...

:confused:

Would you mind going into a bit more detail and what the guilt has to do with you chasing/dating/being in love with women?


Well, I sure as hell am no psychologist, but I'll give it my thoughts.

Taking someone's guilt allows them to feel good about what they just did, because it was an intimate experience with a new person - filled with anxiety and the need to feel good and respected.

We all have momentary lapses of self-esteem.

I think that if the transfer of guilt goes beyond the first several sexual encounters, then this person likely has ongoing self-esteem problems. If they can be addressed and corrected early on, during the power struggle phase, then the relationship has at least that possibility to become healthy. If they are allowed to persist, then it becomes a codependent relationship and will most likely not survive past 7-10 years.

Is your bf out of the closet to everyone? Was he sexually abused as a child? Was he physically abused in a past adult relationship? These are some possibilities that I can think of why he might be carrying around heavy guilt.

But like I said, I sure as hell am no psychologist. I know they are on this board, so maybe they will chime in.

[zibber]

To be explicitly clear: what alphawolf is talking about has nothing to do with love and romance. It has something (but certainly not everything) to do with lust and sexuality. Even then, though, don't be fooled by disgusting generalizations like "'women' this, 'men' that" into thinking that this is something static, universal. It is far from that. These are all just social constructions which may have a flimsy basis in biology, being exploited by wily conmen. I used to soothe my feminist fury with notions like "most of the women objectified and used by these men enjoy it, just leave these people be", but I have come to think that in a healthier social climate, mostly devoid of gender roles (and gender essentialism), the reasons why people like alphawolf "succeed" at what they do, for instance the insecurity of girls (and resulting effects of playing into that) and their essentialistic notions of gender ("my 'man' should be stronger than me" etc) would barely even exist. It would work "both" ways, too, as developing boys wouldn't feel pressured by social gender constructs to live up to a certain ideal of "manhood" (which is taken to the extreme by alphawolf and his kind).

Can we, for the love of Jobe, leave that shit far away from this thread?

This seems almost too banal to mention, but the fact that some women agree with alphawolf doesn't tell you anything other than the pervasiveness of gender essentialism.

edit: Actually, to illustrate a balanced alternative to all of this essentialism:

Compare this
While we certainly live in a time that has brought about the death of the man as we previously understood him, what we have been left with is often distasteful. I will agree with Alphawolf in his statements that a physically and emotionally strong man are desirable qualities for men to emulate and women to enjoy, however I do feel that in this case, the pendulum is indeed swinging to far. I would in fact attribute his success to an over abundance of women who are secretly sick of the modern man and his desire to be feminine.

A strong man with the capacity for gentleness, for love and for emotion, without allowing these things to interfere with his sense of duty to both the world and his family; well, in my opinion that is part of what makes a man attractive. A man that does not allow his life partner to support him during times of need is a man that is missing much from life. Obviously we don't want needy people, well perhaps some of us do, but the truth is that we all need people sometimes.

The all encompassing motherhood that permeates the divine nature of femininity includes the ability to comfort their men. This is not something to be denied, or taken lightly.

To this
While we certainly live in a time that has brought about the [gradual deconstruction] of [gender roles] as we previously understood [them], what we have been left with is often [progressive and in strong contrast to what we're used to]. I will agree with Alphawolf in his statements that a physically and emotionally strong man are ... qualities ... ... I would in fact attribute [alphawolf's] success to an over abundance of [conservative, traditional] women who [are uneasy with progressive ideas about gender, conflicting with what society and consumption culture have presented them with during their development].

[B]A strong [person] with the capacity for gentleness, for love and for emotion, without allowing these things to interfere with [their] sense of duty to both the world and [their] family; well, in my opinion that is part of what makes a [person] attractive. A [person] that does not allow [their] life partner to support [them] during times of need is a [person] that is missing much from life.

The all encompassing [sense of caring for one's loved ones] that permeates the ... nature of [humanity] includes the ability to comfort one's [mates]. This is not something to be denied, or taken lightly.


--
i despise the female body.

*deep, deep sigh*

Can I not entice you to take the briefest of brief glances at a book like The Body Project (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.-link)?

[alphawolf]

To be explicitly clear: what alphawolf is talking about has nothing to do with love and romance.

Au contraire, zibber.

It has everything to do with romantic respect. While not a static definition or feeling, it has many common factors as viewed/perceived/felt by a large percentage of the female population worldwide, largely independent of culture, race, or religion. The thing that less aggressive men and more aggressive women find disgusting about the status quo of romantic respect is that it is largely driven by animalistic instinct, which is offensive in a way to some intellectuals.

Watch a documentary about primates, for example baboons, gorillas, etc. You will see clear examples of and discussions about alpha behaviour, as relating to these highly intelligent animals.

OK, so it's disgusting to follow animal instinct when our knowledge has advanced beyond instinct. Welcome to the jungle.

[phoenix]

One question: Do you think your social environment has contributed to the way you acted or is it just your personality?

(laughing) I read this question to a friend of mine and her response was: "So did you become a slut or were you born that way??" Now, I won't take that as the meaning behind your question, but it is one way it could be read.

In my case, I'd say a mixture of both. I was raised in a rather repressive household, but even as a teen would take the initiative in requesting romance. Since I know that didn't come from my family, it must be some innate aspect of my personality. Later (mid-20s) I found myself in a social circle/relationship that gave me a lot of self-esteem about my body, my romantic abilities, and allowed me to really explore my sexuality.

Add this to my INTJ penchant for planning and voila, seduction becomes an extremely enjoyable pastime. Now, seduction does not mean sluttiness, as I am only seducing one person and it is for our mutual pleasure. I hope (hope, hope, hope) to be able to continue to seduce this same person for the rest of our lives. It is an incredible relationship built on honesty, trust, mutual admiration, and respect, and this is just one of the many fun aspects.

After all, if sex wasn't fun, we wouldn't want to do it, right???

[alphawolf]

After all, if sex wasn't fun, we wouldn't want to do it, right???

Relating to post-pubescents: That may be true for women after menopause, but that's the only case.

[Chain]

I completely disagree, even though you enticed me with the orgasms. But then again, I am an INTJ female, so I suppose I want something different.

Personally, I find that attraction has very little to do with conscious thought (MBTI) and more to do with Ego and motivation.

I've dated women from several different M-B types. They all were attracted to same things. What they had in common wasn't their conscious thought patterns, but their motivations. They were all romantics, and despite what they adamently claimed, they were basically looking for a fairy tale... A man with strength, honor and integrity; a hero to save them from themselves.

Nobody wants an emotional rock.

Actually, some women do. I've known and dated some that saw showing sadness and depression as weakness. Despite what they claimed about wanting openness, they were not only non-sympathetic (which they otherwise would've been had the emotion not shown through), but couldn't respect it at all and scoffed at it. Ironically, they were also the first to bitch and moan about how cold I am and how dare I return the favor, I couldn't possibly care if I wasn't compassionate.


True, low libido in women is linked to low testosterone. False, the length of your ring finger is not an indication of your testosterone level. You have no idea what your testosterone levels are unless you get a blood test for it.

Testosterone does regulate sex drive in men and women. Of course, there are also a number of other factors that contribute (wouldn't it be wonderful if the mind was purely physical?)

There have been a number of studies that show that hormones- including testosterone- lead to having certain physcial features. They've also proven there's a reason why most men tend to gravitate toward the women that have certain features. The ones I recall the studies on most clearly are the hip/waist ratio and chin size. A bigger hip/waist ratio is a good indicator of fertility, and a bigger chin is a good indicator of higher levels of testosterone.*

*Keep in mind that there aren't many absolutes in life.

Most guys I know get off on looking at breasts, butts and legs. Rarely do they mention the vagina. Most of the women I know don't think they're all that either.

It's lower on the totem pole, but it has an effect. I've seen some that were kinda cute and some that were, "What the Hell is that?!"

And I've found that women tend to have the same insecurities about what's between their legs.

Except, this woman just took this exact tactic with a man. Pursued him, seduced him, bedded him, and took his guilt. (True, the man is INFP and apparently needed that.) Thankfully, he doesn't think I "do this all the time," and is more than happy to continue returning to my bed.

