Hmmm…time for me to put something in here before it gets too long to respond to properly. I’ll try to get in a detailed response to everyone that has put up a debatable point. Here we go.
My first responses will be dedicated to Crankin'stein:
You have said nothing extraordinary....
This one had me stumped for a little while Crank. At which point exactly did I give you any indication that I was making an extraordinary statement? I have reviewed all of my posts and I cannot see how you inferred that particular notion. Indeed – and I do agree with you – I have said nothing extraordinary…and it was
never my intention to give earth-shattering announcements. My post was simply one designed to cause introspection – which it certainly has – but not one intended to cause awe. Why did you see it that way? Not sure yet – but I do have a few ideas.
all you have done is told everyone something that they should all know.
Ah my friend, you just pointed out the root of the true original sin. I have told everyone something they should all know, but the chasm between what we
should know and we actually end up
doing is slightly larger than the width of the Grand Canyon is it not? More often than not, when people err, it’s not because they didn’t know about it, it’s just that, as the drunk told the magistrate, it seemed a good idea at the time. Let me see if I can illustrate this with an example that is closer to home in your case, so you will see the complete futility of your first statement.
For example Crank, I think that just about everyone who isn’t inherently evil knows that one should not trick friends, or deceive someone who has placed their trust in us. It’s hardly a profound revelation; indeed, it’s the basis of anyone who has any depth of character. Friends trust us, someone close to us trusts us more profoundly, and they are thus in a vulnerable position. And yet, and yet Crankster, we
do trick our friends don’t we? We lie sometimes, we are dishonest, we hurt them. Even though we
know we shouldn’t. Why do we do that? My answer to that would be because some people lack depth of character (to a lesser or greater degree) and they need (for whatever dark reason) to obtain what
they want at the expense of someone else’s feelings. That is my take on the subject. I do think, however, that
you, on the other hand, might be able to give me a more precise explanation of why such a thing happens
despite definite prior knowledge that it is the wrong thing…what do you think? Why do people lie to and trick people who trust them, despite knowing beyond any reasonable doubt that it is the wrong thing to do? Sorry to be so direct and perhaps slightly abrasive with my statement but I just wanted to show you how (a) your opening statement was pretty hollow on close inspection, and, (b) people who live in glasshouses should not throw stones under any guise of righteousness. We all commit mistakes don’t we; let’s just not point fingers. My only excuse for dismantling your statement in such a fashion is that, with a post that starts off with “You have said nothing extraordinary” when that was never even anywhere close to my original intention, I tend to think that it reeks slightly of resentment for some obscure reason. So this would be gentle reprimand on my part, a verbal slap on the wrist of sorts if you will. Quid pro quo.
That the looks of their partner and great sex can only hold together a relationship for so long. Anyone who has been in a real relationship knows this already
I consider this a perilous contradiction that hints strongly at a seriously flawed concept of relationships on your part. By definition, a “real relationship” is one where sex takes second place (or even further down the scale in some situations) to sentiments of deeper emotional substance. Thereby, by the same definition, a real relationship would never have been bound together or cemented in any way by sex, because any relationship that starts off by placing an undue amount of stress on the physical part of things is almost always doomed to failure (check the recently released statistics on the primary causes for relationship failures in adolescents and young adults by the U.S. Bureau of the Census as well as the report "Cohabitation, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage in the United States" released by The National Survey of Family Growth) and will thereby never be a real relationship. So…the jackpot question that your statement begs is: how can people in a “real relationship” know that physical attraction and sex don’t hold a couple together if those have never been primary motivating factors in their relationship? Unless it is, of course, a conclusion reached solely by projection? It is a proven fact that it is (almost) impossible for a relationship to progress from “great sex” to all-encompassing love and passion that last a lifetime (refer again to said statistical studies and to “After The Breakup: Adult Perceptions And Expectations Of Post-Divorce Intimate Relationships” by Debora P. Schneller, Joyce Arditti, Committee Chair Department of Human Development Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University) which gives you the inevitable conclusion that these situations cannot co-exist or even derive from each other (at least, certainly not in the direction that you are alluding by your assertions that they should).
