The End of Relationships? Where Does “Love” Fit In?

by Featured Guest on October 8, 2010

By Graeme of couplesoncouples.com

What Love is Not: Rationalized Attraction

I don’t have a background of social rejection or humiliation like many of the well known guys in the dating community. But I do have a quick story that I would like to share with you to bring this point to bear, that will give you a key insight into how relationships work for the average guy. The story comes from my high school years, and I will include some commentary to help with the illustration.

I had a crush on a girl. She had blonde hair, hips, and a feminine swagger that intimidated the best of men around her. She was Christian, polite and friendly — and a rich girl too. I got her number from her sister, and began running the old text game. We dated for a couple of months, and it was great; epic memories of ice skating, movies and hanging out. One vacation, however, I went on a sports tour, and I…I kind of cheated on her. But I didn’t actually do anything, I just took it to a level with a girl where anything could have happened. My guy friends ratted me out to her. She dumped me. I moved schools soon after, but for years I would still be attracted to this girl. I would think about her all the time, and we would still text each other regularly. A few guys and girls went in and out of our lives, on both sides, but I always thought of her as that perfect girl who I could live my life with. I invited her to an impressive dance that we held at my high school one night, and I took the “date” very seriously. I remember drinking a lot, and helping her drink a lot too – things looked like they were going well. I found out the next week that she had made out with two guys besides me that night, including my sports captain and my roommate.

I can’t blame her, it wasn’t a date. Just a guy with an infatuation asking a girl to a party full of high social value guys, and getting her pretty wasted to add. But I was distraught about it. How could this girl, who was so “perfect”, do something so wrong like this? I didn’t even believe it until she confirmed it to me later that day (“So what?” she said). I quit sports, I quit socializing, and I started to go to a low place. It’s not that it’s such a big deal, it was just such a shock to me that she would do something so “unexpected”. Looking back, it’s clear what had happened — it happens every day the world over, from college dorm rooms to nightclubs. It happens when we try to rationalize attraction. As a teenager, I knew very little about what it takes for someone to be attracted to another person. I was just a kid, and this was my first major crush. I thought it was something more than it was; I thought that it was love. The only reason I would feel such a powerful emotion for a girl, I thought, was that she was an amazing person. But it turns out that lame girls grow tits too, and soon after my fall, I realized that she was actually pretty stupid, had no real talents for anything, had huge insecurities that made her seek validation from guys all the time and led a rather sad existence. But “love” conquers all, and I sure didn’t see all that at the time.

Is There a Place for Love in Our Society? Trusting Women, Trusting Yourself

After a guy has been going out for a long time, and thinking about attraction between men and women, he discovers many interesting and startling (disturbing?) things. He may discover that women really want and enjoy sex, probably a lot more than men do (validation from sex aside). He learns that there is a difference between a man who is attractive to a woman because he can provide a lot of comfort for her (the provider), and a man who is sexy because he has strong masculine qualities (the lover). He knows that many women will settle for a provider, and be attracted to a lover, and this alone is one reason these guys will never venture into relationship land. But is there any merit in being in a monogamous relationship with a woman? Is there such a thing as “true love”?

In short, no, I don’t believe in the classic idea of love — not in the way it is portrayed in movies, and not in the classics either. That’s because the ordinary understanding of love is simply an effect born out of pair bonding, where if a suitable man and woman share enough experiences, sex being the most important, they bond together. The reason this is so strong in humans is because human infants are born almost two years prematurely (due to our brains growing so quickly). This means that the pregnant woman and baby need constant provision for at least 3 years until the baby is able to fend for itself to some extent. Thus we have love. Thus we have attachment, thus we have jealousy. Thus we have Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan. To idealize this process is to deny reality. To think within your first year of relationship that those feelings will continue forever, is to blind yourself from the stark truth that that which you call love, is simply a powerful feeling evolved to keep two people committed for a short number of years.

So what is there to look forward to, a good friendship? As long as you aren’t consistently demonstrating high sexual value to your partner, he or she is still going to be attracted to others around you. Generally, if you want to avoid being cheated on or dumped, you going to have to consistently work on keeping your partner attracted – this is the responsibility of both partners. Open relationships (polyamory) have become more popular lately due to the unravelling of this truth, but many people are afraid to opt for this because of the complications that arise. So where to for relationships? Is the institution of monogamous relationships dying?

How to Make Relationships Work

Rule one: relax. Once you know the basic truth, that the feelings of “love” are mostly superficial evolutionary processes designed to create ego attachment, that your partner will find others attractive, and that monogamous relationships are an insanity probably brought about by the Catholic Church, you’re free to make it really work. As funny as that sounds (and I hope that does sound funny to you), accepting these ideas is incredibly liberating. It means that you no longer need to effort to hold contradictory and illusory conceptions in your mind about what is really happening. You can stop lying to your partner that she in the only woman in the world that you would want to sleep with, and stop wondering if you’re the only one she’s thinking of. Because the whole thing is a farce, but a brilliantly entertaining play, where you have a certain character, and your partner has another, and together you make magic on stage. My partner has a feminine beauty. I am completely fulfilled in every way in my life, but when she dances, it adds more to my life. And maybe I could find that somewhere else, but after all this time together, the particular style and rhythm of her beauty has become my beauty of choice, and there is nowhere else to look. Hello Love.

If you were to switch from partner to partner whenever you felt more attracted to someone else, it may be fun for a while, but it would never fulfil you. You would be left with the same dissatisfaction of the typical man that can’t get a women to be attracted to him, or of the man stuck in a relationship that he doesn’t want. That is the bizarre nature of human life. So it’s not that relationships are impossible, or that there is some sort of ideal “true love”, but rather it is about understanding the absurdity of the situation, and running with it in any case. In such a way, you are completely open to the undiluted texture and flavor of your partner, which you can cherish and enjoy without attachment.

{ 71 comments… read them below or add one }

Herbal Essence October 8, 2010 at 06:05

Women can’t be trusted, ever. That’s the reality in a society that frees her from all consequences. Good men get screwed all the time because their feelings for the woman give her a halo effect in his eyes. Women aren’t necessarily more evil than men, but they have a feminist cheerleading squad and a brutal Big Daddy Government enabling their evil. They are also experts at rationalizing their sins.

But, I respect and agree with your concept of non-attachment. The light of love for women in my heart went out, but I can still dig the idea of “Mrs. Right Now.” And it’s not without it’s mutual pleasures. Just make sure to leave her at the first sign of trouble.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 70 Thumb down 5
Cloud October 8, 2010 at 06:35

Yesterday my male Professor made fun of men getting their penis chopped off for not keeping their wives happy. All the women in class found it hilarious.