He LOVES the fact that I seduce him. He LOVES knowing he is desirable. And I have no need to be the weak one in the sexual portion of our relationship. There are other aspects where he is strong and I am weak. But when it comes to the chase, I am definitely the predator, not the prey.

Good for you. Not too many women like that, which is a shame.

However, don't equate "not chasing" with "weakness." I'm flat-out aggressive and I don't chase at all. I find more power in seducing (for lack of a better word) women until they over-come their predispositions, insecurities, societial inspired bullshit and make the first move.

[alphawolf]

I've known and dated some that saw showing sadness and depression as weakness. Despite what they claimed about wanting openness, they were not only non-sympathetic (which they otherwise would've been had the emotion not shown through), but couldn't respect it at all and scoffed at it.

Can we still be friends? Otherwise known as the end of romantic respect.

[Rudy]

Good for you. Not too many women like that, which is a shame.

However, don't equate "not chasing" with "weakness." I'm flat-out aggressive and I don't chase at all. I find more power in seducing (for lack of a better word) women until they over-come their predispositions, insecurities, societial inspired bullshit and make the first move.

Better word: enticing?

[phoenix]

Good for you. Not too many women like that, which is a shame.

However, don't equate "not chasing" with "weakness." I'm flat-out aggressive and I don't chase at all. I find more power in seducing (for lack of a better word) women until they over-come their predispositions, insecurities, societial inspired bullshit and make the first move.

Fair enough, I was using the work "weak" as a contrast to "strong" as it has been used earlier in the thread. But your point is a good one. While he is not the aggressor in the seduction, I do not in any way perceive him as weak. Once the chase is over, we are typically equals in the act. In fact, sometimes he will take the initiative and overwhelm me...which is wonderful.

But the type of seduction you are describing...slow, silent, and powerful...sounds incredibly enticing to me.

N.B.: Rudy, I used the word "enticing" before I read your reply. It must be a good choice.

[Harmony]

(laughing) I read this question to a friend of mine and her response was: "So did you become a slut or were you born that way??" Now, I won't take that as the meaning behind your question, but it is one way it could be read.

This actually made me think of something different... I've always been a little bit on the flirty, seductive, promiscuous side... But I'm pretty good about selecting people that won't scream it from the roof tops... So for the most part, none of my close friends suspect that I am that way.

Now, upon chatting with my parents once I found out that growing up my dad was the exact same way I was. Now, up until this past year I had no knowledge of this. Since he met my mom he's only been with her. So it's not like it was a learned behavior for me. :p

Maybe I was born promiscuous! ;)

[Chain]

Better word: enticing?

Much better. Thank you.

Fair enough, I was using the work "weak" as a contrast to "strong" as it has been used earlier in the thread. But your point is a good one. While he is not the aggressor in the seduction, I do not in any way perceive him as weak. Once the chase is over, we are typically equals in the act. In fact, sometimes he will take the initiative and overwhelm me...which is wonderful.

But the type of seduction you are describing...slow, silent, and powerful...sounds incredibly enticing to me.

N.B.: Rudy, I used the word "enticing" before I read your reply. It must be a good choice.

Pretty much. It's enticing to a lot of women, some of which on the surface, you'd never expect.

On a side/general note:

One thing I just noticed that I forgot to mention earlier, though it should be obvious, is that not everyone is attracted to the same traits. Our experiences bias us to what does and doesn't happen, so sometimes we can't see things from an alternate perspective. Just because it's something that we don't care for, or attract, doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

That said, I tend to attract romantics, so that's where my experience, point of view, and subsequently biases are from.

If you want something in writing or for further thought on the strong man/romantic woman type relationships, look into what happens between Enneagram 8's and 4's. Though it's not as accurate a tool overall as MBTI for personality or predicting surface stuff, and conscious choices and actions; I believe it's a bit better with more emotional things such as romance.

[dalidaisy]

*wishes that there were more women like this, but sadly knows that they are the delightful exception, not the rule*

Really? You don't know women who know what they want & go after it? I've seen this type of reaction in other threads about females who are, well, aggressive when it comes to their romantic relationships.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I don't have many close female friends from which to gather data on this subject. I'll take your word for it. I guess I'd like to know exactly what kind of women you encounter & what is it about the way they approach a relationship that makes you desire a more aggressive one.

I, myself, am aggressive in that I ensure that I get what I want. This may mean taking what I want or it may mean that I adapt my behavior in such a way as to aquire it (i.e. being sneaky). No, I don't play fair. And, I want a man who is exactly the same way. Once a level of trust that is acceptable has been reached, anything is game.

On another note, I do like a hero. I like to be protected. I want strong arms (figuratively & actually) around me. I want to be able to be a little girl when it suits me & have a buffer to the world.

On the other hand, I also like a sensitive mate. Someone who isn't afraid to express their emotions. Someone who doesn't have to be strong all the time. Someone who wants me to protect them, just in a different way. I don't want to comfort their inner child, but I want to be able to bring some light into their darkness.

So, I guess, it's all about balance to me. Sure, I am more of a submissive mate, sue me. But, do not take my submissiveness for weakness, because that would be a huge mistake.

And seduction, well, that's something I consider an art, and I am an artist, or so I've been told. There are many types of seduction & I have found it valuable to be knowledgeable in this department.

And I've found that women tend to have the same insecurities about what's between their legs.

Um, I'm a woman & I'm not insecure about what's between my legs. Did you mean to say "some" women or have all the women you've encountered had an issue in this area?

[Chain]

Really? You don't know women who know what they want & go after it? I've seen this type of reaction in other threads about females who are, well, aggressive when it comes to their romantic relationships.

It really is rare. You'd be surprised at how many times I later found out that a woman wanted me, yet never showed a single sign of it.

So, I guess, it's all about balance to me. Sure, I am more of a submissive mate, sue me. But, do not take my submissiveness for weakness, because that would be a huge mistake.

It really is a shame that one often gets mistaken for the other.

The only unfortunate thing I've found from "strong and submissive" women is their penchant for constant power struggles. It's beyond aggravating and tiring.

Um, I'm a woman & I'm not insecure about what's between my legs. Did you mean to say "some" women or have all the women you've encountered had an issue in this area?

"Tend" does not mean, nor imply an absolute. But, to answer your question, all of the women I've been with have been that way. They were surprised and in disbelief, when they found out that I'm not.

[alphawolf]

The only unfortunate thing I've found from "strong and submissive" women is their penchant for constant power struggles. It's beyond aggravating and tiring.

You really hit the nail on the head there. As much as I love this type of woman, she will give you gray hairs and keep you awake at night, in other words drive you crazy.

[Valielen]

(laughing) I read this question to a friend of mine and her response was: "So did you become a slut or were you born that way??" Now, I won't take that as the meaning behind your question, but it is one way it could be read.


Ops I did not mean to imply slutty behaviour at all. Just trying to compare with my own experience. I never ever told my parents that I had a boyfriend until I moved out and my social circle ended up being one similar to what you described. I was never very desireable in a school environment, but once I developped my own social circle, I found that I got more attention which boosted my confidence. Because we never really talked at home much about relationships, I just acted in accordance to my conscience.

[dalidaisy]

The only unfortunate thing I've found from "strong and submissive" women is their penchant for constant power struggles. It's beyond aggravating and tiring.

I am pretty non-confrontational. I don't really do struggle (unless I'm tied up ;)). This is the reason I am attracted to a man similar to myself. Plus, communication really is key...





dalidaisy added to this post, 1 minutes and 25 seconds later...

You really hit the nail on the head there. As much as I love this type of woman, she will give you gray hairs and keep you awake at night, in other words drive you crazy.

Hehe, there are some men out there who LIKE to be kept up at night ;)...

[Rudy]

Really? You don't know women who know what they want & go after it? I've seen this type of reaction in other threads about females who are, well, aggressive when it comes to their romantic relationships.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I don't have many close female friends from which to gather data on this subject. I'll take your word for it. I guess I'd like to know exactly what kind of women you encounter & what is it about the way they approach a relationship that makes you desire a more aggressive one.

Oh, I've certainly encountered women who go after what they want in a relationship but they are, as I said, the exception, not the rule. I wish it were otherwise.

I'll give a for-instance.

I have used, in the past, a dating site called okcupid, and have had some moderate success with it, though nothing that turned into a long-term relationship. This site does not automatically match you with people, though it does give recommendations. It is sometimes confusing, though, because people also use the site for friendships.