Thus, at this point, I think we can safely conclude that your statement is seriously flawed and has not been derived from any knowledge, or, lacking that, even remotely serious research into the actual circumstances at all. Rather, instead of this being something that “Anyone who has been in a real relationship knows”, it would be far more plausible (I was going to use the term “correct”) to assume that it is something that
you, together with your current (and flawed) perception of a “real relationship”
think. Which, inevitably, makes all the difference in the world because it transforms your assertion from a fact (an assertion which I have no doubt you truly believe in as you probably never had the cause – or maybe insight – to question) into a mere misguided opinion. And, as injudicious opinions go, this makes it a dangerous thing to bandy around because you not only deepen your conviction in your own mistake but you also run the risk of seriously misguiding other people, with possible dire results.
So, with that explained, what does your statement
really tell me about you? It’s quite simple really. In a classical and tragically comic manner, you have managed to concisely corroborate my initial assertions that are the basis for this whole thread: that you, in reflection of the general attitude of today’s Westernized society, obsessed with instant gratification, physicality, glorified role models and sex, take a relationship ass-end first and start off by placing undue, unwarranted and useless (except for your own gratification of course) emphasis on “the looks of their partner and great sex” – with easily predictable results. At this point, you now know why physicality “can only hold together a relationship for so long” (because physicality is very volatile by nature, period, no room for argument there). And no, I’m sorry; it’s not that “Anyone who has been in a real relationship knows this already”, it’s that
you believe in this fallacy, because you are basing it on your own experiences. The major problem here is that you have reached your conclusion by starting things off on a faulty premise of how relationships work, thereby progressing to an equally faulty analysis of how and why relationships work the way you think they do. In other words, you are coming to the wrong conclusion because (a) you have started off with damaged foundations, (b) you have never noticed them to be such and (c) you are unable to alter your point of view because that is your
only perception of how the world is supposed to work, this conviction being bolstered in a number of ways by the world around you that you are evidently very malleable to.
You have said nothing extraordinary.... all you have done is told everyone something that they should all know. That the looks of their partner and great sex can only hold together a relationship for so long.
Oh by the way, you need to re-read what I actually said. You have evaluated my statement wrongly and badly misconstrued my meaning. I never said that at all… That is only what you think I said.
The first couple months looks matter, it is one of the only legs that the relationship has to stand on, until the two people can get to know each other, and have other bonds, and reasons to be with the other person.
This is a further statement that continues to bolster my assertion above that your idea of relationships is seriously flawed and incorrect. I will, however, admit that I will not give you the total blame for this; it is probably what you believe to be correct - whether that is due to upbringing, environment or peer pressure in your case. You continue to insist here that physical attraction is the basis to start off a relationship. As pipe_girl here so succinctly pointed out to you, that is indeed an “ass backwards” way to start a relationship off. Do tell me: when you start going out with someone, what are your ulterior intentions? To get to know her properly or to “bonk her brains out” with as minimal a delay and as maximum a frequency as possible? From what you have said here, the way you think is pretty clear to me, but I will spare you from my elaborating any further – for now, at least. Isn’t such an approach indicative of a rather shallow character? Oh, and I absolutely couldn’t care less how many people around you use the same approach too, if that was the first thing that came to your mind as some sort of knock-kneed justification. Being a sheep and following the rest of the flock blindly is not my idea of intelligent rationale and it is not an activity I engage in. Sic faciunt omnes is something reserved for the lesser introspective individual. It will probably come as a revelation to you, but, as Pipe-girl did point out to you gently, you actually
should be spending time getting to know a person
BEFORE engaging in a relationship of
any depth with them. Furthermore, contrary to what you think, sex is not something you do for fun with whomever you happen to be with at the time my friend. Sex is actually a pretty serious affair and it should be undertaken with some gravity, and not at the mobile whims of your testicles and penis. And again, this goes absolutely regardless of what is the accepted current norm in the society you live in man, sorry. I am not impressed with social norms, and I am even less impressed with people who go with the flow of certain things with sickening ease. (Have you ever studied the collective psychology of human gatherings in large masses, such as concerts? You should, you might be appalled at what you learn.) Easy sex will, in almost every case, lower your appreciation of the person you are with, as well as their value in your eyes. (Hope you still have those studies I pointed out before handily placed near you so you can give them another look before you say anything else at this point.) So again, your assertion that engaging in a relationship from a physical starting point, in the forlorn hope that you can keep that up “until the two people can get to know each other, and have other bonds, and reasons to be with the other person” is patently wrong. I would suggest you re-evaluate your approach to this facet of your life – you will probably end up being a happier man. Well, obviously only if you have any ambitions to enrich your personality and deepen your character that is. If you couldn’t care less, that is an entirely different tale, in which case, feel free to bonk away until the sun goes down and the stars twinkle in the black skies yonder.
