[yoginimama]

	Originally Posted by alphawolf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Come on, now. Had I lived back in the 1500s, I still would not have enjoyed getting my 69 on with an obese woman. I want to see a small diamond of air between her upper thighs when she's standing - that's one of my criteria, like it or not.

First of all, in Europe in the 1500s, it would have been rather hard to tell which women had a "diamond of air between her upper thighs when standing," due to the fact that women wore long skirts. You wouldn't be able to see who matched your criterion until it was too late, so to speak.

Which means that, if you lived in the 1500s, it is exceedingly unlikely you ever would have FORMED such a criterion, as you would not have grown up surrounded by women wearing jeans.

And even if you had...in the 1500s, a grown woman with thighs that thin would be ill and consumptive, not yogaerobilates-cized and hawt.

Google paintings from the 16th century. Everybody in them, by our standards, is fat. Rolls of soft flesh back then signaled health and vitality.

In other words: another check in the "it's all arbitrary and context-dependent" column.

[cp444]

When I was your age, I was concerned about my looks and how other people looked at me. I went on diets, exercised, wore clothes that fit well on me, etc. I think it's part of being a woman. I think the media exagerates on what men are looking for. When I watch "The Millionaire Matchmaker," it is all what the men are looking for: a combination of intellect, beauty and etc... But when I look at some real-life couples, I see that there are some ugly women who are married, and I tell myself, what the heck?

Honestly, I haven't gone out too much so I don't get a chance to meet men that often. But it appears to me that the first thing that men seem to focus at, is chemistry. Some call it physical (which I think is the case,) and others say it's a metaphysical type of thing... Which I cannot comprehend very well. I was told that warm, outgoing, beautiful and/or kind women have an edge over me, which pisses me off.

[alphawolf]

Originally Posted by cp444 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

When I was your age, I was concerned about my looks and how other people looked at me. I went on diets, exercised, wore clothes that fit well on me, etc. I think it's part of being a woman. I think the media exagerates on what men are looking for. When I watch "The Millionaire Matchmaker," it is all what the men are looking for: a combination of intellect, beauty and etc... But when I look at some real-life couples, I see that there are some ugly women who are married, and I tell myself, what the heck? Honestly, I haven't gone out too much so I don't get a chance to meet men that often. But it appears to me that the first thing that men seem to focus at, is chemistry. Some call it physical (which I think is the case,) and others say it's a metaphysical type of thing... Which I cannot comprehend very well. I was told that warm, outgoing, beautiful and/or kind women have an edge over me, which pisses me off.

Secure men really do like to be with smart women, but we live in such a competitive world all day long that when we come home at night we don't want a woman who feels a need to consistently engage us in an intellectual pissing contest during the time we would rather be spending making love with her. Being smart gains our respect; stressing us out during our free time kills it. We want to come home and relax together with our smart, warm, kind women. Make love, not war.

[gestalt]

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

As much as I love my mother, I finally realized that the majority of my emotional problems were a direct result of her emotional incest and emotional unavailability toward me. As a result of that upbringing, I suffered from two long-term codependent relationships and I'll be damned if I'll enter that hell again. ... What I have witnessed, however, is that the large majority of women near my age are also divorced, and are codependent (pretty natural, when you consider that the major cause of divorce *is* codependency), having suffered either emotional or physical abuse, sometimes both. Many of them need sex just as much as I do, but until they are willing to do the work to become emotionally available then they are simply unlovable. And I don't want to get into the mode of being a "therapist" or "counselor" to my romantic interests, because that would make them love me for the wrong reason. Why is it so hard? (pun intended)

Surprised at the use of the phrase 'emotional incest' - What does that mean to you? For me it is an exaggeration, and in my experience exaggeration indicates confusion or 'still getting over' a personal problem through rationalization.

[alphawolf]

	Originally Posted by gestalt To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Surprised at the use of the phrase 'emotional incest' - What does that mean to you?

Honestly, you don't understand it?

To me, it means, when considered in a heterosexual context, that an opposite sex parent says things to the child that attempt to make the child feel responsible for parents happiness and safety (emotional and/or physical safety). It is damaging to a child's psychosexual development in that the children aren't able to be sexually attracted to people they actually like, because this feels like betrayal to the parent. This is the entire basis for "friendzoning" that I rant on and on about. Those girls/women have been victims of this treatment from their abusive parents.

I really don't know how this would play out if there was same-sex emotional incest, but I think that it might even result in homosexuality - if you consider that there are perhaps several different reasons why one is homosexual (hormonally, as a product of this above, as a form of rebellion, etc). I know that homosexuality is a sensitive subject, and I'm looking at this objectively, so do try to keep that in mind.

In any event, emotional incest is damaging to a child's psychosexual development. Daddy's princesses hook up with very abusive men, and Momma's boys hook up with SL*TS. Emotional incest is child abuse, regardless of how caring and kind the parent may act.