On the occasions where I sent a message to a girl, I did at least three things in this message:

1) Said what it was I liked about her, or at least what I liked about the her that was outlined in her profile. I generally tried to include at least one physical and one mental aspect that I liked.
2) I expressed very unambiguous interest in her romantically, as opposed to "friends"
3) Asked her a question or two about herself that I was genuinely interested in the answer to.

On the other hand, every time a girl initiated a message to me, it was always along the lines of "oh, you liked that book, I liked it too," or "I liked your profile." This isn't even enough to discern intent. You might think that on a dating site that receiving a message is, by itself, an expression of intent. I assumed this at first myself, but was very quickly disabused of the notion.

So, that is an example of what I mean when I say I wish girls were more aggressive in going for what they wanted.

[alphawolf]

I am pretty non-confrontational.

Hehe, there are some men out there who LIKE to be kept up at night ;)...

Power struggle doesn't need to be confrontational at all. It can be things such as ignoring the other (silent treatment), becoming unavailable, acting like you want the relationship less than the other, unnecessarily exerting independence, etc.

Yeah, I don't mind being kept up at night when the woman is in my bed. But I was talking about the period in time before she is in my bed every night...

[dalidaisy]

Power struggle doesn't need to be confrontational at all. It can be things such as ignoring the other (silent treatment), becoming unavailable, acting like you want the relationship less than the other, unnecessarily exerting independence, etc.

Yeah, I don't mind being kept up at night when the woman is in my bed. But I was talking about the period in time before she is in my bed every night...

I know what you meant, I was being silly (that's why I winked)...

As for your ideas of what a power struggle entails, nope, not me. I'm not sure that I've ever done any of those things in a relationship, save trying to get my husband to leave me...

Let me add here, that though I am strong & submissive, I am also EXTREMELY honest & open. There is no struggle because there doesn't need to be...





dalidaisy added to this post, 9 minutes and 23 seconds later...

Oh, I've certainly encountered women who go after what they want in a relationship but they are, as I said, the exception, not the rule. I wish it were otherwise....

...On the other hand, every time a girl initiated a message to me, it was always along the lines of "oh, you liked that book, I liked it too," or "I liked your profile." This isn't even enough to discern intent. You might think that on a dating site that receiving a message is, by itself, an expression of intent. I assumed this at first myself, but was very quickly disabused of the notion.

So, that is an example of what I mean when I say I wish girls were more aggressive in going for what they wanted.

Hmmm... I see what you are saying. Definitely frustrating.

I don't understand why people play these games with each other. I say, if you see something you want, go after it. If you are unsure, become sure. If you decide that it wasn't want you wanted, let it go. If it's exactly what you wanted, make damn sure you keep it. How hard is this?

*in my experience, the hardest part is getting rid of that which you do not want*

[Chain]

I am pretty non-confrontational. I don't really do struggle (unless I'm tied up ;)). This is the reason I am attracted to a man similar to myself. Plus, communication really is key...

If that's true, someone's a lucky bastard.

In my experience, communication does not create nor solve power problems. They usually start because someone didn't want to keep their end of the bargain, or someone wanted to provoke an anger response. IMO, it's a maturity/personality issue.

[dalidaisy]

If that's true, someone's a lucky bastard.

In my experience, communication does not create nor solve power problems. They usually start because someone didn't want to keep their end of the bargain, or someone wanted to provoke an anger response. IMO, it's a maturity/personality issue.

Well, if you communicate your desires or lack of, there won't be a struggle. I agree about the maturity. I have run across too many immature men who cannot handle a woman such as myself...

[Chain]

Well, if you communicate your desires or lack of, there won't be a struggle. I agree about the maturity. I have run across too many immature men who cannot handle a woman such as myself...

Do not overlook the values of integrity and knowing yourself. Just because you have those things and take them for granted, doesn't mean that everyone does. How many times have you had someone swear up and down they wanted something or wanted to do something, yet when the time came, they didn't do it, and kicked and screamed over it like a child? Personally, I've lost count.

[Harmony]

Well, if you communicate your desires or lack of, there won't be a struggle. I agree about the maturity. I have run across too many immature men who cannot handle a woman such as myself...

You know... I have to agree with you there... I could not figure out what went wrong with a couple of guys in the past... And when explaining to my friend that I was just clueless as to what had gone wrong, he busted out laughing. I was a little irked at his response because I was actually kind of hurt. :p And then he explained... That I had picked a couple of guys that couldn't handle a woman that knew what she wanted and knew how to get it.... :irked:

[Josephine1012]

Oh, I've certainly encountered women who go after what they want in a relationship but they are, as I said, the exception, not the rule. I wish it were otherwise.

I'll give a for-instance.

I have used, in the past, a dating site called okcupid, and have had some moderate success with it, though nothing that turned into a long-term relationship. This site does not automatically match you with people, though it does give recommendations. It is sometimes confusing, though, because people also use the site for friendships.

On the occasions where I sent a message to a girl, I did at least three things in this message:

1) Said what it was I liked about her, or at least what I liked about the her that was outlined in her profile. I generally tried to include at least one physical and one mental aspect that I liked.
2) I expressed very unambiguous interest in her romantically, as opposed to "friends"
3) Asked her a question or two about herself that I was genuinely interested in the answer to.

On the other hand, every time a girl initiated a message to me, it was always along the lines of "oh, you liked that book, I liked it too," or "I liked your profile." This isn't even enough to discern intent. You might think that on a dating site that receiving a message is, by itself, an expression of intent. I assumed this at first myself, but was very quickly disabused of the notion.

So, that is an example of what I mean when I say I wish girls were more aggressive in going for what they wanted.

It sounds as more of an opener. I know for me personally, my interest in a person isn't initially identified as romanitic or friendship. I genuinely find shared interests appealing, with continued contact I can discern if I want to pursue a romantic relationship or not.

Think of that initial move as request for more information.

I'm actually very uncomfortable with romantic overtures from a person before I made up my mind that I might be interested in the same. It takes me several exchanges before I can start to even consider things going in that direction.



Power struggle doesn't need to be confrontational at all. It can be things such as ignoring the other (silent treatment), becoming unavailable, acting like you want the relationship less than the other, unnecessarily exerting independence, etc.


As much as I hate to admit this, I've definitely been guilty of the above in the past. It is something that I became aware of early on, but I didn't realize the negative impact it had on my life for a long time afterwards.

This approach from a woman really does work wonders and is very good at securing admirers (for the most part), but here and there you will meet someone who knows how to play back. You end up engulfed in the process and getting consumed by this juicy game without realizing that you've very much lost the upper hand. When you're playing a power struggle "game", having the upper hand is absolutely pivotal since that is the purpose (instead of being in the relationship and enjoy the other person).

The problem for me with all of this is, I tend to lose respect for any man who falls for this, which spells doom for the relationship simply because you can't be with someone you do not respect.

On the other hand, when a guy is playing along, the relationship (even on the rare occasion when it does happen) creates a lot of stress for both parties. You don't get to know the other person on the level where you can bond with them, instead you sharpen your game playing skill, grow gray, and find out how good they are at tactical "warfare".

I try to avoid game-playing men like the plague, since they make me want to revert to my old tendencies and spark a sense of competition instead of romance. Because of the hightened hormone levels for both genuine romantic interest and competitive game playing and given this context, ironically the two instances can be mistaken very easily for one another.

[Rudy]

I'm actually very uncomfortable with romantic overtures from a person before I made up my mind that I might be interested in the same. It takes me several exchanges before I can start to even consider things going in that direction.

I definitely agree when it comes to real life interactions, but I consider the online dating site, where a lot of personal information is available upfront, to be a different matter. Also, most of what success I have had has come from me making the direct overture.

[dalidaisy]

Do not overlook the values of integrity and knowing yourself. Just because you have those things and take them for granted, doesn't mean that everyone does. How many times have you had someone swear up and down they wanted something or wanted to do something, yet when the time came, they didn't do it, and kicked and screamed over it like a child? Personally, I've lost count.

Hmmm... Besides my kids, I think my answer would be pretty low. We live in different worlds, it seems. But, similar to what you are saying, I've had someone think they know what they want, until they actually get it...