Incidentally, Pipe-girl said exactly the same thing as I just did, but I will admit that I lack her delicacy and diplomacy in addressing what is turning out to be a sensitively sore issue on your part. Do pardon me.
And, try as I might, I can’t resist pointing out to your other phrase “The first couple months looks matter”. Is that an arbitrary time? What changes the emphasis from looks to something more meaningful? Does it happen gradually or is it a sudden, cataclysmic event, which makes you go from “damn, I got a bitch with one hot ass” to “my girl has a heart of gold and I love her so” in one fell swoop?
it is one of the only legs
This one mystified me. One of the only legs? Is that correct? I can’t make any sense out of that. Should that read “the only one leg” or “one of the few legs”? “One of the only legs” is a rather cryptic statement.
Then with love comes less concern of looks (tho attraction is a must for the sexual part of the relationship). Love will hold the two people through almost anything should they choose to let it.
On reading that, I could almost believe that love is something tangible, something you can buy at Macy’s as some sort of pulsating relationship aid. Love trots into your life, and Love solves all your problems (should you "choose to let it", important point that; I assume that if you don’t “let it” you can always take it back to Macy’s for a refund). Say man, who told you these fairy tales? These people need to be removed instantly from general public circulation on the basis of being a true danger to society. Love isn’t something that just happens to you like a Chinese food induced gastric reflux. Love is going to be the hardest thing you do in your life, it’s going to take work, lots of work and then some. Love is patience and sacrifice; and it will always be more about giving rather than receiving. Love wouldn’t hold your buttcheeks together if it worked in a colonic lavage clinic; much less “hold the two people through almost anything”. If you want a relationship to get through something adverse, you better be ready to sweat it out and work like a dog to make things right. Because love isn’t a magic wand you wave about like an insane orchestra conductor; rather, love is the magic
inside the wand. Love is what you do and what you work for not what happens to you. It’s pretty unhealthy to go around with such a notion inside your head – you are going to spend the rest of your life looking for something as fabled as the Fountain of Youth and you are going to be severely disappointed. And, before you twist things around your neck again, allow me to clarify for your benefit that what I mean here is that yes, Love exists, and I do believe in true love, but you better be ready to work for it because that is the
only way you are going get it. It’s not going to just happen and it won’t be the magic catalyst that makes your relationship work like Swiss clockwork. And it sure as hell won’t reduce any of your primary concern with looks, simply because if you are concerned with looks to start off with, I gravely doubt you are ever going to get to the point of true love. And that goes whatever you see and believe in the movies.
Which neatly brings me around to another assertion that derives from my very first post in this thread, namely: why do so many relationships end in failure? Easy. Because it is
always (always, always) easier to give up and run away than to stay and patch things up. I repeat: a relationship is the toughest thing you’ll ever do. It’s a beautiful thing yes, but it takes a corresponding amount of work. And many people are not ready to make that difficult commitment; probably because they are waiting for Love to come and save the day in the magical way that you allude to. It takes a real man to stay and do what a man has to do despite all adversity. And, I notice your current signature line says “Sometimes we have to make tough decisions”. Yes, sometimes we do – and the toughest decision of them all will be to constantly put your partner before you in every decision that you make. I wonder if that ever crossed your mind when you wrote that line.