This is all you need to know about the state of relationships in America.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 84 Thumb down 3
Philip October 8, 2010 at 06:41

Chant’e Moor said it well in a song ‘when it comes to me’.
Excerpt:-
You was a pimp, play-boy
You’re not a pimp, now im in your life
I’m exempt ’cause I’ve got your heart, now you belong to me’
When it comes to me I get what I want
‘Cause I made you fall in love’
When it comes to me you dont have a control
‘Cause I beat you at your own game’
‘Cause I beat you at your own game’

For a woman ‘love’ is all about getting control of men and children

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 1
Thag Jones October 8, 2010 at 07:03

Love is a choice and relationships are negotiation. This fairy tale of “love” is destructive – women and men to a lesser extent who have been brainwashed by the “romance” industry expect more than most of them will ever get. It’s a fantasy – and the relationship porn starts with little girls watching Disney movies.

It’s just some mutual comfort along the road really, and non-attachment doesn’t necessarily mean “ditch at first sign of trouble” but just don’t cling to another human being so hard, loosen your grip (which again might be more of a female thing to do anyway). Of course, that might depend on the nature of the trouble and how much you are prepared to put up with, which is up to each individual of course. Non-attachment to things is a healthier attitude all around though.

It all makes me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fs12_-ihPY

Rough translation:
Let’s talk of drinking, not of marriage
Today I regret the good old days
If you marry a pretty girl, you’ll have nothing but trouble
If you marry an ugly girl, you’ll have spend your life with her
If you marry a poor girl you’ll work all your life
If you marry a rich girl no one will respect you
And she’ll call you a scoundrel for spending all her money

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 2
Anonymous October 8, 2010 at 07:37

“monogamous relationships are an insanity probably brought about by the Catholic Church, you’re free to make it really work.”

I agree with your premise, but disagree with your Rx….

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3
Zammo October 8, 2010 at 08:10

Love is a choice and relationships are negotiation. This fairy tale of “love” is destructive – women and men to a lesser extent who have been brainwashed by the “romance” industry expect more than most of them will ever get. It’s a fantasy – and the relationship porn starts with little girls watching Disney movies.

The Thagster nailed it.

But I prefer the term “woman’s emotional pornography industrial complex”.

It is indeed an industrial complex that is so pervasive that it’s much like the Matrix. The vast majority of advertising is part of this industrial complex. Marketers prey upon a woman’s emotions in order to get her to buy something. Watch any TV ad aimed at women to see how it operates.

The establishment of false expectations in the context of romance and relationships is the most insidious and destructive element of the woman’s emotional pornography industrial complex. Young people – young women in particular – are completely ruined by those expectations.

Today’s expected life script is written by the woman’s emotional pornography industrial complex.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 1
Gaargon October 8, 2010 at 08:12

Cloud, that story of your misandrist prof joking about castration victims pisses me off. If he had instead joked about rape, those same solopsistic females in the audience would make a huge fuss of protest not only in the class, but to the administration. Yet when this sad man mocks castration victims, the male students in the class do nothing, and can do nothing, but put up with prof mangina’s sick sense of humor. It’s stories like this that make me proud I dropped out of my manhaters college and no longer support it financially with my student fees.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Trey October 8, 2010 at 08:15

Cloud, that story of your misandrist prof joking about castration victims pisses me off. If he had instead joked about rape, those same solopsistic females in the audience would make a huge fuss of protest not only in the class, but to the administration. Yet when this sad man mocks castration victims, the male students in the class do nothing, and can do nothing, but put up with prof mangina’s sick sense of humor. It’s stories like this that make me proud I dropped out of my manhaters college and no longer support it financially with my student fees.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 0
Charles Martel October 8, 2010 at 08:22

Once you know the basic truth, that the feelings of “love” are mostly superficial evolutionary processes designed to create ego attachment…………accepting these ideas is incredibly liberating.

I agree with your premise but not your conclusion. Ever since I figured this out – a long time ago – I have found this knowledge vaguely depressing.

For one thing, it means that the positive qualities I aspired to as a boy – chivalry, honesty, loyalty, courage – just made me a chump. To succeed in this amoral sexual environment, narcissism and selfishness work much better.

For another, a society where male-female relationships are played out in a behavioral framework that evolved on the African savannah will quickly find itself there again (in grass huts), as many have pointed out.

monogamous relationships are an insanity probably brought about by the Catholic Church

I’m not religious and so that’s not the reason for my objection to the word insanity. But – insanity? What’s insane about monogamous relationships? Difficult maybe, unnatural perhaps. But still the sine qua non, bedrock basis for civilization.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
Rebel October 8, 2010 at 08:44

We are still under some of the tenets of the age of romanticism.

First there was courteous love, then passionate love, eternal love and more of the same stupid ideas.

But in reality, there is no such thing as love, but a temporary glandular unbalance.

Love, in fact, is simply an urge to have sex, which is the most basic instinct in all animals.

Life doesn’t care about “love”: its only concern is its own continuation and that’s why sex was invented 300 million years ago.

The only purpose of life is its continued existence: this is not rocket science.

“Commercial” love dictates that a man must spend his money on a woman: it’s good for business, it keeps the economy going and it sort of makes people happy.

But it’s all an illusion. A nice one, but an illusion nevertheless.

And now, when you think that this entire society is built upon an illusion.. funny, isn’t it?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 6
misterb October 8, 2010 at 08:45

I thought the whole idea of marriage is a duty.

There’s no such thing marrying out of romance. Ah romance porn, whether it be soft core porn, cheesy material made on TV or written in a paperback format.

I sometimes can’t help chuckling at my keyboards. Of the stereotypical cheesy lines that come to mind.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
SingleDad October 8, 2010 at 09:06

Even knowing all this, and I did 30 years ago, I no longer could recommend to any male to have a long term relationship with a woman. The reason’s are as Herbal Essence and other posters say.

My desire to be a father was my undoing. Ironically, my desire probably came from all the anti-parent propaganda of the feminists of the 60′s and 70′s and knowing I could never find love from a woman in my generation. It was obvious that they only ever hung around me selfish reasons.

So, I have learned and am passing on that having a child with a woman is insane completly insane in the US today. And every woman thinks that as soon as you put it in, your agreeing to support her for life. Read what they write, they say it all the time, it’s certainly no secret.

You are doing a child a great disservice bringing it into the world western feminists have created.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 4
Meistergedanken October 8, 2010 at 09:08

@ Charles M.:
“For one thing, it means that the positive qualities I aspired to as a boy – chivalry, honesty, loyalty, courage – just made me a chump. ”

Being honorable and exhibiting virtue does not make you a chump, and I urge you to try and believe otherwise. To be a chump, you have to be taken advantage of, whereas simply honoring a [social] contract (like a marriage contract, for instance) only obligates you to hold up YOUR end of the bargain, and that the contract is altogether void if the other party (wife, for instance) violates it.