I know myself & I'm drawn to others who are secure in themselves. I'm very selective in my choice of mate for this reason. I also like adventurous types who are willing to try anything once. It is okay to try something & find it's not acceptable, as long as you are willing to let go afterwards.

Now, I will agree that those immature men I mentioned just had no idea what they were getting into. They often think I'm exactly what they want. And here's where I see a problem.

You see, I watch you guys state that you'd love an agressive woman. One that is confident & knows what she wants. You seem to like girls who are also independent & not needy. That's great. You'd love me.

However, when that initial excitement of getting what you think you want wears off, you start to fall back into the patterns you are used to. Maybe you grew up in an environment that causes you to desire the unknown, but that familiarity with the norm for you is just too strong to overcome.

Too often have people fallen in love with me, almost immediately, because of my strong will & independence, only to put me on a pedestal & hold me as a prize that they want to keep to themselves. Too many times I've felt like a work of highly valued avant-garde art, only to be taken off the wall & retouched to look like something more recognizeable.

This is what is frustrating for me. That is why I've become so honest & open. What you see is what you get. I want to be understood & accepted by my mate, exactly the way I am. I am completely okay with being alone for the rest of my life if I cannot be with someone who wants me for ME...

[krapyrubsnif]

Power struggle doesn't need to be confrontational at all. It can be things such as ignoring the other (silent treatment), becoming unavailable, acting like you want the relationship less than the other, unnecessarily exerting independence, etc.


What exactly does that result in?

[phoenix]

You see, I watch you guys state that you'd love an agressive woman. One that is confident & knows what she wants. You seem to like girls who are also independent & not needy. That's great. You'd love me.

However, when that initial excitement of getting what you think you want wears off, you start to fall back into the patterns you are used to.

<snip>

This is what is frustrating for me. That is why I've become so honest & open. What you see is what you get. I want to be understood & accepted by my mate, exactly the way I am. I am completely okay with being alone for the rest of my life if I cannot be with someone who wants me for ME...


Absolutely!!!! If you can't accept me as I am, then we shouldn't even be attempting a relationship. I will NOT play games (silent treatment, cooling off, etc.) with you. I will NOT pretend to be someone I'm not just so you can feel good about yourself or me. I WILL share my thoughts, opinions, feelings (that one requires that trust has been established), and desires with you honestly. I WILL take your thoughts, opinions, feelings and desires into account. Please be considerate enough to be honest with me.

It's not possible to play a role your entire life. Either you find someone who loves you as you are, or accept that the relationship is unlikely to be happy in the long run.

[alphawolf]

What exactly does that result in?


Control. Who wants the relationship less has the power.

[phoenix]

What exactly does that result in?

Control. Who wants the relationship less has the power.



I don't think I would want to be in a relationship with someone who thinks this way. A loving relationship should be mutually beneficial, with both parties working to improve themselves, support their partner, and develop as a couple. This sort of power struggle would undermine the trust I think is critical to maintain the open communication necessary for any long-term commitment.

[Kisai]

Sorry, but its true. I have a very loving relationship with my wife, yet I control the relationship because I can care about it less than she can. My wife enjoys the power struggle in the relationship, enjoys teasing me until I punish her sometimes.

[phoenix]

Sorry, but its true. I have a very loving relationship with my wife, yet I control the relationship because I can care about it less than she can. My wife enjoys the power struggle in the relationship, enjoys teasing me until I punish her sometimes.

I'm glad you have a relationship where it works for you. I cannot see myself enjoying that situation as either party. So for me, personally, it would be an untenable relationship.

[krapyrubsnif]

Control. Who wants the relationship less has the power.

So essentially you want to have control over your partner. If you didn't, you wouldn't be in the relationship?

[JustMel]

Yes, this is the mistake most guys make - taking what the woman says she wants as the truth. You have to understand a bit of psychology here... Women just do not want to feel guilty. If a man looks good, smells good, flirts well, and lets her know that he is naughty (lessens her own shame and guilt), her sexual interest starts to climb like the mercury on a hot summer day.




Women want sex just as much as men, as I have said. The recurring theme from every woman I have been with in my life is:

- you're terrible (not in bed, but for seducing me)
- you do this all the time, don't you?
- that was not what I had in mind...
- i bet you've got 5 or 6 girlfriends, don't you?


It is simple transfer of guilt. If you accept it, she will continue to run to your bed. If you take offense, then you likely won't see her naked again.

Like it or not, it's the truth.

Perhaps that's why my husband says he appreciates me.... I tell him exactly what I want and what I'm thinking. he is not a mind reader and I know that so I help him out where I can.

Before I was in a committed relationship if I met someone and wanted to go to bed with them I did so. I didn't expect and often shunned a relationship for more than 5 years between serious entanglements. Women are just as capable of having sex only relationships as men if they are being honest with themselves and the men they are with. No guilt and no expectations. I found that some men had issues with that idea. They wanted me to want to chase and beg for a relationship because we'd had sex and I don't beg anyone for anything. It's not just women who play games when it comes to sex---men are just as guilty

[pure potential]

If you can't accept me as I am, then we shouldn't even be attempting a relationship. I will NOT play games (silent treatment, cooling off, etc.) with you. I will NOT pretend to be someone I'm not just so you can feel good about yourself or me. I WILL share my thoughts, opinions, feelings (that one requires that trust has been established), and desires with you honestly. I WILL take your thoughts, opinions, feelings and desires into account. Please be considerate enough to be honest with me.

It's not possible to play a role your entire life. Either you find someone who loves you as you are, or accept that the relationship is unlikely to be happy in the long run.

Wonderfully said! Once we exhaust our relationships and self with games, this is what's left.





pure potential added to this post, 6 minutes and 9 seconds later...

Also noting that there is much more to the process of developing a relationship with someone when you employ the vulnerability to entertain deep feelings for someone. I'll elaborate more later when I have time.

[alphawolf]

I don't think I would want to be in a relationship with someone who thinks this way. A loving relationship should be mutually beneficial, with both parties working to improve themselves, support their partner, and develop as a couple. This sort of power struggle would undermine the trust I think is critical to maintain the open communication necessary for any long-term commitment.


You and me both. I don't enjoy power struggles. But the power struggle phase of a relationship is inevitable, after courting. It's where the couple actually decides if they can compromise effectively and stay together.

The problem arises when the power struggle ends and there is a big imbalance. Not the ideal situation at all.





alphawolf added to this post, 0 minutes and 58 seconds later...

So essentially you want to have control over your partner. If you didn't, you wouldn't be in the relationship?

Balance is the ideal outcome of the power struggle phase.

[Shinqui]

Lol, so the consensus is that we're all ugly down there!?

Wow, just wow, it amazes me how people can think that way. The human body is beautiful, both genders, including but not limited to their respective genitalia. Thinking that parts of our bodies are ugly would seriously limit the ability to worship and enjoy your partner in a physical setting, I’m glad I’m not cursed with this opinion.

I know. [taps fingers] Bad cereza.. bad, bad, girl.

Apparently Cereza requires a flogging, anyone up for the job?

To be explicitly clear: what alphawolf is talking about has nothing to do with love and romance. It has something (but certainly not everything) to do with lust and sexuality. Even then, though, don't be fooled by disgusting generalizations like "'women' this, 'men' that" into thinking that this is something static, universal. It is far from that. These are all just social constructions which may have a flimsy basis in biology, being exploited by wily conmen. I used to soothe my feminist fury with notions like "most of the women objectified and used by these men enjoy it, just leave these people be", but I have come to think that in a healthier social climate, mostly devoid of gender roles (and gender essentialism), the reasons why people like alphawolf "succeed" at what they do, for instance the insecurity of girls (and resulting effects of playing into that) and their essentialistic notions of gender ("my 'man' should be stronger than me" etc) would barely even exist. It would work "both" ways, too, as developing boys wouldn't feel pressured by social gender constructs to live up to a certain ideal of "manhood" (which is taken to the extreme by alphawolf and his kind).

Can we, for the love of Jobe, leave that shit far away from this thread?

This seems almost too banal to mention, but the fact that some women agree with alphawolf doesn't tell you anything other than the pervasiveness of gender essentialism.