Does society place a large emphasis on looks?? Sure it does. Through the media they can male you feel that you must look better. and they do. Is this a crime?? Well no, but it does cause some people to have problems such as anorexia, etc.
We have already established what society does to our perceptions and expectations, so I will agree with you on that. What I find imprudent is the lackadaisical way you have glossed over what society really does to certain people. Tell me, have you ever actually known someone with anorexia? And have you ever taken time out to get to know them better? And have you ever spent days, weeks, months, even years with them to see exactly how society pulverizes the individuals that are unfortunately not as emotionally strong as some of us? I would bet anything you like that you are going to answer no to that – not only because at this point I am pretty much convinced that certain things have not ever been part of your formation or education, but also because if you had, you would never have glossed over such a thing in a similar insensitive and unconcerned manner. Had you even spent some time at all sharing these people’s pains, I have no doubts that you would find no problem in labeling society’s impossible ideals and unrealistic goals a true crime towards the minorities. I like the way in which you label anorexia a problem and make it sound like the mosquito that bit your ass last night. I strongly suggest that you do not use examples about which you have obviously no experience. Not only does it sound foolish, it also makes you look pretty insensitive. It is perhaps an obvious – but definitely undesirable – combo when coupled with your approach to relationships as outlined above.
But who is to say that these people wouldn't have these problems without socirty stressing looks?? These people even without the magazines and television will figure out that looks do matter.
Could you be so kind as to tell me exactly where you read that? Do quote me a study or a text please because I do want to look it up. I mean this is a completely radical point of view, something that I know nothing about and have never heard of. You really mean that people without access to media, peer pressure or social stereotypes will eventually figure out that looks are important? That’s truly incredible. Let me picture this scenario. Let’s go back about 100,000 years ago, where the grass was greener and the air was cleaner. There, sitting on a boulder, side by side are two fine examples of Homo sapiens neanderthalus. They are staring intently at a group of female Neanderthals who are frolicking happily down by the side of a clear, bubbling stream. The sun is bright, the birds are singing in the trees. The male Neanderthals are scrutinizing the females with studied concentration. One of them leans sideways towards his hairy buddy and says “Hey Clubhead, see that one over there? No not that one, the other one standing up by the tree. Yeah that one! Isn’t she something? Look at the arms on her! So brawny. And that thick pelt…mmm. And see the way in which she can pick up rocks with her feet? I am going to go and ask her for a date caveman.”
Upon which Clubhead turns around and says “Lunk, you stupid Neanderthal, you have absolutely no idea of how to go choosing a cavewoman, you ignorant, old fashioned, prehistoric dope. Look at her man. I mean, just look at her. Her ass is too big. Her tits are too small. Her legs are too chubby and she is as hairy as your grandmother. Plus, she looks like the hind end of that brontosaurus which almost stepped on us yesterday. No man, no, no and no! If you want to choose a cavewoman to have some fun with, you need to choose one with class. Choose one with less hair. And she needs to have bigger tits man, bigger tits rule! And don’t choose one with an ass like your mother’s. It’s gotta be small and tight cause that will give you just the right amount of cushion for the pushin caveman. Don’t look at me like that, hairy dude, I just thought of all that and it sounds just fine to me.”
Hmm…
Because it is a fact of life that without looks, it is almost impossible to take interest in a person long enough to want to get to know them better.