[catzmeow]

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

Honestly, you don't understand it? To me, it means, when considered in a heterosexual context, that an opposite sex parent says things to the child that attempt to make the child feel responsible for parents happiness and safety (emotional and/or physical safety). It is damaging to a child's psychosexual development in that the children aren't able to be sexually attracted to people they actually like, because this feels like betrayal to the parent. This is the entire basis for "friendzoning" that I rant on and on about. Those girls/women have been victims of this treatment from their abusive parents.

I think it would suffice to say that your mom is narcissistic without using the term incest.


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

[cp444]

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

Secure men really do like to be with smart women, but we live in such a competitive world all day long that when we come home at night we don't want a woman who feels a need to consistently engage us in an intellectual pissing contest during the time we would rather be spending making love with her. Being smart gains our respect; stressing us out during our free time kills it. We want to come home and relax together with our smart, warm, kind women. Make love, not war.

I wonder if the INTJ/ENTJ males would agree with you on that.

[Thinktress]

My sisters, who were both graced anatomically by God in the err... upper chest area. Both of them also developed quite quickly, as (I think?) you describe happening in your case. They both had what I would consider to be rather vivid stretch marks. They got them not just in the chest but also in the abdominal/hip area. I got the bottom half of the hourglass but no stretch marks (had the top half added later).

Since that time, both of my sister's stretch marks have really faded. They were most vivid in their late teens to early 20's. I have one sister who is in her early 30's and one who is 26. They are both very pretty girls and neither have wanted for romantic attention. The 26 year old has now had three children. The sister in her 30's hasn't had any. I never saw any indication that stretch marks caused them any trouble in obtaining or retaining relationships. In fact, my own lack of social skills was a much greater handicap to me than that issue was to them.

I have had my own issues with aging, fear of looking old, etc. I'll be 43 at the end of the month. I have been fortunate, I think - probably because I'm so rarely out in the sun, who knows. But still, there are things that change about your face as you get older that you mourn. Other things though, I feel are actually better now. I don't worry about the aging process as much as I thought I would. I had a serious illness about two years ago and it helped me to let go of a lot of things that I didn't want to spend time worrying about, and it helped me to appreciate more the really important parts of my life (for me, that's my family. My son in particular).

I think a large part of attraction is confidence and accepting yourself. That's a draw to other people. I have seen both women and men who did not seem physically very attractive at first glance but who were absolutely mesmerizing and sexy. Just because of their confidence and personality. I would come to see things about them that were physically beautiful just because of that. Conversely, I have seen people who seemed very physically attractive at first blush become unattractive in light of their personality.

I'm not sure how much sense this made, or if its very helpful to the OP's question, but anyway. That's what I've got.

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 02:40 PM ----------

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

Honestly, you don't understand it? To me, it means, when considered in a heterosexual context, that an opposite sex parent says things to the child that attempt to make the child feel responsible for parents happiness and safety (emotional and/or physical safety). It is damaging to a child's psychosexual development in that the children aren't able to be sexually attracted to people they actually like, because this feels like betrayal to the parent. This is the entire basis for "friendzoning" that I rant on and on about. Those girls/women have been victims of this treatment from their abusive parents. I really don't know how this would play out if there was same-sex emotional incest, but I think that it might even result in homosexuality - if you consider that there are perhaps several different reasons why one is homosexual (hormonally, as a product of this above, as a form of rebellion, etc). I know that homosexuality is a sensitive subject, and I'm looking at this objectively, so do try to keep that in mind. In any event, emotional incest is damaging to a child's psychosexual development. Daddy's princesses hook up with very abusive men, and Momma's boys hook up with SL*TS. Emotional incest is child abuse, regardless of how caring and kind the parent may act.

Actually, having read both of your posts, this sounds a good deal like borderline personality disorder, as you describe the parent(s) using the child(ren) to fulfill their own needs - basically, objectifying them or being unable to see the individuality of the child - unable to view and respond to the child's ego as separate from the parents, and to the child as a separate and individual person. I suppose that you could call it emotional incest, but that's not a clinical term, and its bound to be a bit polarizing.

A lot of the issues transmitted in these types of relationships have to do with attachment, individuation, and separation. Of course, these types of issues are going to affect future relationships. They are going to affect future relationships REGARDLESS of the gender of the parent and any children involved. Some of the issues may be different due to different gender configurations. In fact, the different gender configurations can make things really messy and confusing. For every participant who was abusive/negligent in this way, there is frequently another parent who allowed the behavior to continue. That causes further relationship issues for the child as well. Basically, these are families in which nobody takes responsibility for their own feelings and behaviors. It fosters codenpendence. There are gross violations of boundaries between family members, and children are frequently told how they are supposed to behave and feel in order to keep the parent in question happy.

I don't know that I agree with your premise that this is the entire basis of "friendzoning," as most people will friend zone some people but not others. I do think this is a serious problem in families and it does a lot of damage to kids.


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



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



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