Wow Zibber, now normally I am quite impressed with your mystical thoughts coming to us from the art world of Holland. This however is a place where we are going to disagree. Gender deconstruction is a form of robbery; gender equality does not mean equivalence, men and women, while people, come from two very different places inside. In my opinion, man’s loss of the ability to truly be male is a tragedy only equaled by woman’s loss of the ability to be truly female.

Like anything else in life, particularly in the realm of oppression, the pendulum has swung to far in the opposite direction. With care and consideration for all, we just may be able to bring it to a central place, one that celebrates the differences between the sexes without allowing for inequality.

Really? You don't know women who know what they want & go after it? I've seen this type of reaction in other threads about females who are, well, aggressive when it comes to their romantic relationships.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), I don't have many close female friends from which to gather data on this subject. I'll take your word for it. I guess I'd like to know exactly what kind of women you encounter & what is it about the way they approach a relationship that makes you desire a more aggressive one.

I, myself, am aggressive in that I ensure that I get what I want. This may mean taking what I want or it may mean that I adapt my behavior in such a way as to aquire it (i.e. being sneaky). No, I don't play fair. And, I want a man who is exactly the same way. Once a level of trust that is acceptable has been reached, anything is game.

On another note, I do like a hero. I like to be protected. I want strong arms (figuratively & actually) around me. I want to be able to be a little girl when it suits me & have a buffer to the world.

On the other hand, I also like a sensitive mate. Someone who isn't afraid to express their emotions. Someone who doesn't have to be strong all the time. Someone who wants me to protect them, just in a different way. I don't want to comfort their inner child, but I want to be able to bring some light into their darkness.

So, I guess, it's all about balance to me. Sure, I am more of a submissive mate, sue me. But, do not take my submissiveness for weakness, because that would be a huge mistake.

And seduction, well, that's something I consider an art, and I am an artist, or so I've been told. There are many types of seduction & I have found it valuable to be knowledgeable in this department.



Um, I'm a woman & I'm not insecure about what's between my legs. Did you mean to say "some" women or have all the women you've encountered had an issue in this area?

In my opinion, Dalidaisy embodies a lot of what I was trying to say to Zibber. She is exceptionally female, incredibly strong and fully an equal, however she is not equivalent to a male in any way. Of course, she would probably scare most guys half to death, and of course, we all know I’m kinda sweet on her. Still, I believe the idea holds true here.

The only unfortunate thing I've found from "strong and submissive" women is their penchant for constant power struggles. It's beyond aggravating and tiring.

I haven’t seen this, or perhaps I have and it just doesn’t play out the same way in my relationships. Everybody likes power, even submissive girls; it’s usually far more useful to allow them to express that part of them as well. Tie you up for a change…..

Hehe, there are some men out there who LIKE to be kept up at night ;)...

Damn straight baby, there is nothing like a powerful woman to keep us up at night, and not just for sex….

You know... I have to agree with you there... I could not figure out what went wrong with a couple of guys in the past... And when explaining to my friend that I was just clueless as to what had gone wrong, he busted out laughing. I was a little irked at his response because I was actually kind of hurt. :p And then he explained... That I had picked a couple of guys that couldn't handle a woman that knew what she wanted and knew how to get it.... :irked:

It takes a fully self actualized man to understand and enjoy a fully self actualized woman.

Now, I will agree that those immature men I mentioned just had no idea what they were getting into. They often think I'm exactly what they want. And here's where I see a problem.

You see, I watch you guys state that you'd love an agressive woman. One that is confident & knows what she wants. You seem to like girls who are also independent & not needy. That's great. You'd love me.

However, when that initial excitement of getting what you think you want wears off, you start to fall back into the patterns you are used to. Maybe you grew up in an environment that causes you to desire the unknown, but that familiarity with the norm for you is just too strong to overcome.

Too often have people fallen in love with me, almost immediately, because of my strong will & independence, only to put me on a pedestal & hold me as a prize that they want to keep to themselves. Too many times I've felt like a work of highly valued avant-garde art, only to be taken off the wall & retouched to look like something more recognizeable.

This is what is frustrating for me. That is why I've become so honest & open. What you see is what you get. I want to be understood & accepted by my mate, exactly the way I am. I am completely okay with being alone for the rest of my life if I cannot be with someone who wants me for ME...

Yes, I would imagine that this happens all the time, you’re perfect, now let me change you to what I want. How disappointing it must be.

[tp6626]

Wow, just wow, it amazes me how people can think that way. The human body is beautiful, both genders, including but not limited to their respective genitalia. Thinking that parts of our bodies are ugly would seriously limit the ability to worship and enjoy your partner in a physical setting, I’m glad I’m not cursed with this opinion.
Me too.

[Sinequanon]

Wow, just wow, it amazes me how people can think that way. The human body is beautiful, both genders, including but not limited to their respective genitalia. Thinking that parts of our bodies are ugly would seriously limit the ability to worship and enjoy your partner in a physical setting, I’m glad I’m not cursed with this opinion.
I agree...

In the "What is your ideal body type," someone posted a picture with 2 guys standing around a fairly attractive girl. The girl was attractive, as were the two guys' bodies. I found myself unable to stop gazing at the men, though. It's unfortunate they didn't have more attractive faces.

I dunno, while admiring physical beauty is just about the only time I feel like I belong on this silly planet. People can be absolutely beautiful, male and female.

[Kisai]

I'm glad you have a relationship where it works for you. I cannot see myself enjoying that situation as either party. So for me, personally, it would be an untenable relationship.

I wish you good luck. I previously had the same viewpoint as you did, but I eventually came to the conclusion that human relationships were not 50-50; that humans, whether they realize it or not, are mostly submissive, and that I didn't need anyone's permission to develop myself.

[Shinqui]

If that's true, someone's a lucky bastard.

It is true, I am exceptionally lucky, and yes my parents were not married when they had me. :)

I really should see if this luck I'm having is a streak or not, perhaps a lottery ticket?

[SeaCzar]

Absolutely!!!! If you can't accept me as I am, then we shouldn't even be attempting a relationship. I will NOT play games (silent treatment, cooling off, etc.) with you. I will NOT pretend to be someone I'm not just so you can feel good about yourself or me. I WILL share my thoughts, opinions, feelings (that one requires that trust has been established), and desires with you honestly. I WILL take your thoughts, opinions, feelings and desires into account. Please be considerate enough to be honest with me.

Absofuckingloutely spot on. Therein lies the rub. I've not found a woman who does not want to change some aspect of my demeanour/personality. A couple = two different people with different genders, attitudes, intelligences, etc, etc, etc ad nauseum... This is why relationships require maintanence and work, unless you are extremely lucky. That is why my marriage failed. She wanted something I was not, and knew it upfront. It was not something I had forseen, but you can bet your ass that it will not happen again.

[countrygirl]

You and me both. I don't enjoy power struggles. But the power struggle phase of a relationship is inevitable, after courting. It's where the couple actually decides if they can compromise effectively and stay together.

The problem arises when the power struggle ends and there is a big imbalance. Not the ideal situation at all.





alphawolf added to this post, 0 minutes and 58 seconds later...



Balance is the ideal outcome of the power struggle phase.

Absolutely. That power struggle came in the first year of my marriage, and most of the problem was my upbring and therefore consequently I needed to do some emotional maturity....We have since learned to communicate our needs and wants in all aspects of our lives to achieve a balance which does fluctuate depending on the issues and who it matters most to.

Wow Zibber, now normally I am quite impressed with your mystical thoughts coming to us from the art world of Holland. This however is a place where we are going to disagree. Gender deconstruction is a form of robbery; gender equality does not mean equivalence, men and women, while people, come from two very different places inside. In my opinion, man’s loss of the ability to truly be male is a tragedy only equaled by woman’s loss of the ability to be truly female.

Like anything else in life, particularly in the realm of oppression, the pendulum has swung to far in the opposite direction. With care and consideration for all, we just may be able to bring it to a central place, one that celebrates the differences between the sexes without allowing for inequality.

You phrased it so beautifully and eloquently. Thank you, Shinqui.

[Chain]

It is true, I am exceptionally lucky, and yes my parents were not married when they had me. :)

I really should see if this luck I'm having is a streak or not, perhaps a lottery ticket?

:laugh:

I only advise on such matters when bribed.