I am working on an article about Honor, and its great utility, that should be complete in the next couple days. I would like to have your take on it when it is posted here.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Anonymous October 8, 2010 at 09:11

Cloud: “Yesterday my male Professor made fun of men getting their penis chopped off for not keeping their wives happy. All the women in class found it hilarious.”

Any way you could get the contact info for your professor to us without compromising yourself or your grades? It would be a hell of a lot of fun, and maybe an eye opener for him, if he was bombarded with irate emails. I know one irate woman who would personally like to do the surgery on him for his assinine comment.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Keyster October 8, 2010 at 09:21

It’s why the wise old patriarchy invented chastity; because releasing sexual fire corrupts the initial bond between man and woman. The natural course the modern relationship takes is a few dates and then sex; hot, passionate, unbridled fornicating, that creates a natural high greater than any drug.

It’s the inevitible crash from this high that relationships don’t survive. If you can’t keep each other interested beyond the bedroom, the relationship is doomed. This is the great illusion that’s created in our minds. We’ve become pleasure victims, more so as women “liberated” themselves to have unfettered sex. Now more men are maturing and controlling sex as they’re realizing this and women are becoming frustrated with these chaste guys.

The best advice anyone could give a young man is to resist the urge and get to know her first, out of the sexual heat context. “What would we be like together if their wasn’t sex? Would we still “love” each other?” Sex clouds the mind, more so for men than women.

I speak as someone who’s physically burnt out several relationships that might have otherwise worked. Being a mature adult and learning to limit things a bit is important. Women hold the keys to the candy store, and they’re leaving the door wide open for us to sicken ourselves with the sweets inside.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 1
NMH October 8, 2010 at 09:27

There are a few women out there that are loyal without the need to employ too much game–I’m dating one.

I thinks its ironic that the author is somewhat rueful that his crush cheated on him when he cheated on her first. As men we need to set a higher standard–we need to control our sexual instincts and not create a population of wanton sluts. But I guess the zeigeist needed for that is next to impossible to obtain.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 26 Thumb down 28
Steve October 8, 2010 at 09:34

I so enjoy this site and I do not consider tolerance a virtue. If I spout crap, then I get called on it. The non-religious respect the views of the religious and often arrive at similar conclusions about the good of society. Yet men are men and can be men here.

I have more in common with my “heathen” intelligent brothers than I do with the so called enlightened religious people. No wonder Jesus chose his apostles from among common men! Sweet Jesus is a fabrication of feminsim.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Tim October 8, 2010 at 09:37

All in all a sound post. One problem however is children. I wonder if the author is aware that children do require two committed people, one man and one woman, the biological parents, to care for them for….life.

I’ve no problem with single people doing whatever they want. It’s a free country. But when children factor into the equation, monogamy is the only solution.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Cloud October 8, 2010 at 09:39

Anonymous,

Well I said: “And what happens to the women that don’t keep their husband’s happy?”

The class became very quiet and my Professor looked very, very uncomfortable. So if he gets any negative e-mails, Ill be suspect #1.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
SingleDad October 8, 2010 at 09:51

@ NHM do you honestly think men have any responsiblity for the behaviour of women? How 17th century.

@ Tim, I agree, my post just takes a look at from the other end years down the road, where I am now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5
Charles Martel October 8, 2010 at 09:53

honoring a [social] contract (like a marriage contract, for instance) only obligates you to hold up YOUR end of the bargain, and that the contract is altogether void if the other party (wife, for instance) violates it.

With Marriage 2.0, you get to honor the contract whatever your wife does. That contract is certainly NOT void if “the other party (wife, for instance) violates it.

As a lifelong straight arrow, the only benefit I have received from that behavior is the satisfaction of being true to my own values. It has certainly not helped me in relationships and in the workplace.

We’re in the last stage of John Glubb’s arc of empire, where the prevailing values are lust for money and moral decay.

Funny how I’ve come to sound like some Old Testament patriarch. Turns out there’s wisdom in The Bible. I now think of myself as a secular Christian. i.e. a Christian that doesn’t believe in God.

One more thought. My son was telling me the other day how, as a result of endless factional conflict among Roman Christians, the Emperor Constantine demanded they get their shit in one bucket. So, The Bible is a Fourth Century compromise of various early Christian fables, cobbled-together under threat of Imperial violence.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
Thag Jones October 8, 2010 at 10:09

Sex clouds the mind, more so for men than women.

I’m assuming you mean it impairs their judgement, but I’m curious as to whether you think men confuse sex with love the way women tend to do (or maybe I’m just talking about the less slutty ones). I can’t decide who gets more clouded by sex, men or women, or if it’s roughly equal but perhaps in different ways. Any comments on that?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
curiepoint October 8, 2010 at 10:18

Personally, I get tired of all this over-intellectualizing about the nature of humanity, and the concomitant notions of everything being the “natural” state of things. While we are a part of nature, we cannot excuse horrible behavior because it falls under the realm of being the natural thing to do.

There is a reason why we are considered human. We are supposed to rise above natural instincts, such as crapping on the floor, killing any and every rival, and claiming that our desires for one another are nothing more than neuro-chemical in nature.

There is a reason to believe in something larger than ourselves, such as God, love, and commitment, even if there is a scientific explanation. I believe in the human soul, and while I may be scoffed at for it, I believe that is what makes us enlightened.

I know that this is an unpopular and old-fashioned view. I know that it’s likely to tick off a lot of ‘dislike’ ratings. But then again, I would rather seek comfort in being human and opposed to being reduced to a bunch of synaptic firings and carnal instinct. These are the same arguements that excuse the behavior of that Duke Slut.

Carry on, citizens.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 41 Thumb down 12
Meistergedanken October 8, 2010 at 10:18

CM said:
“With Marriage 2.0, you get to honor the contract whatever your wife does. That contract is certainly NOT void if “the other party (wife, for instance) violates it.””

Now you are speaking legally, as opposed to before; when you said “chump”, I assumed you meant emotionally, ethically and/or socially. I am not disputing the validity of the whole “marriage 2.0″ meme, in fact, if it makes it more clear, let’s go back in time and assume I had used some other example than marriage in my comment, or no example at all.

And to paraphrase (and concur with) what you said, sometimes virtue is its own reward.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader October 8, 2010 at 10:23

Charles Martel
As a lifelong straight arrow, the only benefit I have received from that behavior is the satisfaction of being true to my own values. It has certainly not helped me in relationships and in the workplace.

Self respect is important to survival. From my readings of life under Communism, I have learned that men with no self respect, no sense of self worth, often were among the first to perish in the Gulag camps.

We’re in the last stage of John Glubb’s arc of empire, where the prevailing values are lust for money and moral decay.

Finding other men who subscribe to the same beliefs, and who are willing to fight, and to dominate others, could be a key to surviving the next phase. Charles Martel didn’t go out and recruit his lances, he relied on strong men who already had their own men ready to fight. Feudalism has a bad reputation due to what it degenerated into, but it was the only social system that kept any kind of civilization working in Europe after the demolition of the Roman system.