No man, not again. This is my desperation. No, it’s
NOT a fact of life; you are never going to find that statement in any self respecting study about relationships anywhere you care to look. Whoever told you that particular fiction has a character as hollow as the skull of an Inca sacrificial victim. And, with this statement, you have again shown your erroneous attitude towards relationships. You tend to approach women on looks alone, and then come what may. This approach is
never going to get you anywhere and it makes you look pretty bad in the eyes of a prospective partner (always hoping that they don’t share the same one-dimensional view as you do, in which case, they wouldn’t be any kind of partner I’d want to spend time with). I suggest you revise your beliefs without further ado and stop thinking this way. Your assertion that you deem this to be a “fact of life” is frightening to a degree. Looks are never what should attract you to a person in the first place. Spending time with people as friends and getting to know them better before deepening the friendship into a relationship is the way it should work. Liking the tits and ass on some girl, getting her into bed, then trying to get to know her in between copulatory sessions is not going to work very well for you in your quest for a partner.
You can't look over at a girl in the mall and say "Hey I wonder what her personality is like?"
Again…yes, the correct approach (or rather the successful approach) upon seeing that very attractive girl in the mall would be “Hey, I wonder if she is as nice as she looks”. Then, yes, by all means, go up and introduce yourself (avoiding corny opening lines if possible) and yes, take her out on a date if you want to, but damn, spend time getting to know her
before taking it anywhere else physically. OK, she may be pretty and she may have a set of breasts that you could sleep comfortably between but do think with your heart instead of your dingle. Being pretty is only going to be the icing on the cake later on, and not an excuse to listen, and give in to, your raging hormones.
Because nature and instincts that we are born with won't allow it......
You are going to make me scream man, you are making these incredible statements directly off the top of your head that have absolutely no foundation whatsoever. Even, if for a mere second I agreed with your theory and hypothesized (and I stress the term hypothesized) that our instincts as males are to screw everything with two breasts that moves, shouldn’t our nature, as human beings, be to try and temper our baser instincts with a little more…well, humanity? And, apart from that, try as I might, I cannot get my head around your idea that our
instincts are such as not to allow us to take enough interest in that proverbial girl at the mall to get to know her better unless she is attractive. How on earth can I swallow a statement like that? You’ve got me bug-eyed at this point man, I’m not even sure if you are serious or if you are joking…but if you are as serious as you sound…
I may think a girl is attractive and my friend may think I am crazy..... because he doesn't see her the same way. I think this is a small way of balancing out attraction, so thatmost people (who take care of themselves half decent) will be able to find someone who finds them attractive
No, you are mixing things up here (again???). Here you are talking about what we deem attractive about someone’s
features, the perception of which will be individual specific (which is why you could think someone has a pretty face while your friend thinks you are crazy), while what we have been talking about so far is the generally accepted, socially-propelled view of what
traits are deemed attractive in a woman. What you are talking about now is something that has nothing to do with our topic of discussion. However, I would suggest that your read “Impression Formation: Do Facial Features or Body Types have a Greater Influence on First Impressions?” by Laura A. Mast; it contains an excellent study about how what we look like and how we compare to social ideals affects everything that we do in life, an issue I mentioned earlier in one of my posts above.
A short note to Pipe_Girl
I see you have the correct idea of what constitutes a good approach to finding your (quasi) ideal partner in a manner that is not based on looks alone. That’s a great start. I also admire the delicacy and conciseness of your response. Wish I could do that.
A note to BiggerStronger
I’m sorry that you don’t like this thread man, but I’d rather you didn’t like it than it didn’t affect you at all. If the concept is putting down everyone then (a) it must be true (in fact it is) and (b) it’s easily remedied – tell everyone to change their outlook. And no, it’s not really true that it is putting everyone down is it? You for starters seem to know enough to place at least just as much emphasis on personality as on looks, by your own statements. Oh, and if, being a social oddity is, by definition, going against the commonly accepted grain, then hell yeah, I’m a patently conspicuous social oddity. I like to question things before I commit to them. Plus, I have seen too many people suffer at the hands of others at the behest of social whims and ideals to just sit quietly and go with the flow.
And, I think that rounds it up for the time being. Anyone else wanting to contribute to this thread, feel welcome.
Incidentally BiggerStronger, may I invite you over for some tea and biscuits? Only if you are pretty, mind you. And if you are pretty, I am going to toss you on the bed and bonk your brains out and then dump you for someone prettier and newer in a couple of months. Quod erat demonstrandum.