10% of the lottery winnings would suffice.

[dalidaisy]

:laugh:

I only advise on such matters when bribed.




10% of the lottery winnings would suffice.

Um, yea, I think he'll be sharing those winnings with me...

[alphawolf]

Absolutely. That power struggle came in the first year of my marriage

And herein lies a big mistake, although it seems to have worked out OK in your case - you're lucky. I mean that a couple should not decide to get married until the power struggle phase is over and both come out once again loving and caring for the other.

[krapyrubsnif]

Power struggles can only happen if both partners are in the main preoccupied with themselves.

If my partner tried to have a power struggle with me 1.) it would be pointless 2.) it would end it tears and 3.) they'd be selfish & as a result would be abjectly disliked.

EDIT:

It would end it their tears. If Im angry, you loose.

(Hence why i dont get angry, i dont want my partner to 'loose')

[Prunesquallor]

Power struggles can only happen if both partners are in the main preoccupied with themselves.

If my partner tried to have a power struggle with me 1.) it would be pointless 2.) it would end it tears and 3.) they'd be selfish & as a result would be abjectly disliked.

Ditto.

Also, I would win, and he'd get all hung up on gender stereotypes and not feel "manly" anymore. Ah, fun times...

[Chain]

Um, yea, I think he'll be sharing those winnings with me...

Did you miss what was between the lines?

Power struggles can only happen if both partners are in the main preoccupied with themselves.

Do you often get asked if you're in your own little world?

[krapyrubsnif]

Do you often get asked if you're in your own little world?

No.

I was thinking of an alphawolf type power struggle when i typed that. It is clear there are some that happen due to the nature of a couples dynamic instead of just blatant selfishness.

[dalidaisy]

Did you miss what was between the lines?


No, I was just staying on topic. I think we were discussing control in a relationship. I was just testing the waters...

[alphawolf]

No.

I was thinking of an alphawolf type power struggle when i typed that. It is clear there are some that happen due to the nature of a couples dynamic instead of just blatant selfishness.

Trust me, I'd rather spend my precious time scratching my ass than engage in a power struggle with a woman.

However, EVERY romantic relationship goes through a power struggle phase after courtship. Why do you think some people go from relationship to relationship? They leave when the struggle begins and go off to get high on love or lust again with someone else. Yeah, I've been guilty, too, if I didn't think the woman was worth investment.

As for me, I have recently found a drop-dead gorgeous ENTJ woman who adores me and I feel the same about her. Hopefully this will be the last power struggle I have to go through, because it takes a lot of energy. I think she's worth it, though, so I will give it a real chance.

[Shinqui]

However, EVERY romantic relationship goes through a power struggle phase after courtship. Why do you think some people go from relationship to relationship? They leave when the struggle begins and go off to get high on love or lust again with someone else. Yeah, I've been guilty, too, if I didn't think the woman was worth investment.


I couldn't disagree more strongly on this one, perhaps the cause of this symptom is self perpetuating?

[alphawolf]

I couldn't disagree more strongly on this one, perhaps the cause of this symptom is self perpetuating?

Otherwise known as the "eye opener" or "reality" stage. The part where each tries to correct the bad habits of the other, etc and so forth.

I'm not making this stuff up, do a bit of research. It's well documented.

[krapyrubsnif]

Otherwise known as the "eye opener" or "reality" stage. The part where each tries to correct the bad habits of the other, etc and so forth.

The "eye opener" / "reality" stage does not necessarily equal a power struggle. I think in the main it can result in either:

1.) Separation due to the destruction of the fantasy
2.) Communication and resolution about various issues. This is where each either partner gives way on certain issues or agrees to try and be more considerate in an issue (either by fixing the issue in themselves or the other partner adapting to the issue)
3.) Start arguing and it just becomes part of 'how they work'
4.) Silly power struggle games where you give of a certain and false vibe in order to never have to adapt yourself to your partner.

I would think 1 or 2 are the ideal. Either get rid of the bad relationship or for the sake of each other communicate and resolve.

Passive aggressiveness or plain aggressiveness is such a waste just because you and yours are too stubborn to adapt. Some people are like that, so que sera sera. Let them live how they want to. Im looking for something different though.

[countrygirl]

That power struggle came in the first year of my marriage

And herein lies a big mistake, although it seems to have worked out OK in your case - you're lucky. I mean that a couple should not decide to get married until the power struggle phase is over and both come out once again loving and caring for the other.

Lucky? No. There is alot of hard work involved to look at yourself and say 'wow I'm having a temper tantrum'; to be aware of when you are acting in such a manner, to stop yourself in the heat of the moment, and change the dysfunctional behaviour with a positive behaviour.

However, in hindsight, that is good marriage advice.

The "eye opener" / "reality" stage does not necessarily equal a power struggle. I think in the main it can result in either:

1.) Separation due to the destruction of the fantasy
2.) Communication and resolution about various issues. This is where each either partner gives way on certain issues or agrees to try and be more considerate in an issue (either by fixing the issue in themselves or the other partner adapting to the issue)
3.) Start arguing and it just becomes part of 'how they work'
4.) Silly power struggle games where you give of a certain and false vibe in order to never have to adapt yourself to your partner.

I would think 1 or 2 are the ideal. Either get rid of the bad relationship or for the sake of each other communicate and resolve.

Passive aggressiveness or plain aggressiveness is such a waste just because you and yours are too stubborn to adapt. Some people are like that, so que sera sera. Let them live how they want to. Im looking for something different though.

I agree with this and for me it was #2 BUT it is still a power struggle because everyone involved is right in their opinion. Anyone who wants to 'win' in an aurgement or relationship is in a power struggle. Relationships are about negotiation and compromises which requires honesty and communication in ones needs and wants.

[MacGuffin]

I'm curious how you all define:

Lust
Limerence (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Love

[krapyrubsnif]

I'm curious how you all define:

Lust
Limerence (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Love

Without much thought...

Lust Physical craving
Limerence Insecure obsessive desire
Love Intense feeling of deep affection and attachment.

[Synamon]

I'm curious how you all define:

Lust
Limerence (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Love
Oversimplified word association:

Lust: desire
Limerence: crush
Love: affection

[phoenix]

Without much thought...

Lust Physical craving
Limerence Insecure obsessive desire
Love Intense feeling of deep affection and attachment.


These basically match my own definitions of the terms. With that in mind, are any of the above mutually exclusive?

[Imposcillator]

Then I met my current partner. He is very strong and I can see this mostly in the way he interacts with others. He won’t be bullied at work into doing things that are unsafe or bend over to please the boss. Also despite me being his first (and hopefully last) girl, he soon found the confidence to show me how much he desired me. He was also strong enough to sit with me through my most depressive moments even though it hurt him to see me want to injure myself (he literally shook me out of it rather than just try to sympathize with me - in these moments it is difficult to get better if the person next to you is falling apart too). Being strong, aggressive etc does not mean he is going to bully me and beat me around in the house or that I have a guy with a BO problem...

Yes. That kind of strength is what I possess myself and I can fully agree with this definition. There is a major difference between being a gentle person and a spineless wuss just like there is a difference between being strong (assertive, not being a push-over) and being violent and stupidly mean just for the sake of it.

Bottom line, you can be strong without being an idiotic brute, just like MaleVolentworld pointed out before.

[JustMel]

Wow, just wow, it amazes me how people can think that way. The human body is beautiful, both genders, including but not limited to their respective genitalia. Thinking that parts of our bodies are ugly would seriously limit the ability to worship and enjoy your partner in a physical setting, I’m glad I’m not cursed with this opinion.

In the heat of the moment I do enjoy every part of him and vice versa. (I asked) but as far as looking at Playboy or Hustler or even Playgirl I don't get it. I can appreciate a hot body male or female as well as the next person but just looking at genitalia by itself or the pics where chickie has her lips spread and is flashing everything I don't think is sexy or looks all that great. Perhaps it's more the type of display.

[dalidaisy]

In the heat of the moment I do enjoy every part of him and vice versa. (I asked) but as far as looking at Playboy or Hustler or even Playgirl I don't get it. I can appreciate a hot body male or female as well as the next person but just looking at genitalia by itself or the pics where chickie has her lips spread and is flashing everything I don't think is sexy or looks all that great. Perhaps it's more the type of display.