Interesting how we go from discussing a way to make monogamous marriage work, to feudalism…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel October 8, 2010 at 10:39

@Thag

I can’t decide who gets more clouded by sex, men or women, or if it’s roughly equal but perhaps in different ways. Any comments on that?

Yes. Men. No doubt about it.

Women will bond strongly to a man of higher social/sexual value. But some men can bond PERMANENTLY to a particular woman. As in lifelong physical brain (damage?) changes. Of course, not all men have this capacity – some men are completely free of this potential (where are you, AfOR?)

In lieu of peer-reviewed scientific proof, I’ll offer an evo psych argument for this. Male oneitis offers a reproductive advantage (in the hunter-gatherer world), as a man that sticks around increases the probability of survival of (what is probably) his offspring. In the same environment, female oneitis offers no reproductive advantage to the female.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Alte October 8, 2010 at 10:48

Romantic pedestalization came out of the Victorian novel industry, which wasn’t a very Catholic institution.

You can blame (or credit) the Church for Christian patriarchy and monogamous marriage, but not for all of that pedestalization and soulmate nonsense (which is a form of paganism). Women are very spiritual, so when organized religion begins to decline, as it did during the Victorian age, women find something else to worship. During that age, spiritualism, paganism, and humanism were rampant, women mooned over romantic heroes or séanced the dead, and personal independence reigned supreme. Romanticism is just women worshipping their inner Goddess, who speaks to them through their feelings. That is why romanticism and pedestalization are more pronounced in the English-speaking world; it is a Victorian hold-over.

I do not consider those to be the same issue, but different ones. Monogamous marriage (the cornerstone of patriarchy) was the model that won out because it is the best for children. It won through sheer evolutionary superiority. It is the only proven method for producing large numbers of healthy, well-raised, and productive children. Children need their fathers and mothers, and monogamous marriage accomplishes that. Romantic lovey-dovey bunk has to do with marketing to young girls and boys who confuse their infatuations and lust with a higher calling. Romance is about selling stuff to people too ignorant, inexperienced, or immature to know better.

In stark contrast, in Catholic teaching, love is usually used as a verb, not an adjective. You don’t “feel love”, you “act in a loving manner”. In other words, love is only proven if it is shown through one’s actions, otherwise it is just so much emoting and not of much use to anyone.

The Church doesn’t teach that you marry someone because they are The One. It teaches that you marry someone eligible and that the couple Becomes One after the marriage has taken place. The Church clearly describes marriage as an institution with responsibilities and duties, and that (to quote yourself):

love is simply an effect born out of pair bonding, where if a suitable man and woman share enough experiences, sex being the most important, they bond together.

That is the whole point behind what St. Paul said in Ephesians 5. He was saying that marriage created such a bond (because sex is unitive), that the bond was a great mystery, and that the grace to uphold the practical obligations of marriage spring from this mysterious bond.

There is nothing new under the sun, and the Church has been around long enough to have seen it all. It is not merely that the Church promoted monogamy to make itself more powerful, it became so powerful because it promoted monogamy.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 6
Alte October 8, 2010 at 10:52

Thag,

I had a man tell me once that women need to feel love to want sex, and men need to have sex to feel love. I think that’s an oversimplification, but it’s generally true. Men seem to get more out of it, emotionally.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 8
AlphaFoxTango October 8, 2010 at 11:07

You all should read about Jungian (Carl Jung) archetypes. These are social “personality templates,” if you will, which have existed, and still exist in human society. Two common examples would be: heroes and villains. Real heroes are rarely as heroic as we make them out to be, and real villains are usually not as villainous as we make them out to be, they’re just doing what is right according to a different perspective. What is the evolutionary advantage of these? It gives societies something to RALLY around in hard times. A way to band together and achieve a common goal. When someone criticizes a hero, people call that person a traitor, because once an archetype is assigned to someone, you’re not just attacking that person, your attacking everyone’s IDEA of what a hero is.

Two other archetypes, very relevant to this discussion:

Anima: The male version of the ideal woman. This is the source of your “oneitis.” What men the world over refer to as “the one,” “the girl of my dreams,” “my sweetheart,” etc. When you fall in love with a woman, your mind is assigning her to your anima archetype, your “perfect woman” and that’s why, to a man in love, his woman can do no wrong. Once men assign this archetype in their subconscious, it is very difficult for most men to break this, and some can’t handle it at all. This is why divorced men have such a high suicide rate.

Animus: The female version of the ideal man. This is her “man of her dreams,” “knight in shining armor,” “prince charming,” and other names for it. Women attach this notion subconsciously to each new man they fall in love with. This is why a woman “in love” will forgive cheating, abuse, and any number of other infractions, if her man remains strong and dominant in the process. However, women break this connection (and remake it) much more easily than men do. Once you act like a beta, give in to one of her tantrums, or cry in front of her, the spell is broken. She realizes you are NOT her ideal man (because her ideal man would never cry or act like a wuss), and she rationalizes that the only way she could have been fooled is that YOU TRICKED HER. This is why women are so ruthless in breakups, and place all of the blame on YOU.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Thag Jones October 8, 2010 at 11:32

Charles Martel,

I find this interesting because how often do you hear it repeated that women take sex more seriously – or are more affected by it – than men? It’s another one of those accepted “truisms” that doesn’t really jive with reality, it would seem.

lol @ “lifelong physical brain (damage?) changes”

Alte,

“[W]omen need to feel love to want sex, and men need to have sex to feel love” seems to get to the heart of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
alpha October 8, 2010 at 11:34

[Yesterday my male Professor made fun of men getting their penis chopped off for not keeping their wives happy. All the women in class found it hilarious.]

some time back my teacher mentioned a time in our(indian) history,(1970′s-80′s) when some men were forcibly vasectomised by the government.This actually happened. I remember the girls in my class giggling at the story.I knew it wasn’t funny, but their giggling was infectious, and I smiled.s***.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Alte October 8, 2010 at 11:45

Thag,

The dichotomy is because men can have sex while sort of “shutting off” their emotions. But if they don’t do that, they seem to bond even more than women. It’s a duality that my husband has tried to explain to me, with little avail. I sometimes think this is something that makes so many men feel such utter despair when they go through a divorce or the death of their wife.

Women seem to bond faster and easier, but not as strongly. Our loyalty is a bit weaker, I think, which is why I warn men away from women who have been in too many relationships. Their bonding abilities seem to weaken from man to man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 3
Charles Martel October 8, 2010 at 12:17

@Thag

lol @ “lifelong physical brain (damage?) changes”

Look, I’m going to go way out on a limb here. Connect some fairly tenuous dots.