Oh, genitalia can be nice, as long as it's healthy. I must say the images they showed us in Sex Ed in high school are still burned into my retinas.

For me, I prefer to look at my patner's body, rather than ogle others. After I have gotten to know the body, it's strengths & weaknessness, it's beauty & it's flaws, I find it highly erotic to view & fantasize about. I need no other outside stimuli. Porn really holds no draw for me in the least. I understand that sometimes people just really like it & it does give good ideas on occasion, which is why I don't discount it completely.

Not to say that the human body isn't beautiful or anything. I appreciate perceived beauty as much as the next person. All I'm saying is that it doesn't fulfill my desires to view someone who is not mine. I much prefer having the thing I want to play with right in front of me. If I care deeply for a person, it doesn't really matter how others perceive their beauty, I will find them wholely satisfying & beautiful in my own way...

[zibber]

Really. Power struggles.

An office has power struggles. A romantic relationship is harmonious.


It has everything to do with romantic respect. While not a static definition or feeling, it has many common factors as viewed/perceived/felt by a large percentage of the female population worldwide, largely independent of culture, race, or religion. The thing that less aggressive men and more aggressive women find disgusting about the status quo of romantic respect is that it is largely driven by animalistic instinct, which is offensive in a way to some intellectuals.

No, I know what you mean.

The problems are, though, that 1) these "common factors" you vaguely refer to are not necessarily essential and 2) even though they may be, their manipulation will get you a mate not a partner.

(To clarify: a mate, you drag around by the hair; a partner, you experience life with.)

Watch a documentary about primates, for example baboons, gorillas, etc. You will see clear examples of and discussions about alpha behaviour, as relating to these highly intelligent animals.

I appreciate your attempt to polish your point up with "highly intelligent", but surely you're aware that there are many other habits humans don't share with baboons and gorillas. In your world, I'm sure there'd also be violent physical clashes between the top alpha males, but the IS says nothing about the OUGHT (and COULD!).

Something people need to get about the phrase "cultural conventions" is that it indicates conditioned behaviors. Conditioned behaviors are not necessary, should always remain open to analysis and can be unlearned.


Wow Zibber, now normally I am quite impressed with your mystical thoughts coming to us from the art world of Holland. This however is a place where we are going to disagree. Gender deconstruction is a form of robbery; gender equality does not mean equivalence, men and women, while people, come from two very different places inside. In my opinion, man’s loss of the ability to truly be male is a tragedy only equaled by woman’s loss of the ability to be truly female.


Out of curiosity, what are your ideas of "masculinity" and "femininity"?

(Not baiting or anything, just afraid that your grand ideals are based on the old conventions.)

[alphawolf]

The problems are, though, that 1) these "common factors" you vaguely refer to are not necessarily essential and 2) even though they may be, their manipulation will get you a mate not a partner.

(To clarify: a mate, you drag around by the hair; a partner, you experience life with.)


They are not essential in safe and calm environments, if we can figure out how to stop men from being dominant and concurrently figure out how to get women to stop choosing dominant men. Until that time comes, we are stuck in a loop: no mate, then nobody to experience life with.

How can we change it? Is it worth the effort to try?

[zibber]

They are not essential in safe and calm environments, if we can figure out how to stop men from being dominant and concurrently figure out how to get women to stop choosing dominant men. Until that time comes, we are stuck in a loop: no mate, then nobody to experience life with.

How can we change it? Is it worth the effort to try?

Sorry: "essential" in the sense of inherent, not "necessary for survival" or anything like that. (I'm assuming that's what you meant, that human men in the wild must be strong and all that?) When I say "(gender) essentialism", I refer to the habit of ascribing characteristics to gender as if they were universal, fundamental and unchanging (and thus attempting to exempt them from critical analysis).

Figure out how to stop it? I don't know, reason? Arguing the detriments of adherence to traditional gender roles? That's kind of what I'm trying to do where I can.

What do you mean, "until that time"? Any individual is free to explore cultural conventions, analyse them for what they are and transcend them. (You already miss the point when you speak of "men" and "women".) What comes first is recognizing a problem, then to be vocal about it. You can't force people to listen, but one hopes that every now and then, someone's interest is piqued.

(I know you're not actually curious about that, so what's your angle?)

[alphawolf]

Sorry: "essential" in the sense of inherent, not "necessary for survival" or anything like that. (I'm assuming that's what you meant, that human men in the wild must be strong and all that?) When I say "(gender) essentialism", I refer to the habit of ascribing characteristics to gender as if they were universal, fundamental and unchanging (and thus attempting to exempt them from critical analysis).

The fact is that men and women are biologically different; hormonally, among other things. Behaviour is driven, to a significant degree, by hormones. I mean, I have a brain (despite what prune thinks), but sometimes I can not prevent my T function from leaving my head and traveling to my penis. My brain is not always able to overcome my hormonal urges; they are too strong and they are still there for a reason.

To the extent that the differences in gender behaviour are driven by hormones, they may not be exempt from, but they ARE largely immune to the effects of critical analysis and changeable only via long-term environmental evolution, not short-term, rapid evolution of knowledge and awareness. My point is that you are free to analyse them all you like, but this will be no more than an academic exercise -> waste of time.

[Frag]

They are not essential in safe and calm environments, if we can figure out how to stop men from being dominant and concurrently figure out how to get women to stop choosing dominant men. Until that time comes, we are stuck in a loop: no mate, then nobody to experience life with.
Or, you could pull your head out your ass and realise we have already arrived in that time.

The future is now.

[Rudy]

Or, you could pull your head out your ass and realise we have already arrived in that time.

The future is now.

I don't agree with a lot of what AlphaWolf says, but how you have the impression that you are living in a safe and calm world, I do not understand.

[Frag]

I don't agree with a lot of what AlphaWolf says, but how you have the impression that you are living in a safe and calm world, I do not understand.
Sorry, I was focused on the bigotry and not various world wars, starving black kids etc... it happens sometimes.

[alphawolf]

Sorry, I was focused on the bigotry and not various world wars, starving black kids etc... it happens sometimes.


You were saying?

[Rudy]

Sorry, I was focused on the bigotry and not various world wars, starving black kids etc... it happens sometimes.

The point I was trying to get at is more that, whether we like it or not, the capacity for aggression, and violence, remains an evolutionarily advantageous one for individuals in most of today's world, even if it is not beneficial to the species as a whole. I say this as someone with a very small capacity for aggression, so I'm not talking myself up in any way.

[alphawolf]

The point I was trying to get at is more that, whether we like it or not, the capacity for aggression, and violence, remains an evolutionarily advantageous one for individuals in most of today's world, even if it is not beneficial to the species as a whole.

That is also my point. But compared to me, you are eloquent and have economy of expression.

[Rudy]

That is also my point. But compared to me, you are eloquent and have economy of expression.
Not at all; I simply wanted to add my two cents as I thought it might lend the point additional credibility. This is not to say that I am any more of a reliable font of wisdom than you, but rather that the point about aggression being evolutionarily advantageous goes against my own interest, whereas it favors yours. "Evidence against interest," and all that.

Another way to put it is that if a "nice guy" says that being a "nice guy" is a bad thing, that carries more weight than if someone such as yourself says that being a "nice guy" is a bad thing.

[alphawolf]

Another way to put it is that if a "nice guy" says that being a "nice guy" is a bad thing, that carries more weight than if someone such as yourself says that being a "nice guy" is a bad thing.

If a large percentage of nice guys become aggressive, it also goes against my self-interest as it increases competition.

I am not pushing my point out of selfishness; I honestly want to see all of you "nice guys" start getting laid on a regular basis.

[Rudy]

I am not pushing my point out of selfishness.
I don't believe that you are; I'm just referring to general perceptions.

If any person starts talking about how personality traits that they have are superior in some way, a listener naturally questions their motivations. Are they saying this to talk themselves up, or are they saying it because it is true? Are they biased in their analysis of the quality because they have it? That is what I mean.

To give an example relating to MBTI types, people would be far more likely to listen if an ISFJ starting talking about how INTJs were the superior type, than if an INTJ started talking about how INTJs were the superior type. The latter would be dismissed as egocentricity.

In your case, I think you're speaking your interpretations honestly, but you can see why someone might question your motivations.