The brain metabolic pathways that mediate social attraction are the same pathways that are involved in drug addiction. In other words, a man (maybe women too) can become as addicted to his partner as he can to cocaine or heroin.

The preferred research animal for research in this area is the prairie vole. The male prairie vole shows serious oneitis. OK, so it’s a long way from microtus orchrogaster to homo sapiens. What can I tell you? The prairie vole doesn’t object quite so much to having it’s brain dissected and it is, after all……a mammal.

There’s a ton of prairie vole research. It can be difficult to understand for the non-scientist. But, to summarize, genes for monogamy exist, these genes influence the number and location of receptors in the brain for various neurotransmitters, and dopamine and oxytocin in particular play a powerful role in social bonding (monogamy).

Larry Young at Emory University will be mapping the prairie vole’s genome.

I quote: “Research on the animal’s genetic makeup is uncovering more about human behavior than does the study of just about any other species……..The first time prairie voles mate, the chemistry of their brains is altered and they form a lasting bond with each other, even after they stop producing offspring………There’s this flip-flopping of the neurochemistry in the brain that prevents them from forming that kind of bond again………Although some prairie voles may later have sex with another partner to reproduce, the oxytocin-driven social bond won’t form again.”

So there you have it. Ride the cock-carousel and you won’t be able to form a lasting pair-bond – if you’re a prairie vole.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
NMH October 8, 2010 at 12:40

@Single Dad-when it comes to sex, it takes two to tango. If more men stopped f*cking outside of an LTR we would have a more chaste (and STD free) female population, and these women would be more likely to pair bond for a lifetime. Some women are sluts by nature ( a couple of doses of fetal testosterone) but most, I suspect, are created by conditioning in the hook up culture. If men stop hooking up, women would have fewer opportunities for pump and dump that conditions them to be sluts that are addicted to sexual thrills.

Men are supposed to better than women, right? We are supposed to lead by example, right? So I say lets do are part and stop this self-destructive promiscuity as much as we can from our end.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 19
Mr. N October 8, 2010 at 12:55

@Charles Martel

Your account of the formation of the bible is so course so as to be inaccurate.

Emperor Constantine died in 337 AD whereas the cannon of the bible wasn’t formally addressed until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 AD. Even that was only the old testament.

The new testament didn’t even have a question about which books should be included until the 1500s when some break away groups tried to drop books in the new testament that didn’t fit with their beliefs.

It is true that the roman emperors had significant influence in the church, especially in the East and the legalization of Christianity allowed the bishops to once again hold common synods. It is also true that the roman emperors played major roles in ancient controversies, notably the Arian heresy and the later the issue of Iconoclasts.

For an interesting account of how the Emperor Constantine did get involved with church affairs see the “History” section of this article.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

The issue of the cannon of the old testament wasn’t all that important to the emperors compared to some of the other larger issues affecting Christianity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Zammo October 8, 2010 at 13:02

Men are supposed to better than women, right? We are supposed to lead by example, right? So I say lets do are part and stop this self-destructive promiscuity as much as we can from our end.

The alpha guys who are likely doing most of the hook ups aren’t the type to bend to such pressure.

For those alphas, it’s a sexual buffet and raunch-feminism creates females quite happy to serve up themselves as sexual breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

As well, I am firmly sick and tired of having to sacrifice my desires for a gynocracy that is actively working to turn me into a beta slave or to have me removed from society completely (dead or imprisoned).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
NMH October 8, 2010 at 13:09

I would much prefer to jack it to porn then to be a contributing part of the decline of the west by pumping and dumping, and that is what I will do, if I’m not in an LTR. I’m not going to be a part of making a bad situation worse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
Charles Martel October 8, 2010 at 13:15

@Mr. N

Your account of the formation of the bible is so course so as to be inaccurate.

Sorry about that. I confess to rhetorical oversimplification.

Someone I know overheard a group of fundamentalist Christians discussing evolution. The following point was made: “How can anyone believe in evolution? Evolution is just a theory. The Bible is the WORD OF GOD.”

My point restated. The Bible is very much a human creation, full of inconsistencies and contradictions. I’m pretty sure that God did not write it. Or even dictate it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
Andrew S. October 8, 2010 at 13:31

Herbal wrote,

” Women aren’t necessarily more evil than men, but they have a feminist cheerleading squad and a brutal Big Daddy Government enabling their evil.”

“If it feels good, do it,” should have been the true mantra for second and third wave feminism. Even today when they are shrieking about unfair treatment, I don’t understand why they don’t just start shouting this over and over at their rallies. Would the media or anyone else give a shit? Except for a few sites like this, and handful of conservative commentators, no one would really care.

So given the choice between being a cad or a dad, with current state of our society being what it is, it’s an easy choice. Of course most dads can’t pull of being a cad, no matter what the pua’s and pickup artist’s will tell you. So the next choice for dads is to just not get involved with women. But this won’t happen, and these guys will continue to get cheated on, screwed over in divorce court, and made fools of in our u go gurrrrl culture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Avenger October 8, 2010 at 13:40
Alte October 8, 2010 at 13:56

Charles,

Catholics believe that the writers of the Bible were inspired by God (through the Holy Spirit), but that the Bible can only be considered inerrant if it is properly understood and interpreted. The Bible is the Book of Truth, but it isn’t meant to be used as a science or history text, nor is it meant to be read in isolation of other documents. It’s supposed to teach us Higher Truths about our relationships with each other and with God, not about carbon dating.

As far as I know, the Bible makes no claim on whether evolution is true or false, only that God created the Earth. How he exactly created it, and how it continues to change, is left up to our interpretation and the works of science. After all, we can use science to learn more about His Creation.

And perhaps your prairie voles can give us some insight into the St. Paul’s mystery.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
Avenger October 8, 2010 at 14:14

The brain metabolic pathways that mediate social attraction are

This is somewhat correct but I know of no drug that will mimic fully the feeling of falling in “love” but there are a lot o similarities which probably have to do with habituation (tolerance). Just as some opiate usesr from the very beginning build a tolerance very quickly while others remain on the same does for years, you’ll see people who are always “falling in love” who are comparable to the compulsive opiate users who need more and more drug vs. the ones who are monogamous (the ones who remain on the same dose). You’ll even see a difference in withdrawal symptoms where some have hardly any and other are very ill comparable to someone whose love interest has been taken away where one person is practically a vegetable while the other gets over it quickly.
I don’t think we can use any study on a field mouse to come to any conclusions about humans though because even though humans are a product of their programming there is a minute speck of what we call free will. Humans will do things nthat no animal would ever do, like going on hunger strikes and killing themselves, suicide or even working themselves to death and as far as I know animals don’t murder other animals.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
novaseeker October 8, 2010 at 14:23

Thag –

I actually think that women are more sexual than men, but men bond more strongly to women if, as Alte points out, men haven’t compartmentalized the sex.