[Frag]

You were saying?
I omitted the sarcasm tags for brevity.

[Shinqui]

Out of curiosity, what are your ideas of "masculinity" and "femininity"?

(Not baiting or anything, just afraid that your grand ideals are based on the old conventions.)

I wouldn’t necessarily call my ideals grand, but I do understand your perception of convention based ideologies. However, intrinsic masculinity and femininity are easiest to observe when one removes the molding influences of modern society. When we leave our gleaming office towers, our grocery stores with our neatly packaged food so far removed from the reality of existence and dare I say when we remove our ability to control our rate of offspring.

Society and all it’s advances have allowed us to change into that which we think we want, but it’s certainly not a given that we have achieved that which could be called best. There is something that beats in the heart of an individual, whether male or female, that will not be denied despite our best efforts to subdue it. Defining that core can be tricky at best and a slippery slope at worst, but here are some thoughts.

It would be difficult to imagine femininity without thinking of the all encompassing nurturing spirit that flows so freely from the gender that gives life to us all. A gender that exceeds at things like self sacrifice, an incredible tolerance for pain, a consuming desire to see those that she cares about safe, nourished and self actualized. Now admittedly, not all women are mothers, but I do not think one can say that motherhood is not a core component in the definition of femininity.

There is a warrior spirit that burns brightly in the heart of man, no matter how much we bury it in television and beer. The desire to protect, to provide for, to carve out a space for ones family to live safely in; masculinity, at it’s core, is a place of power, of aggression, of honor, of duty, of many more things that simply won’t fit into the scope of this thread.

Now, are there female warriors? Most certainly, there are also male nurturers; this is not a point of contention. However, I strongly believe that we loose something when we turn our backs on our intrinsic gender differences and instead try to be just people. Equality is of paramount importance, but I believe we often translate this as equivalence, and it does not take much observation to see that this is simply not the case.

Peace

[zibber]

You see, I don't think you and I disagree that much :)

I shudder at the thought of individuals suppressing who they are, but my trouble with saying things like "men this, women that" is that it blatantly neglects those individuals not characterized by "typical gender traits", seems (sometimes almost poetically) to put universal value on gender-specific traits and almost invariably leads to general claims about relations between men and women. I don't like that. "Man" and "woman", as you state, are no fixed entities. There are only individuals with traits. Some traits often go together (wild example: facial hair and penis), but that is no grounds for connecting them intrinsically.

(If you take one of the most fundamental aspects of female individuals, the ability to bear children, the folly of essentialism already becomes clear. Many, many women choose to refrain from having children. (Or just don't; saying they consciously decide not to have children is already immensely loaded.) Are they going against their nature, or just crafting their own path? Why perpetuate an atmosphere where that question is even an issue?)

My brain is not always able to overcome my hormonal urges; they are too strong and they are still there for a reason.

They can be as strong as ten Hulks on PCP, but how does that imply that they are justified?

(In any event, do differences in hormonal distribution imply that "women like strong men" and other such notions?)

[Prunesquallor]

However, I strongly believe that we loose something when we turn our backs on our intrinsic gender differences and instead try to be just people. Equality is of paramount importance, but I believe we often translate this as equivalence, and it does not take much observation to see that this is simply not the case. Peace

That's funny. The bolded sentence is pretty much my philosophy.

I think there is a strong difference between defining "femininity" and "masculinity" as concepts, which will have a very strong cultural baggage, as much negative as positive, and using them as some sort of ideal or goal. For those who think they lose something by not adhering to such a definition, they're welcome to live up to whatever they believe in; personally, I feel I lose some freedom if I'm expected to or even want to adhere to either one or the other. Simply to be treated as a person and not identified with a gender that has connotations which will not get me as much respect is something I would very much appreciate, personally. It rarely happens.

I agree that equality and equivalence should not be confused; however many such arguments leave a bad taste in my mouth, as they remind me of the "seperate but equal" sort of arguments people use to deny gay people things. I mean, if the only reason two things are seperate is because a lot of people think they're not equal, then that's not good enough. (Note, I'm not accusing you of this, just trying to explicate my position.) It would be interesting to see what traits would hold up in a genuinely equal society, should such a thing ever exist. Some might argue that biology means it won't, but I'm not really trying to start that discussion.

I don't identify in the least with most of the ideas that are supposed to make up "femininity" - according to all of those stereotypes, I'm a man. Does that mean I think all ideas of femininity are bunk? No, I just think most of what constitutes gender roles is more optional than people like to think. And what I have a problem with is people expecting, pressuring, etc. people to play these stupid roles when they don't want to. Essentially, if one takes people as they present themselves without projecting a lot of baggage onto their identity, that seems to me functional. If they present themselves as "feminine" or "masculine," more power to them, but that won't go away if one just treats them like a person and interacts with their self-presentation.

[Storm]

<snip>
It would be difficult to imagine femininity without thinking of the all encompassing nurturing spirit that flows so freely from the gender that gives life to us all. A gender that exceeds at things like self sacrifice, an incredible tolerance for pain, a consuming desire to see those that she cares about safe, nourished and self actualized. Now admittedly, not all women are mothers, but I do not think one can say that motherhood is not a core component in the definition of femininity.

There is a warrior spirit that burns brightly in the heart of man, no matter how much we bury it in television and beer. The desire to protect, to provide for, to carve out a space for ones family to live safely in; masculinity, at it’s core, is a place of power, of aggression, of honor, of duty, of many more things that simply won’t fit into the scope of this thread.
<snip>


The difference between masculine and feminine was very elequently phrased, but I'm having a hard time seeing the difference. Make no mistake, I think there are natural feminine and masculine behaviors, but I also think they are much, much more similar than traditional gender roles would have one believe.
For instance, you say women want to make sure their family is "safe and nourished" and men want to "to protect and provide" for their family. To me, this seems like coaching the same ideas in slightly different words so that one sounds masculine and one sounds feminine.

As for equality when taking biology into account, I think to be equal, sometimes the genders must be treated differently. To take a mudane example, if a high school gym class requires students be in good physical shape to pass, the specific requirments for boys and girls should reflect the difference of their bodies. Boys have to run a mile in 8 minutes, girls have to run the mile in 12 minutes, or what have you.
In most areas, however, there are little to no differences, so requirements should be the same (same math tests is given to both genders).

[alphawolf]

They can be as strong as ten Hulks on PCP, but how does that imply that they are justified?

(In any event, do differences in hormonal distribution imply that "women like strong men" and other such notions?)

Survival of the species, natural selection, und so weiter...

Men seek, women choose, the gene pool refines itself, evolution occurs.

[Shinqui]

"It is entirely seemly for a young man killed in battle to lie mangled by the bronze spear. In his death all things appear fair." - Homer (I bet at least half of you are thinking of Civ 4 now)

"Mother is the name for God in the lips and hearts of little children." - William Makepeace Thackeray

Protecting and providing are far different than creating an enviroment of safety and nurturing. While the aims of men and women are certainly similar when it comes to the family dynamic (which really, what other way is there to percieve ourselves and our place in this world), the ways in which they go about these things are very different. Life does not allow for a different set of survival rules for men and women, even if we do so in our gym classes.

[Autoptic]

Survival of the species, natural selection, und so weiter...

Men seek, women choose, the gene pool refines itself, evolution occurs.

How do you account for the fecundity of parasitic idiots? Social factors have jump the evolutionary shark.

[Prunesquallor]

Protecting and providing are far different than creating an enviroment of safety and nurturing. While the aims of men and women are certainly similar when it comes to the family dynamic (which really, what other way is there to percieve ourselves and our place in this world), the ways in which they go about these things are very different. Life does not allow for a different set of survival rules for men and women, even if we do so in our gym classes.

No. A traditional tendency for things to be different is not a marker of innate difference.
Nor, in many more modern society does any sort of hunter/gatherer dynamic hold up as anything but tradition and an accomodation to laws and allowances based on traditions. Traditions, not current needs or realities. In most professions, women have no genuine innate barriers to any sort of success; there is no need for different rules. But there is less balance than these simple facts call for, because people are stuck in their ways.

[krapyrubsnif]

Men seek, women choose, the gene pool refines itself, evolution occurs.

Like Richard Dawkins said: Biology is not prescriptive.