That is, men can compartmentalize “sport sex” from “relationship sex” more easily, on average, than women can. However, once a man sexually bonds by treating it as relationship sex, his bond is stronger. He may even stray on his wife, but normally when he does he still feels a strong bond to his wife. Very few men are interested in leaving their wives for their mistresses, regardless of what the divorce law is.

Women, on the other hand, are more sexual than men are in the sense that they cannot compartmentalize sex the same way men can, generally. It’s said, for example, that men think about sex *itself* (the act) more than women do, and that’s true, but for women many other things are more sexual than they are for men, such as her appearance, flirting, the looks she gets from men during the day, the discussions with her girlfriends and so on — sex is a theme lurking behind many more aspects of the day-to-day life of many women than it is for men, really. At the same time, they appear to be wired to bond less strongly to any one man — for example, any relationship therapist will tell you that, hands down, on average women recover from relationships much faster and much better than men do. They don’t bond as deeply, and it appears they are wired to un-bond (or to be encouraged to un-bond) after a certain period of time to seek a new mate with different sperm, to avoid putting all of her eggs in one basket, so to speak.

Long-term monogamy is not *natural* in the sense that it is what people “default” to when given full freedom of action. Short-term, “serial monogamy” appears to be the default state. However, there isn’t any historical example of a successful society or civilization which was built on short-term serial monogamy. It appears that what happened was that the societies which chose enforced long-term monogamy out competed the ones that did not, probably because long-term monogamy tends to produce superior children and to direct the energies of men towards the benefit of the future for their kids and the society as well by extension. This isn’t so much biological evolution as social development, really, but nevertheless it is the course of history. What we have now is a grand experiment in trying to create a sustainable, dominant civilization that is not based on long-term monogamous marriage as the cornerstone, but which is instead based on personal self-actualizing fulfillment as the cornerstone. This has no historical precedent in terms of success. We shall see where we end up when this experiment has run its course.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2
Skadi October 8, 2010 at 14:43

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 30
Epoche* October 8, 2010 at 15:12

Skadi, what is the purpose of you posting here again? If you are going to remain in the west as a man, all bets are off. We are NOT going to the way things were.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Thag Jones October 8, 2010 at 15:22

Thanks, novaseeker, that makes a lot of sense. I’m going to save that!

He may even stray on his wife, but normally when he does he still feels a strong bond to his wife.

This is the problematic part for most women I think. On the one hand, we do want a man that other women find attractive, on the other, we want him all to ourselves. It’s a bit of a double bind, because if we perceive a man as not arousing sexual interest in other women, he stops arousing it in us, but when we see that he does arouse other women, we get insanely jealous. I guess that’s the “sexual value” part of how we work, and why women fight over a man with a higher perceived sexual value. Not to mention how PUAs work us.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 6
Traveller October 8, 2010 at 15:34

It was already said it is funny the autor of the article blames her for cheating when he was the first to do so.

But, this is not the most important thing, just the first thought.

I believe in love. I find a bit sad all those comments about the non existence of love.

I can understand when a man is betrayed, he can think he was fooled in falling in love. I can understand today the liberated woman is under very small self control and no control from the male partner (or husband), thus making the relations today much more superficial and fragile.

But this does not prevent the fundamental fact the attachment we can feel, once we feel it, is really deep and important for us. This is a thing very difficult ot describe, it must be felt in first person.

As some said, love is a chemical reaction in our bodies. But also it is thought, memory, any emotion or desire. This deterministic and mechanicistic vision of life collides with the very idea of free will, morality and soul. It is one of the most difficult problems we as humans ever encountered.

I am not saying I endorse this only-chemical view of life, nor I endorse the immaterial soul theory. I am not saying I am not religious or I am. As I said, this is a difficult topic and here it is not the main point.

The main point here: there is no sense in trying to disqualify love saying it is only chemical, as it is a contradiction. Because if love is only chemical, so are all other things in life; while if we have an eternal and divine soul, love comes from it.

Love, for being true, has not to be eternal. As a fire, it can last only if it is fueled.

There is nothing strange if love ends after some time of disrespect or boredom, those caused mainly by a distorted idea of relationships, given by the media, where daily problems does not exists and responsability is a laughable idea.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7
Anonymous October 8, 2010 at 15:38

Romantic pedestalization came out of the Victorian novel industry, which wasn’t a very Catholic institution.

It’s an interesting aside that Feminism itself grew in tandem with the growth of one-way media.

About the time of the birth of Feminism at the Seneca Falls Conference (1848?), the daily newspaper had established its influence. The surge in popularity of the popular novel also occurred about this time, no doubt accelerated by mention of authors and their works in the press and literary publications that modeled themselves on the success of the newspaper. And perhaps most significant of all, the invention of television and the birth of modern day extreme feminism coincided.

It has been said that the invention of the loud-hailer occasioned the rise of the dictatorship. While it’s easy to find fault with this statement, the core idea remains true – one-way communication imposed on others is how untruths flourish.

It’s also interesting to see how readily people gravitate toward other media as soon as they get the opportunity to respond. CB radio was enormously popular when it came out in the 70s. Talk-back radio was an immediate hit. Newspapers have gone online allowing commenting. We are doing it right now, here.

I suspect the biggest casualties when these information monopolies fall are the untruths the middlemen have a vested interest in maintaining.

May the traditional one-way media all die well-deserved deaths.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
Lord Viktor October 8, 2010 at 16:49

@Steve:

Sweet Jesus is a fabrication of feminsim.

Damn straight! Actually, Jesus was a total badass! People don’t even realize it, but if you were to judge by the standards of His day, he was even more shocking than Marilyn Manson ever was.

He totally turned the establishment on its ear with his teachings, why do you think the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin so desperately wanted him dead?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Skadi October 8, 2010 at 16:56

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 24
piercedhead October 8, 2010 at 17:57

But even just to love for a short while, four years or so, is still great.. especially the beginning phase and being with your lover at that time.. romantic love is the best thing in the world.

You could easily substitute morphine/alcohol/acid/gambling into this argument in favor of something that is essentially harming you. And that is what romantic love does, if it prevents you from seeing the world in ways that must be seen to assist your survival.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1
zel October 8, 2010 at 23:37

Men do love. Men are passionate in love and life. I can’t say the same for women. Women look within themselves. Men, within themselves and then upon the world… upon all things.

Men project onto women, their innermost needs… and desires. A woman can not truly fulfill a mans needs or desires, simply because she is not his equal.

Woman can be no more than a vessel, is no more than a chameleon… a shape shifter.

The Male driving force, his strength, passion and reason, is behind anything of true substance within humanity. Including love.

All, any love will cease, if/when Man is no more.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Asatru Hathen October 9, 2010 at 01:20

Wait, what?

You cheat on a girl and then when you try to patch things up with her and she decides to explore her options it’s because she’s lame and love doesn’t exist?

Wow.

And what’s up with Skadi? I get that people don’t like her, but there was nothing in her posts to merit such strong negative grading. That kind of reflexive censorship will turn this place into a men’s version of a feminist web ghetto.

Talk about defeatism. Of course real, lasting love exists. Many, many people have found it. Most of us have probably seen it at one point or another, although we may wish to deny it after the fact. Sure, its comparatively rare, and only a small percentage of the population will find it, but saying that it does not exist is just sour grapes.

And why did you retrospectively downgrade the love you felt to a “crush”? Love may not work out, but that does not mean it was not real love. See the above comment on sour grapes.

-Asatru Heathen

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 15
Gunslingergregi October 9, 2010 at 05:07

””””’as far as I know animals don’t murder other animals.””””

lol that is what we are told but animals like even horses commit murder.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Tony October 9, 2010 at 06:37

Fleshlight for the win. Seriously once you have a fleshlight you don’t need any girl, you just have to remind yourself of all the shit that comes with being with a girl when you get idealistic about love.

http://www.fleshlight.com

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6
I can has equality October 9, 2010 at 07:20

Thag Jones October 8, 2010 at 15:22
Thanks, novaseeker, that makes a lot of sense. I’m going to save that!

He may even stray on his wife, but normally when he does he still feels a strong bond to his wife.

This is the problematic part for most women I think. On the one hand, we do want a man that other women find attractive, on the other, we want him all to ourselves. It’s a bit of a double bind, because if we perceive a man as not arousing sexual interest in other women, he stops arousing it in us, but when we see that he does arouse other women, we get insanely jealous. I guess that’s the “sexual value” part of how we work, and why women fight over a man with a higher perceived sexual value. Not to mention how PUAs work us.

Wow, nice comment thag. I wish some of the women here would be more open and honest in how their minds work in these regards.

I think one of the worst things for men and boys especially is how women brainwash us to believe what they say, or as I call it female marketing for the benefit of the herd or group.

I have always thought it was strange how women lie about their sexual interests and mechanisms while men try to tell the truth and get shamed down and silenced by women.

I don’t think most men would have any problems with women flaunting their sexuality even more than they do if we simply were told the truth about how women function. So many guys are so fed up with dating simply because it seems like everytime you figure out what the rules of the game are, women turn around and change them.

Thag, could you write a article similiar to what you wrote above? It seems to make a difference hearing this stuff from women v. men. I would be more than happy to publish it on my new blog:
http://icanhasequality.blogspot.com

It will definately help alot of young men to have some articles written in a no bullshit kind of way about female sexuality and it’s dangers in the modern dating world. One thing about hearing it from guys is that you never know if he is telling you the truth. Because of male-male competition and how guys will compete over girls in bars, even among friends up to a point of dating(well, usually), and well simply the bullshit factor too. Im thinking of the movie American Pie, and the rule of three. Where if a woman gives you her sex number you multiply by three, where as with men you divide by three.

Anyways, it does seem like there is a big difference in how men percieve information about sex when it’s delivered from the same sex v. opposite sex. Although, lot’s of times I really question what I read about sex from women because they might have more of a reason to screw guys over…but either way you don’t give that vibe. So please write a article about it from a womans perspective in a no bs type of way that you seem to be good at.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
Troll King October 9, 2010 at 07:29

We dated for a couple of months, and it was great; epic memories of ice skating, movies and hanging out. One vacation, however, I went on a sports tour, and I…I kind of cheated on her. But I didn’t actually do anything, I just took it to a level with a girl where anything could have happened. My guy friends ratted me out to her. She dumped me. I

What does this mean and how is this cheating? It sounds like you just flirted with another woman and maybe, what? Took her to dinner or something? This is cheating now adays? It wasn’t that long ago since I was in HS and that didn’t count as cheating. Making out did, or giving a blowjob did. But then again we didn’t have texts in HS when I was there. Cellphones could get you expelled for a year under zero tolerance rules, because only drug dealers had those…before that it was beepers. But then a year after i left a girl got caught with one and her dad complained and they changed the rules because cell phones were becoming so popular.

anyways, how is this cheating? Infidelity or adultery is defined within the context of marriage…not girlFRIEND or boyfriend. It’s this constant redefining of relationships and what is or isn’t cheating that gives way to the feminist lie of marriage being a patriarchal oppression designed by men against women.

It’s female nature to dig their hooks into men for atleast about 7 years, hello 7 year itch, because that’s about the amount of time it took our prehistoric ancestors to copulate, get preggar, and then for the kid/s to grow large enough to largely fend for themselves.

Guys, I used to think the same way because I allowed the women around me to define the terms of the relationship. But let me tell you this:

YOU CAN’T CHEAT ON A GIRLFRIEND! Damn women seem to think that if they get poked by it they somehow own it. They really do see us as sex slaves of a sort. Just look at how they go crazy over men jerkin off..all of a sudden that is cheating. lulz.

Interesting article.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
rend October 9, 2010 at 09:26

There’s no such thing as love, and sure as hell not in the pissy kids’ games mentioned here. The only thing I might call love is what’s shared between a very old couple who still enjoy each other’s company. Show me that and you may have something.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Rakhem Seku October 9, 2010 at 11:18

That’s why in African (and other ancient) cultures you weren’t considered an adult until you were initiated out of childhood; else, you would have ‘grown’ people with childish emotions (i.e. love, jealousy) creating havoc in their families, communities, and the world.

In America and ‘modern’ western cultures there is no initiation into adulthood; thus, 66% admitted infidelity, 55% divorce, and a general lack of fulfillment with life as indicated by depression, disease, infertility, addiction to alcohol and drugs, personal indebtedness due to the over purchase of material goods as a substitute for happiness, etc. But at least Corporate American has figured out how to make zillions of dollars off of it. We’re both the richest and saddest country the planet has ever known.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Thag Jones October 9, 2010 at 11:32

Where if a woman gives you her sex number you multiply by three, where as with men you divide by three.

I’ve heard this before and it makes me wonder if I’m being a sucker for telling the truth, and if people are multiplying my number! I sure hope not! Your blog link didn’t work, btw.

YOU CAN’T CHEAT ON A GIRLFRIEND!

So does this mean you can’t cheat on a boyfriend? I think if you’ve both agreed to be exclusive, official contract or not, then there is the possibility of cheating. If you’ve been upfront about that from the beginning, that it’s not exclusive, no one has any wiggle room for complaining.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2
Herbal Essence October 9, 2010 at 13:21

“Where if a woman gives you her sex number you multiply by three, where as with men you divide by three.”

Yeah, I’m with thag on this one. I’ve never lied about my # even when it was in my pre-Game days and a grand total of two.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
zel October 9, 2010 at 15:22

St. John of the Cross
On a dark night (English Translation)

On a dark night,
Kindled in love with yearnings
–oh, happy chance!–
I went forth without being observed,
My house being now at rest.

In darkness and secure,
By the secret ladder, disguised
–oh, happy chance!–
In darkness and in concealment,
My house being now at rest.

In the happy night,
In secret, when none saw me,
Nor I beheld aught,
Without light or guide,
save that which burned in my heart.

This light guided me
More surely than the light of noonday
To the place where he
(well I knew who!) was awaiting me
– A place where none appeared.

Oh, night that guided me,
Oh, night more lovely than the dawn,
Oh, night that joined
Beloved with lover,
Lover transformed in the Beloved!

Upon my flowery breast,
Kept wholly for himself alone,
There he stayed sleeping,
and I caressed him,
And the fanning of the cedars made a breeze.

The breeze blew from the turret
As I parted his locks;
With his gentle hand
He wounded my neck
And caused all my senses to be suspended.

I remained, lost in oblivion;
My face I reclined on the Beloved.
All ceased and I abandoned myself,
Leaving my cares
forgotten among the lilies.

“May, 1993 – Stratford … have been reading through the poetry of 15th century Spain, and I find myself drawn to one by the mystic writer and visionary St. John of the Cross; the untitled work is an exquisite, richly metaphoric love poem between himself and his god. It could pass as a love poem between any two at any time … His approach seems more akin to early Islamic or Judaic works in its more direct route to communication to his god … I have gone over three different translations of the poem, and am struck by how much a translation can alter our interpretation. Am reminded that most holy scriptures come to us in translation, resulting in a diversity of views.”

http://www.xs4all.nl/~josvg/cits/lm/stjohn01.html

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Graeme October 9, 2010 at 16:14

@Asatru Hathen,

I am very in love right now, and I’m relishing the experience, relishing the experience of cherishing of somebody I care about. But that doesn’t mean that it’s not a fragile little ego-attachment defense mechanism born out of strange circumstances during our evolution, like most emotions are. To know this is to know love from both sides, the romantic and the ‘secular’. So, I’m quite happy with loving without too much delusional attachment, which is a desire to control and ultimately an attempt to escape loneliness, pain and death, and just run with it and have a laugh on the way.

Anyway, that was the message in the post, and if any of y’all didn’t pick it up, I am very optimistic about relationships in general – check out the relationship blog with the hot latina girlfriend yo.

Oh and yeah I had a fun experience with a girl while I was dating someone when I was like 13, that doesn’t mean that it’s justified that she turn out to be a slut. All the other girls her age in her social group (that one she’s been in her whole life) are exactly the same, get real. It had nothing to do with my teenage “emotional cheat”.

Thanks everyone for your comments, I would have replied to as many as possible, but I was away for the weekend and I didn’t know the article was getting posted. I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of the comments, this is a great group of people to be sharing these insights with.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
curiepoint October 9, 2010 at 18:22

Of course real, lasting love exists. Many, many people have found it. Most of us have probably seen it at one point or another

If it was ‘real’ or ‘lasting’ it would not have ended.

Love is an illusion; a mirage. When a woman says ‘I love you’ she really means ‘until somebody better comes along’.

Unless of course you mean to imply that ancient bullshit “better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all”

My guess is that the person who came up with it never tried it…

….or it was a woman.

And, you call it defeatism. How can something be a defeat if the end result is what is desired? That’s a victory.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3
Lavazza October 10, 2010 at 03:50

According to my Indian yoga teacher love is a (possible) by-product of non-violence. You cannot decide to love (because love is a feeling that is often influenced by other feelings), but you can decide to practice non-violence, which might lead to you feeling love and/or being met by love.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Jennifer October 10, 2010 at 11:34

In reference to her turning out to be a looser and looking for validation in men, how do you know that you, and your cheating on her, was not the catalyst for her later behavior? Did you discover this was her behavior all along before you dated? We develop behaviors based on good and bad experiences. How do you know that you were not the beginning of this behavior? And you cheated on her first but then you made her sound like she was so much worse. You passed a harsh judgment on her (as men do when they can’t handle the same medicine) for doing what she chose. You even down played your sexually engaging another person (sex is more than penetration).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12
Steve October 11, 2010 at 10:36

Jennifer,
That sounded a lot like projection and justification after the fact. When a woman starts to say “what if” and “how do you know”, I turn up the precision of my radar for other delusional thinking. You inflated his “confession” taking it to “a level with a girl where anything could have happened” (opportunity) into “sexually engaging another person.”

Jennifer, while we DO NOT know all the facts, you have engaged in MASSIVE reframing of what he wrote!

A guy that has self-control and doesn’t “do anything” is demonized and used as an excuse for a women to behave badly. He was honest, he knew he coulda with 1 girl, but didn’t for whatever reason. She on the other hand ACTED on her desires with 2 guys! Actions are what counts not opportunity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
trent13 October 11, 2010 at 19:27

This is the problematic part for most women I think. On the one hand, we do want a man that other women find attractive, on the other, we want him all to ourselves. It’s a bit of a double bind, because if we perceive a man as not arousing sexual interest in other women, he stops arousing it in us, but when we see that he does arouse other women, we get insanely jealous. I guess that’s the “sexual value” part of how we work, and why women fight over a man with a higher perceived sexual value.

Hm, I’m a woman, and I can’t relate to that (at all), but maybe that is just me and I should take your word for it as regards to other women.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Kathy October 11, 2010 at 20:57

“Hm, I’m a woman, and I can’t relate to that (at all), but maybe that is just me and I should take your word for it as regards to other women.”

I have to say that I feel the same way as you do, Trent 13.( I have never been interested in “bad boys” either.) I could not have cared less whether other women found my husband attractive or not.. That thought never even occured to me. That I found him to be attractive was all that mattered to me.

For myself, I think this stems from my firm Catholic upbringing, from loving, faithfull parents, who led by example.

Even my brother was a virgin when he married a 21 year old virgin at age 24 . They have two kids and have been happily married for 18 years now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anonymous October 22, 2010 at 18:06

Firstly, I like how this is all based on assumption. Second, I thought this article was leading up to something, but at the end was nothing but nonsense. It seemed as if the writer spent 20 mins a day for a couple weeks trying to piece together a story. But in the end it failed.

“Love” or relationships come natural for some, as they should be. It’s just something you take one day at a time. Maybe you are trying too hard or reading into things too much. Or maybe dating the wrong type of women. Analyze less and relax?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
22 October 22, 2010 at 18:08

Firstly, I like how this is all based on assumption. Second, I thought this article was leading up to something, but at the end was nothing but nonsense. It seemed as if the writer spent 20 mins a day for a couple weeks trying to piece together a story. But in the end it failed.

“Love” or relationships come natural for some, as they should be. It’s just something you take one day at a time. Maybe you are trying too hard or reading into things too much. Or maybe dating the wrong type of women. Analyze less and relax?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: