# Why are men still expected to ask a girl out?



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

theshowgoeson said:


> Mmm ok.. great skill set to have. yeah i hear you.. old way not OP way haha. when i talk to women in real life, it's always subconsciously seductive. very crazy when i observe it happening. i dont remember if i read it was an isfp thing or if im dreaming it.. im very come hither


I don't know if it's a type thing. I've been told the same. Which is funny, because people tend to think I'm more innocent than I am at first too. Possession has been an issue like I said. I provoke some weird protective instinct in a lot of dudes. Which, that, that can be hot imo. When it's more so that and less controlling possession. I was watching a Marilyn Monroe movie earlier tonight though, and she was obviously considered seductive despite seeming more innocent, so. I'm not saying I'm by any means a Marilyn, lol... just that the energy can manifest in different ways.



theshowgoeson said:


> no, i meant with the condom i will pump until kingdom cum so there will be plenty of time to hit the right spots. without one, it might be a short ride. so im very insistent on finishing the job for HER one way or another lol. i care / correlate that with my manhood i think


Ah, well that's what you want. I'm not a huge fan of condom sex either though. Doesn't feel as good and makes it harder to move around and do things organically.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

You post reveals quite a bit about you, more than you realize, and your take on roles for men and women.



jetser said:


> I can see why this was once a tradition but nowadays it seems like a cliché.


Now is NO DIFFERENT than traditional times in the sense of biology, a KEY ingredient in all this. Human social and cultural norms may change at a breakneck pace, but the human animal, the male animal, the female animal change very very very very slowly. So, pointing out that you cannot understand why some humans are not 'catching on' to (foolish) changes societal and cultural norms just means you do not have a firm grasp on the factual status of reality, what biology and other fairly unchanging truths do to limit what people can adjust to and how fast. That means you are likely a desire based person, a wishful thinker. You (and those like you) WISH reality was as you want it to be right now. That has close to (but not entirely) ZERO effect on 'how things really are'. Yes, desire is the emotion that leads us into the future, BUT, it take many hundreds of generations before social changes result in back stream physical and thus biological changes.

Remember as well that if you buck the system, which is solidly and per force based in that underpinning reality, you are intentionally putting yourself at a disadvantage. Rest assured it is a choice, how you express yourself. I can say this for sure as I am 8-4-7 tritype, Enneagram, a triple outsider to the mainstream. Mainstream is any ordering of 3-6-9. The more outsider you are, the more wishful thinking or dedicated 'road less traveled' taking is your direction in life.

---

So how does that relate to your questions?

Let's go further ...



jetser said:


> First of all: Women know what they want.


This is an insanely incorrect contention. No one knows what they want. In fact, if you knew ANYTHING about desire, you would realize that the ENTIRE POINT of desire is that change keeps happening. That means that not only does a person not know what they want, but that what they want right now, will yield in short order to what they want the next day. That is the nature of chaos and desire. And biologically WOMEN are prone to chaos. Men are prone to order. That is cooked into their genes and societal norms, both. 

As the possessor of the womb, females have the most valued resource to order (the pattern continuing incubator). Therefore that order is balanced with the chaos of them naturally having more freedom in desire. This is liberating for them in mate selection, a thing evolution had to be sure of for the health of the species. Also, females reject order because to prevent inbreeding they have to find mates outside their family and clan. So this chaos, this desire for OTHER, is part of being a biological female. It is almost unavoidable.

Desire wants to be admired because desire means you are not worthy, hence you desire that which will seem to make you worthy. So women are afflicted usually with worthlessness wallowing. They need the 'approach of worthiness' from outside to balance that. Keep in mind all these needs are a form of weakness, men's and women's. Maturity and wisdom allocates to everyone an ability to resist these needs and wants and live wisely, morally. But back to the point men are then SUPPOSED to bring that which is worthy to the worthiness seeking female, in exchange for her valuable resource, the womb. That means men must be more orderly and build things, establish worth. They must present a worthy setup for a woman to get the pattern matching womb. As such, this orderly need from men, allows men a more chaotic external front. They then are the ones that WANT IT BADLY. Now I see a lot of flack on these statements, but after hundreds of relationships and of course my entire life of anecdotal observations, the modern theory that women are as libidinous as men is just nonsense. LIKE ALL DESIRE, they can want it, but wants change. Do you get that now? You get the 'paint my house' want from them want more than an honest 'let's fuck' point of view. Men do not really even have the up front desire to fuck in many cases. But their bodies make wanting to fuck a CONSTANT BURDEN OF OVERWHELMING TRUTH throughout their lives (or at least into the late 40s before that slows down to just like an annoying sidekick mode). 

The reason some of this may seem flipped to you is that you are a male who is desire based, like a typical female. I am close to that. I am slightly more desire based than orderly. So again, like the mainstream issue, it does not matter how reality trends in your lifetime. Cultural norms be damned. Biology cant change that fast. So you personally have an order dedicated male body and a more chaos oriented personality. I the world of 'ringing the extreme bell' your more balanced position will seem wishy washy and undynamic to many women. Chaos and desire are high energy focused. They want it all the way they can get it, with little in the way of orderly fear or caution. The all out male, thug cock walking, even with extreme facial features and rude social disposition, is their balancing want. In traditional society, the patriarchy, society supported men in denying this sort of thug as much access to women as much as society could. Of course animal biology still ruled. But at least society restrained it. These days with desire running the show, and thus women running the show, chaos rules. The thug is in more than ever. Keep in mind that biology dictates that is what a woman wants, even if her actual mind doesn't want it. That is the female burden to deal with. Sexual marketplace value is a thing. And hopeful beta males everywhere still have a hat to hang on the resources issue. But their #1 problem is getting cucked by the thug male, and in this permissive environment of female empowerment, that is extremely likely. 



jetser said:


> There's only trouble with males who _think _they know what the woman - they choose - want. So why not switch the roles?


You have an either or way of thinking. It is always BOTH. And men like you refer to are not thinking they know what women want so much as pursuing what that want in spite of women. 

You ask why not switch the roles? Why not deny all roles but still respect the truths, like the truth of biology and its limits, its demands? In other words, why not make sense? The answer is because immoral (unrestrained) chaos wants what it wants, and damned be the consequences. Immoral (unrestrained) order fears chaos and tries to tie down and limit the high energy of chaos. Partners tend to be one of each. But our biology tells us both these things:

1) Be attracted to high energy (chaos) - passion
2) Be attracted to high resources (order) - like - friends

So, it's no surprise that the resources person (male or female) gets the LIKE form of love, the dreaded friend zone. The high energy target gets the fiery passion. Unless very wise and very fluid in personality and expression, people rarely provide both well. This causes a lot of cheating by both sexes. And chaos is either the one doing the cheating or the one with such radiant energy that the orderly type loses their perspective and cheats.



jetser said:


> Women have better social and communication skills in general.


This is a hilarious longstanding lie. Men are more orderly and get along in general considering their biological predisposition to kill each other to get all the women. Women thus, less restrained, have to work out the passion side of communication, which is what you are referring to. It has always been a lie that they are better at that. Women have smaller bodies and face danger from biology and men in general that men do not. As such they have to learn to restrain their individualism more than men do. Extremity thy name is man. Men stay isolated and extreme to stand out and show that amazing individuality that the more group centered female can be attracted to in the balance. Again, this is mere biology. It IS NOT easily refuted. Wishful thinking tried to refute it all the time and fails far more often than it even makes a staggering stand.



jetser said:


> Men usually don't have very good communication skills: men even speak fewer words than women on average.


I seriously doubt this, and then you must add in, serious engagement vs chatter. Chatter is an orderly balance to the chaos of women. It keeps the peace more moment to moment, a barometer on chaotic feelings. Men do not need that, mostly. Their order and thus calm is higher. They build and craft their world to reduce fear and chaos. When they speak they mean it. Of course there are serious women and chaotic men, but these are BIOLOGICALLY and sociologically the exceptions. And yes, in today's world we are bombarded by expressives, desire types, whining and whinging on and on about what they want. That is because we have conquered a lot of what made us afraid as a species. Now we are moving into a realm of desire. It is very dangerous. Desire is chaos and chaos will addict and then rot you, from within. All feminine societies historically have failed in short order. The first world feminine societies of today show clear signs of failing from within right now. They are being systematically taken over by thuggish male societies as my theory model, and biology itself, would naturally predict.



jetser said:


> And then we get to the really meaty stuff.


Nope, you were already there.



jetser said:


> Because men - on average - don't feel superior to any women in general anymore, so asking a girl out feels like approaching your favourite movie star and asking him to have dinner with you all while trying to seem so casual and free.
> You can try but it'll still be lame.


Speak for yourself. There is only one really critical trait to have and that is wisdom. It transcends everything. Feeling superior is not wise. It is immoral. Being a coward and not being able to stand up and ask for what you want in any case is not a moral path. Realizing that you are worthy via anger, pushing back both paralyzing fear and rotting self indulgence and worthlessness wallowing, is a wise and moral aim.



jetser said:


> I mean I get it why it was once a tradition.
> But times were different then. Men were men and women acted like they were Disney princesses.


Your versions of all aspects of reality, the past, the present, and the future, are not very aware. They are all desire based wishful thinking. You are not yet choosing to be responsible in an orderly fashion, for your own thoughts and aims. You are letting the whims of society rule and direct you. That is not wise.



jetser said:


> Aren't we past that point to stick with traditions, and with all the added info we know about women and sexuality in the past few decades, move on to a different strategy altogether?


Tradition is an anchor to the past and all knowledge. It must be KEPT in balance with desire and whims. Letting desire run rampant will utterly destroy society. Boats all go to sea with an anchor. Order and what was learned MUST be kept in wisdom. Deny and discard them at your peril.


----------



## theshowgoeson (Jul 15, 2011)

Veggie said:


> I don't know if it's a type thing. I've been told the same. Which is funny, because people tend to think I'm more innocent than I am at first too. Possession has been an issue like I said. I provoke some weird protective instinct in a lot of dudes. Which, that, that can be hot imo. When it's more so that and less controlling possession. I was watching a Marilyn Monroe movie earlier tonight though, and she was obviously considered seductive despite seeming more innocent, so. I'm not saying I'm by any means a Marilyn, lol... just that the energy can manifest in different ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, well that's what you want. I'm not a huge fan of condom sex either though. Doesn't feel as good and makes it harder to move around and do things organically.


Yeah i could see you being misread for innocent (yu really>👿)lol. Typical, of course protection possession is hot to you. For me, if your not innocent, but I love you-protected; not innocent, don’t love you - you’re on your own lmao. And Yeah you can definitely blend the innocence with deviance like Marilyn. I had a really nice iPhone case of her. The Weeknd also looks naturally very innocent. Big time hedonist like myself. 

Yeah 🙂 pleasure for two. Uh huh for sure.. wish I could end condoms. Raw is max pleasure


----------



## WintersFlame (Nov 18, 2016)

Lol i dont expect it with the way I look. I ask myself out. You'd be amazed at how great food can taste when it doesn't have to be shared.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

series0 said:


> So this chaos, this desire for OTHER, is part of being a biological female. It is almost unavoidable.
> 
> Desire wants to be admired because desire means you are not worthy, hence you desire that which will seem to make you worthy. So women are afflicted usually with worthlessness wallowing. They need the 'approach of worthiness' from outside to balance that. Keep in mind all these needs are a form of weakness, men's and women's.


Focuses on worthiness and weakness are tied in closely with type 8's. Other types wouldn't necessarily be driven by this.

And coming at this from a place of dualism, if order didn't have chaos to order it would have nothing to do. 

It's a symbiotic relationship. Which granted you do seem to be basically saying, though given this fact I don't know why you'd demonize chaos over order given that they thrive together. 



series0 said:


> Desire is chaos and chaos will addict and then rot you, from within.


Creating order can be addictive as well. Some men will go to great lengths to destroy (chaos) for the sake of fulfilling their... desire, to create order again. You could demonize order given your argument as well.



series0 said:


> And chaos is either the one doing the cheating or the one with such radiant energy that the orderly type loses their perspective and cheats.


Or perhaps the orderly partner effectively reigns in their partner's nature, gets bored with nothing more to order, and cheats due to it's need to find chaos to order again.

Given your premise, not everything is the fault of chaos (and therefore women).


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

series0 said:


> No one knows what they want.


I know what I want.
There's no reason to think that other people don't know what they want - including women.



> In fact, if you knew ANYTHING about desire, you would realize that the ENTIRE POINT of desire is that change keeps happening. That means that not only does a person not know what they want, but that what they want right now, will yield in short order to what they want the next day.


Yadda yadda.
In other words, you force yourself on girls and you call that desire.

Talk about wishful thinking.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Ignoring the puddles of gender war fuel which this bonfire isn't going to be lacking in...


Llyralen said:


> I'd rather you men go back to 1700's leggings when we knew what you were thinking


Men leggings, they exist.



















(I'm sure there's skin colored ones, but I am predicting that some store will run out of one tone or another and it will be twitter-rac4st soon after).


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Veggie said:


> Focuses on worthiness and weakness are tied in closely with type 8's. Other types wouldn't necessarily be driven by this.


And yet the truth of each type is viable to whole truth, meaning, the challenge to weakness is a virtue, if not entirely overexpressed. But no, although weakness is an 8 focus, worthiness is not. Worthiness is the general malaise of desire types, as in NOT their virtue, but their lack. Each desire type processes this essential immorality in its own way. That means differing coping mechanisms. 

I want to be clear to you here, I DO NOT denigrate any type specifically. I denigrate or challenge ALL types specifically, which is integrated challenge. Or, to be really fair in disclosure, I TRY (really hard) to keep equal on it.



Veggie said:


> And coming at this from a place of dualism, if order didn't have chaos to order it would have nothing to do.


Agreed the flux of living is where its at, it being love and progress and eventual death, all of it.



Veggie said:


> It's a symbiotic relationship. Which granted you do seem to be basically saying, though given this fact I don't know why you'd demonize chaos over order given that they thrive together.


I do not demonize one over the other. If you doubt this truth, then ask @Theories or some other order apologists on this site how they feel I treat order. My challenges are universal, but specific in awareness. In fact I read this post from you expected glaring chaos apology and I must say you surprised me with a level headed fair critique. Will wonders never cease. Don't hate me for partially agreeing with you. 



Veggie said:


> Creating order can be addictive as well. Some men will go to great lengths to destroy (chaos) for the sake of fulfilling their... desire, to create order again. You could demonize order given your argument as well.


That is not desire. That is fear, attempting to restrain desire in orderly fashion. It is MISTAKEN for desire often enough, as in you can express any motivation as a want or desire, a need. But they are not. If we understand the core motivations, they are all from 1 of the 3 primal emotions, fear, anger, and desire. Fear is the source of order (or vice versa)(doesn't matter) and fearful types want to restrict or restrain to prevent wild energy (chaos) from becoming too destructive. That is ... wise ... like all motivations, until it is over-expressed. Fear seems weak in presence because it makes of us cowards. That is why often women are attracted to the high chaos, the high presence, of thuggish men. And MORE importantly, they are repelled, put off and self sequestered, from the typical male, the fear type, whose lack of presence (anger), lack of confidence (anger), and over abundant self-restraint (fear), ruins their charisma.



Veggie said:


> Or perhaps the orderly partner effectively reigns in their partner's nature, gets bored with nothing more to order, and cheats due to it's need to find chaos to order again.


Agreed, that this is one path. 'Be careful what you wish for ...' 

All of us must morally seek balance. But my theory adds a rung or meta understanding to that platitude. That is this - HIGHER emotions, more and more of each, is ... LIFE and moral progress. That is to say more anger, more fear, and more desire. You MUST press each one in order to grow. Granted we all get old and start to die and that is order demanding death. When we are young chaos is compelling and we can recover from its fires. That is the way it is. 



Veggie said:


> Given your premise, not everything is the fault of chaos (and therefore women).


Agreed entirely and never did I say otherwise. Again, ask posters like @Denature, an order apologist (my opinion) about how I relate order's failures. It's the same in reverse. 

In fact, to be most fair, I have recently started being even more balanced and adding in the term (im)balance apologist. These are the anger types, the middle third (roughly). They are the ones running back and forth on the seesaw deciding things. Unlike order types they are not bound too tightly to tradition and they like action and chaos and they sense the balance. So they careen from side to side and cause the trends. I am one such (anger any way). But just like order and chaos types they can overexpress and amid the need for balance get too angry and try too hard and break others or overwhelm. The type 9 then shows us the other extreme, the underwhelm (lazy action). SO I do not JUST challenge desire types or women. 'We are all in this together' - Archibald Tuttle, renegade air conditioning engineer.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

jetser said:


> I know what I want.


Your self delusion continues apace then. You DO NOT know what you want. 'Doubt may be an unpleasant condition, but, certainty is absurd.' - Voltaire 

It is at the very core of desire to be flippant and unknowing. Sorry, you are not the universe's only exception. Learn to absorb and utilize wisdom when you hear it. It is an impressive life skill.



jetser said:


> There's no reason to think that other people don't know what they want - including women.


Yes, there is. None of us are perfect and none of us ever will be. That, as they say, is that. In each and every decision we make, in each and every action we take, we are wrong and immoral to some degree. That is a tautology. 

The correct statement is: No one knows what they want, especially desire types, which means most women. 

But we are only talking matter of degree here. NO ONE is no one. Men are included in that superlative.



jetser said:


> Yadda yadda.
> In other words, you force yourself on girls and you call that desire.
> 
> Talk about wishful thinking.


There is no act in life that is not 'forcing yourself on others'. Merely standing there is 'forcing yourself on others'. You do not realize this and therefore you make some distinctions that do not really apply. A beautiful woman standing there is 'forcing herself on others'. A huge person taking up too much space is 'forcing themself on others.' Where is your goofy and arbitrary line drawn?

The moral aim is to reduce unnecessary suffering. The moral aim oddly includes INCREASING necessary suffering, because by definition it is necessary. But necessary for what? For earning wisdom. For learning HOW TO BE. That is to say, WHY one MUST 'force oneself on others', in other words endure the burden of living and being, AND YET, do so by adding in the least amount of unnecessary suffering. That is moral duty for everyone.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

I thought I was the over-analytical one lol.

"Oh no, I better not compliment him or else he might turn arrogant."
"Oh, he's looking at me! I hope he comes over and says hi. Oh, there he goes. He's gone."
"Why isn't he doing XYZ? I'm supposed to be the object of complete desire! I guess I have to tempt him more."

If we're just accepting traditional roles then thank god I'm a man because although one could argue that women are on average more desirable than men with lower expectations, at least I get to pick and choose which women get approached by me in the first place. Plus, I get to move the interaction.

I find the idea that women are in control interesting considering those women that sit back and wait are in a more submissive position. Plus, if a man is so easily moved and manipulated by cheap tricks such as physical appearance and other typical female seduction techniques, then is he really a worthy man in the first place? Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.

Don't play games period.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Denature said:


> Plus, if a man is so easily moved and manipulated by cheap tricks such as physical appearance and other typical female seduction techniques, then is he really a worthy man in the first place?


But being seduced is fun.

And really the game was never that of "women not making a move", it was more "women not making a blunt move". It's kind of like... Here, actually, or the rules of online communities in general, where really anyone can express anything to anyone, but have to tiptoe around saying it directly... Anyone who has spent enough time on the internet to the point of being in this thread reading this post, knows how it's done, we're all well trained in expressing things without actually saying them when we need too. It's like that, but with schtuping.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Tropes said:


> But being seduced is fun.
> 
> And really the game was never that of "women not making a move", it was more "women not making a blunt move". It's kind of like... Here, actually, or the rules of online communities in general, where really anyone can express anything to anyone, but have to tiptoe around saying it directly... Anyone who has spent enough time on the internet to the point of being in this thread reading this post, knows how it's done, we're all well trained in expressing things without actually saying them when we need too. It's like that, but with schtuping.


No it is not. Outside the bedroom, being "seduced" is just a happy feel-good word for being manipulated.

Yeah, they had to tiptoe. It was out of necessity. Have you been around this forum? Because I see plenty of women posting all about their sexual experiences quite bluntly.


----------



## Marvin the Dendroid (Sep 10, 2015)

Denature said:


> Because I see plenty of women posting all about their sexual experiences quite bluntly.


That's them Se damsels post distress.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

series0 said:


> I do not demonize one over the other. If you doubt this truth, then ask @Theories or some other order apologists on this site how they feel I treat order.


I can read your post for myself. The wording indicates bias. And the examples hone in on chaos as an unbalancing force without representation of it's opposite, which is what I provided.



series0 said:


> In fact I read this post from you expected glaring chaos apology and I must say you surprised me with a level headed fair critique. Will wonders never cease. Don't hate me for partially agreeing with you.


Many of my initial responses to posters are level headed and impersonal and always have been. You're the one making this personal first now with that comment. 



series0 said:


> That is not desire. That is fear, attempting to restrain desire in orderly fashion. It is MISTAKEN for desire often enough, as in you can express any motivation as a want or desire, a need. But they are not. If we understand the core motivations, they are all from 1 of the 3 primal emotions, fear, anger, and desire. Fear is the source of order (or vice versa)(doesn't matter) and fearful types want to restrict or restrain to prevent wild energy (chaos) from becoming too destructive. That is ... wise ... like all motivations, until it is over-expressed. Fear seems weak in presence because it makes of us cowards. That is why often women are attracted to the high chaos, the high presence, of thuggish men. And MORE importantly, they are repelled, put off and self sequestered, from the typical male, the fear type, whose lack of presence (anger), lack of confidence (anger), and over abundant self-restraint (fear), ruins their charisma.


Jung would call this enantiodromia - orderly types prompting destruction themselves when there's little left to prevent or restrain, and the compulsion to continue doing so arises. Maybe a motivation is fear though, sure... though thinking about it, the suppression may be caused by fear, but the drive for what's unconscious making it's way to the surface - desire may still fit here, in that the shadow wants to make itself known.



series0 said:


> You MUST press each one in order to grow. Granted we all get old and start to die and that is order demanding death. When we are young chaos is compelling and we can recover from its fires. That is the way it is.


I agree to an extent, but that in it's also a balance. I don't think there's any one formula to this either, but rather that it will be specific to the individual - which direction they take that balance, and with how much force... which I realize you're also basically stating below. 



series0 said:


> In fact, to be most fair, I have recently started being even more balanced and adding in the term (im)balance apologist. These are the anger types, the middle third (roughly). They are the ones running back and forth on the seesaw deciding things. Unlike order types they are not bound too tightly to tradition and they like action and chaos and they sense the balance. So they careen from side to side and cause the trends. I am one such (anger any way). But just like order and chaos types they can overexpress and amid the need for balance get too angry and try too hard and break others or overwhelm. The type 9 then shows us the other extreme, the underwhelm (lazy action). SO I do not JUST challenge desire types or women. 'We are all in this together' - Archibald Tuttle, renegade air conditioning engineer.


Interesting.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Denature said:


> Plus, if a man is so easily moved and manipulated by cheap tricks such as physical appearance and other typical female seduction techniques, then is he really a worthy man in the first place?


So what do you think a woman is supposed to be motivated by then exactly? And what does motivate you?

And does any woman sit back and wait for one guy anymore? Like for an extended period of time? Even if they were, do you think they're doing so without any other action coming their way?


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Denature said:


> I thought I was the over-analytical one lol.
> 
> "Oh no, I better not compliment him or else he might turn arrogant."
> "Oh, he's looking at me! I hope he comes over and says hi. Oh, there he goes. He's gone."
> ...


Who are you talking about? Lul, why not just quote me directly? Male specimens always forget how to quote properly when they start getting personal with me. Who said anything about "traditional" roles? I am not traditional. 

My post(s) are more so talking about male specimen(s) that are highly attractive while simultaneously don't "need" to be approached. Why would a woman approach if there are aggressive male-specimen(s) that exist that do this relentlessly? Once the interaction begins, I would say we're about equal in terms of "controlling" X, Y, Z. It's hard finding dudes that do not just bend to me, lul. I think it is fascinating however. There are times where I get bored of male specimen(s) following me around sick puppies; and I want to sit back. You confuse temporal sitting back with "making no moves". There are times I have approached - and initated with men plenty.

And the dudes I don't approach I am not "sitting back" waiting for them to approach. Or anyone for that matter. They just show up in my face. The other bit I am just not thinking about them - since it isn't on my mind. 

There are plenty of manipulative games in dating. (And a strong degree of psychological) manipluation. Those that say they are "above" this have low-functioning self-awareness or met each other through some internet form shit or a video game or something, lol. Most people don't forum relationship(s) threw computers. Complex interactions between people demonstrate that (some manipulation) is present. You assume no direct communication is happening or the people involved are completely oblivious in someway to what is happening.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> This is an insanely incorrect contention. No one knows what they want. In fact, if you knew ANYTHING about desire, you would realize that the ENTIRE POINT of desire is that change keeps happening. That means that not only does a person not know what they want, but that what they want right now, will yield in short order to what they want the next day. That is the nature of chaos and desire. And biologically WOMEN are prone to chaos. Men are prone to order. That is cooked into their genes and societal norms, both.


I find this more common in (ENP) types --> Ne, specifically. They always make these claims about "not know what they want," and going from person to another via "desire" to figure that out. Especially ENFP male specimens. Even if NJ types go around from person to person it is not that they are "oblivious" to what they want (NP) - and need to "test the field" to be sure - but they are probably just killing time/having fun, lul. (ENP) types are _seem to be_ genuinely confused, imo on the basis of (Ne) insanity. You are ENxP - so I think you are just projecting your mating ritual(s) somewhat.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Blue Ribbon said:


> After reading this thread, I have to say, I didn't realize dating dynamics between men and women were so complicated. Phew. I'm never dating.


The mentalities in this forum would make anyone celibate within a week . Don't take them as representative of the real world. 

.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> I find this more common in (ENP) types --> Ne, specifically. They always make these claims about "not know what they want," and going from person to another via "desire" to figure that out. Especially ENFP male specimens. Even if NJ types go around from person to person it is not that they are "oblivious" to what they want (NP) - and need to "test the field" to be sure - but they are probably just killing time/having fun, lul. (ENP) types are _seem to be_ genuinely confused, imo on the basis of (Ne) insanity. You are ENxP - so I think you are just projecting your mating ritual(s) somewhat.


No, I am coming at this issue via philosophy and not via anecdotal evidence. Knowing something is quintessentially impossible. It is a theoretical truth. Therefore knowing what you want, e.g. utilizing the tool of desire effectively and certainly, is not possible. What is possible is using that tool in an uncertain fashion. Now it can be used uncertainly BETTER or more certainly than someone else uses it. Thus RELATIVE knowing is possible. 

People often demand this observation of NP temperaments. They remark on this as if it is special as you did. This is again the orderly progression of J types, seeing in P types and even more so or more on highbrow concepts within N as well, a need to categorize and specify as opposed to earning/learning general truths that cannot be meaningfully assailed/countered. 

So I say again, for any meaningful iota of knowledge, and meaning must contain a WHY, for that is the definition or meaningful, one cannot KNOW anything. Therefore it follows that one cannot know what one wants. 

Also, this wanting thing is abstruse. Is wanting an eternal thing or immediate only. Opinions may differ. If time is a delusion, then is the answer of immediate always a self delusion? And then if one has any faith in objective truth, specifically moral truths as objective, then one must allow that one CANNOT want immoral aims, in truth. Therefore it is broken desire only, immoral desire, that pretends to want. It does not want. But desire is pretense in many ways. The mirage contains no water. So the knower of what they want, to get to that oasis and drink, is merely wrong. An impartial omnipotent observer of impeccable morality, e.g. God, would say, 'No you do not know what you want! I do. You do not want that. You want to go left and around that great dune and find real water for your real thirst.'


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Veggie said:


> I can read your post for myself. The wording indicates bias. And the examples hone in on chaos as an unbalancing force without representation of it's opposite, which is what I provided.


The thread is on expectation, e.g. desire. So, of course, a full accounting of order issues is not to be expected. My bias is against immoral motivations, and since we were discussing desire, yes, they centered on critique of that emotion. In order centric threads my (not actual) bias seems the other way.



Veggie said:


> Many of my initial responses to posters are level headed and impersonal and always have been. You're the one making this personal first now with that comment.


Any critique, and therefore any post quote, is moderately personal. All interaction is. It is only a matter of degree. So I would say that the claim that you are impersonal and level headed is accurate only in a relative sense to people that are more obviously not that way. I am also a huge proponent of discussing ideas and not people, but I do not mind mixing it up and making things more directly relevant (personal). It is a juxtaposition to my detached high minded theorizing that can be off putting without acquiescing back to the more intimate dialogue. It's true I am not afraid to draw first blood. But it (my posting) is not intended as JUST wounding, ever. 



Veggie said:


> Jung would call this enantiodromia - orderly types prompting destruction themselves when there's little left to prevent or restrain, and the compulsion to continue doing so arises. Maybe a motivation is fear though, sure... though thinking about it, the suppression may be caused by fear, but the drive for what's unconscious making it's way to the surface - desire may still fit here, in that the shadow wants to make itself known.


I agree. This is the 'all bets are off', 'all's fair in love and war', last act of defiance of the fear types. If you overthrow their order they will salt the earth, kill the livestock, and scatter.



Veggie said:


> I agree to an extent, but that in it's also a balance. I don't think there's any one formula to this either, but rather that it will be specific to the individual - which direction they take that balance, and with how much force... which I realize you're also basically stating below.


I do believe there is one formula, an objective moral one. Saying 'it is specific to the individual' is the mistaken assumption that the complexities and vagaries of personality and morality cannot be even well approached in terms of knowledge, e.g. it's just too mysterious, don't try. That is a desire motivation, the need for mystery, and a stereotyped as feminine perspective. These truths can be meaningfully approached and morally we must try as the need to know is an equal virtue to the need to recognize mystery (beauty). Despite differences in personality, we are all challenged properly in life to aim at perfection and become strong in virtues where we are weak. Of course, as usual, that is only my opinion/belief.


----------



## Marvin the Dendroid (Sep 10, 2015)

series0 said:


> So I say again, for any meaningful iota of knowledge, and meaning must contain a WHY, for that is the definition or meaningful, one cannot KNOW anything. Therefore it follows that one cannot know what one wants


That's not the point though, is it? We have varying wants, but they're not just any random wants. I won't wake up tomorrow and want a cup of coffee as I find coffee absolutely disgusting (I hate bitter flavours). But I will probably want a banana. I can say something about the kind of things I tend to want without having to know exactly what I am going to want at 5.12pm on December 3rd.

Some people's wants are wider and more varied, others' more narrow and focused. I think that at least on average, that is a valid difference between, say, strong Ne-users and strong Ni-users.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

@*series0* you sound so utterly lost lmao. Like you tumbled into S&R by accident. 
Favouring theory vs people in a discussion about relationships? Preferring a philosophical approach over applied when discussing relationships ? Framing inter-sex human dynamics in biodeterministic, jungian terms? Objective morality? Why do this to yourself? 

Are ya sponsored by Jordan Peterson or something? The brand of long winded cringe is similar.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

series0 said:


> I agree. This is the 'all bets are off', 'all's fair in love and war', last act of defiance of the fear types. If you overthrow their order they will salt the earth, kill the livestock, and scatter.


I'm not talking about a conscious reaction to an immediate threat. I'm talking about the unconscious becoming conscious due to the consequences of addiction and neurosis and the paradoxes they can produce - originally to counter your point that chaos can be addictive (so can order). Overthrowing oneself.



series0 said:


> I do believe there is one formula, an objective moral one. Saying 'it is specific to the individual' is the mistaken assumption that the complexities and vagaries of personality and morality cannot be even well approached in terms of knowledge, e.g. it's just too mysterious, don't try. That is a desire motivation, the need for mystery, and a stereotyped as feminine perspective.


Formulas based in objective knowledge can still exist whether there's only one or not. 1, 2 and 3 each need to be added with different numbers to come to 4. The equations are the same in that their sum is the same, but different in that their paths to arrive at this destination are separate.


----------



## ZiLi (Mar 26, 2019)

Dear Veggie.

You sound desirable. As always.

Apologies for advicing here. It is not normal for a lower being to conduct a higher being. And sorry for many stupidities and language errors and so many stuff Im weak at and kinda naturally suck at such as communication, EQ, SQ and probably IQ too. So few things to waste your time here with. 😞

But even if youre outmaneuvreing here and irl too, wheres that misterious woman I so well know you can become in a blink of and eye. That jovial, hyper playfull and willingfully submissive seductress? Im noticing lots of playette here with you, but how come the real full of you is still so hidden? The maximum of play is nowhere at all in the horizon here on this thread. Its not yet you being serious, not to mention tangenting your insecurities or the really deep part of you im not even publicly mentioning. Why are you not sufficiently motivated?

Well, because you yet have gailed to sense a max prize on your little endeavour here.

Theres zero doubt about you being an alpha female. Its so clear even an idiot such as me can notice that. Denature there noticed you playing games and focused your attention on the relevance of a real connection. Series0 whom is a thousand lives ahead of the rest of us here is supporting your odds to win too. Everyone here really kinda is on your side. But why is veggie not harmonic? Because, and this is said with love and compassion knowing your age and situation, as I told you before you have not yet met your equal.

I gave you some hints before where to start. You can not just start a journey and not finalize. There are lots of levels of your style. The infj sxso really is the last set up. Theres literally just sainthood and the creator above it. If youd listen to that for just once in your life youd get it all right. All of it. Think about it. Elon Musk is your level. You really believe lesser will ever do the trick for you to crave to reschedule or rearrange even your own preference in order to melt into a unity with one like him. I mean come on.

You might want what ever, but what you really need to start thinking about is what makes you PROFOUNDLY fulfilled. I mean take a look at yourself, you really think a meat eater will ever ger satisfaction out of eating fucken veggies, or sand - or the other way around. This is not a consultation, not an order. This is a commandment: and it goes like this: select only what you are. And you shall never ever again need external consulting. Ever.

Elon is a fellow who sits on a round table and is supported by 7000years worth of money and info. He has single handedly revolutionized the autoindustry. He will repair the traffic issue. And discuss the future trend of HUMANITY. I mean for heavens the man is speaking about the real risks of A.I. to people who can have him wiped off that very second, because he has the fucken balls to do so. The guy is so deep most of women will consider him the most unapproacheble beast ever. Thats your type of man Veggie. The lesser. Not even one single notch down from that meaning the other Ni dom with same sxso will ever be a 10/10 for you. I can set you on fire, tame you, take you home, marry you, show you the depths of the universe, even human soul, even God. But I cant ever make the path for you such a pleasurable experience this guy and the veryyyyy rare like him will. Youd love the outcome, but it wouldnt be infj style.

It is not easy for me to admit that theres something more in terms of human around. But even in the position I was born to, even with all the informational impact and the independence offered to them, even with all the philantropy Ive allocated social cap to, even with the losses, sacrifices and notions about existencial cause and effect, meaning of life, the after math of it and absolutely all of what ever is supposingly positive about me being ever born (and theres been lots of bad stuff Ive done) even if that bad had never been done by me, I still would be one notch below perfection. And thats not to put you on a chair here for people to admire. And Im neither in love with you nor anything else. Its just that you guys were born like that and us, the rest below it. Alphas included. The thing I subjectively think you do wrong is the fact that you are forcefully literally denying yourself. Youre a infj sxso, and you should mingle with the absolute top AND the Divine while consulting via the only level that ever really gets your worth, the other Ni dom, how the world should look like.

Again, arrogant or not, Im swim in some pretty deep waters on a Eartly level. But if people like you invest in secondary relevance stuff.. Im telling you, we as a race will be finished before you turn 40.

I have 4 men like Elon that I know. 5 him included. Youre a serial dater right, what would one more date hurt, right? Accept help as you really do indirectly ask for it. And its nothing worth of shame for not having the ultimate results so far; and expert is never made without 1st experimentating all possible mistakes.

I am the model example of a ultimate looser. Ive lost Him. All of us have been through quite a bit in life. But from it all, by far the most painful is to fall in love with Him, learn to know him and then try to merit any other sign of Him in your life. Not to mention His Spirits presence.

I tried everything Veggie. I tried to save peoples lives after first part of life doing the opposite. I tried to show the women what they needed deep down and then making me look as bad as possible to form undesirability, just like with you. That in order to compensate for limitless promiscuity of my younger self. I tried to change in every imaginablw manner. I tried, really did. But none of any humanly possible measures are of any rooted equivalence with his Grace. Read of saint siluan, read of mary from egypt who was a prostitute and then, something a bit more fulfilling. They all got it. 

The difference between them and me is that Im a (and this is weird )King on our era, and I rule my assets and politics by reason, sometimes even love. But you, and the alike should help humanity by consulting the first 300 how to not go extinct from joy, peace and enlightment. And for that you need a. A man like you and b. To get up your levels of counsciousness. Because if you wanna understand, and I wish you did, nothing will ever motivate you sufficiently than fulfilling your blood based role. You need a challenge that is, quite literally, a mix of the max of this world, and a drop or two from the whats beyond.

No need to answer extensively nor at all. No reverse psychology used, as I think we are way past that.

If you want to meet any of the fellows I mentioned, just let me know and youll have your last first kiss sooner than you can ever imagine.

But you gotta find yourself there. No layers, no bs. You and the meaning of your unique life.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)




----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> No, I am coming at this issue via philosophy and not via anecdotal evidence. Knowing something is quintessentially impossible.


I don't know what you mean the highlighted. What is meant by "knowing" here? (e.g. comprehension, scientific "knowing, - propositional stances, et al). I will assume you mean the former. What is your basis for X-specimens lacking "comprehension" of "desire" (i.e. unmet needs, interests, nostalgia, wants).

I use "anecdotal" evidences in (S/R) because I don't priortize "intellectualism" when regarding sex or intimate relationships for that matter. Most knowledge gained when it comes to sex and relationships is derived from watching/experimentation - interactions (e.g. failed relationships, trial/error - observation of others), et al.




> Therefore knowing what you want, e.g. utilizing the tool of desire effectively and certainly, is not possible. What is possible is using that tool in an uncertain fashion. Now it can be used uncertainly BETTER or more certainly than someone-


This sentence is simply gibberish nonsense. _Ethics_ continuously demonstrates "regulation of desires" effectively - to get what we "most" want. (desired). _ "Certainty" is irrelevant, and never has been "relevant,"_ to effectiveness or optimization. 

This further demonstrates the below quote [and the rest of the contradictory parts of your post] as being incoherent:



> Also, this wanting thing is abstruse. Is wanting an eternal thing or immediate only. Opinions may differ. If time is a delusion, then is the answer of immediate always a self delusion? And then if one has any faith in objective truth, specifically moral truths as objective, then one must allow that one CANNOT want immoral aims, in truth. Therefore it is broken desire only, immoral desire, that pretends to want. It does not want. But desire is pretense in many ways. The mirage contains no water. So the knower of what they want, to get to that oasis and drink, is merely wrong. An impartial omnipotent observer of impeccable morality, e.g. God, would say, 'No you do not know what you want! I do. You do not want that. You want to go left and around that great dune and find real water for your real thirst.


(??????)


----------



## ZiLi (Mar 26, 2019)

Catwalk. Listen to series0 very carefully. This man is of the most profound nature around here or anywhere. Ive stalked the man heavily, he really has put SERIOUS thought into the matters. The guy can argue existential matters basing his logic on the natural laws so much beyond mathematical cause and effect no reasoning will ever reach to that level of natural logic. How he does that? Well he will support his position by adding the superior laws of emotional impact over matter. Meaning he not only understands how profound quant physics is, but also what has to be the govering force beyond math that flexiblely and therefore as a vivid organism modifies the outcome of net reality. He proof of that is his expementally valid fact that morality has impact over the individual outcome over situational bursts of possibilities. He can notice stuff that is hard for us to notice because of his IQ.

And that alone, is a some level of miracle. Its the minor aspects he is not having perfectly aligned there, but he can most certainly see the forest from the trees.

Him. Oldman. Temizzle. And few more are really, really experimented philosophical pioneers. These guys, IMHO are the platos and aristotels of 2010-2019. And not just them. The forum is full of gold and diamonds. Otherwise you would be here would you?

And do not laugh this time as im having a moment of seriousness here.


----------



## ZiLi (Mar 26, 2019)

Id like to add that the moment we leave our heads and enter our hearts is the moment invisible becomes visible. Enlargement from criticism to compassion is like taking a rhino a implanting it a human brain. Still kinda looks like a rhino, just that its perception levels skyrocketed. Its the same with us. If we humanize ourselves to empathy and especially compassion, the worl will have a lot more order in its chaos than before. And that order makes it more predictable. More secure. Less rational yet so much more logical. And that shall deliver us both depth but also comfort about what next, after this reality ends and next the never ending one starts.

Series0 has got it, and bc of what it has given him, he is supporting actively the well being of others too. I mean, theres a guy, on the net, who is loving strangers. I wouldnt name that exactly a felony, I mean you yourself have previously done that to me Cat. And not just once. )

Peace out guys


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

You sure know the forum regulars for someone who joined this month. 

A Wild Anomalia Appears? 

XD WTF happened to this thread


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

God

Someday digital archaeologists are gonna come across this thread, and the papers written will sustain an academic journal for years.


----------



## Llyralen (Sep 4, 2017)

Tropes said:


> Ignoring the puddles of gender war fuel which this bonfire isn't going to be lacking in...
> 
> 
> Men leggings, they exist.
> ...


Heeheehee. I like 'em! And they look pretty comfy, I'd think. Start the trend, guys!


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Rebelgoatalliance said:


> God
> 
> Someday digital archaeologists are gonna come across this thread, and the papers written will sustain an academic journal for years.


Better than having alien life forms find it, and decide it's for the best to vaporize us from orbit....


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Veggie said:


> So what do you think a woman is supposed to be motivated by then exactly? And what does motivate you?
> 
> And does any woman sit back and wait for one guy anymore? Like for an extended period of time? Even if they were, do you think they're doing so without any other action coming their way?


A woman is supposed to be motivated by virtue. She's attracted to a particular man because she's thinking about long-term compatibility, not short-term fun and game playing. She's looking for a good man in which she can grow with emotionally, intellectually, &c. She finds that his personality is a good fit for hers and she's not afraid to express herself to him because "He might get arrogant" or "might start to think that he owns me already when he needs to work for me like I'm a goddess."

What motivates me is building a loving relationship in which neither party has reason to feel insecure with one another. I want to build as much trust as humanely possible and be completely confident and happy in my relationship. I want her to feel like she can rely on my judgement and rest assured that I can take care of us. Likewise, I want her to be supportive, to give me a safe place to land when I need it whether it be emotional comfort or simply a something physical like a massage. We should both be thoughtful and respectful individuals who can foresee problems and consciously choose to fix them before they arise or as soon as possible.

I have NO time for games and I don't think anyone else should either.

I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. Women who don't make moves don't move on. They don't get to select males, they simply get a roster of men that approach them. Little do you know that there are probably plenty of great guys that pass you up because good men do need some convincing that you're worth it just as good women do. Also, just because a man approaches you doesn't mean that he's so convinced that he's ready to get into a relationship. All he has done is essentially said "You're pretty enough to get a chance and I decided I'd like to at the very least initiate contact with you." not exactly the "See? Women are more desirable because the men approach us" attitude I'm getting from Catwalk.



Catwalk said:


> Who are you talking about? Lul, why not just quote me directly? Male specimens always forget how to quote properly when they start getting personal with me. Who said anything about "traditional" roles? I am not traditional.
> 
> My post(s) are more so talking about male specimen(s) that are highly attractive while simultaneously don't "need" to be approached. Why would a woman approach if there are aggressive male-specimen(s) that exist that do this relentlessly? Once the interaction begins, I would say we're about equal in terms of "controlling" X, Y, Z. It's hard finding dudes that do not just bend to me, lul. I think it is fascinating however. There are times where I get bored of male specimen(s) following me around sick puppies; and I want to sit back. You confuse temporal sitting back with "making no moves". There are times I have approached - and initated with men plenty.
> 
> ...


What is your motivation Catwalk? Are men just your playthings that you use for personal entertainment? Because that's the impression I'm getting and if I'm at any % correct, then I can't see how you'll be happy in the long run. That's what I'm primarily concerned with, long-term happiness and fulfillment.

Sure, there's some level of manipulation present, but what are you if you're aware of it and don't combat it?
I'd rather be a good man in my relationship by being bluntly honest, than a manipulative man who "gets what he wants."


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Denature said:


> I find the idea that women are in control interesting considering those women that sit back and wait are in a more submissive position. Plus, if a man is so easily moved and manipulated by cheap tricks such as physical appearance and other typical female seduction techniques, then is he really a worthy man in the first place? Talk about shooting yourselves in the foot.
> 
> Don't play games period.


If you see the animalia kingdom, the male put on the show, the male seduce, and receive return seduction. 

The game takes two players in a coreographic dance of mutual manipulation. 

In the name of gene preservation. 

In the name of gene preservation. 



* *




except for some who choose to have leisure in life and opt out of the gene pool, may mother nature bless them


 


_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

contradictionary said:


> If you see the animalia kingdom, the male put on the show, the male seduce, and receive return seduction.
> 
> The game takes two players in a coreographic dance of mutual manipulation.
> 
> ...


I can recognize that we are biological organisms that seek to maximize gene preservation, but at the same time, humans are complex and its arrogant and foolish to simplify us down to such base instincts. We are better than that.


----------



## theshowgoeson (Jul 15, 2011)

contradictionary said:


> If you see the animalia kingdom, the male put on the show, the male seduce, and receive return seduction.
> 
> The game takes two players in a coreographic dance of mutual manipulation.
> 
> ...


People that decide to not have kids still opt out of the gene pool. although they do still dance for companionship.


----------



## theshowgoeson (Jul 15, 2011)

Settling for a partner would be rough. But I think I’m realizing as a man in my early 30s I may have to widen my horizons looks wise, because I haven’t connected with thee one in my physical preference yet. It’s such a lottery. Even superstars with huge abundance in choices remain single not by choice. ... my current reality


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Denature said:


> I can recognize that we are biological organisms that seek to maximize gene preservation, but at the same time, humans are complex and its arrogant and foolish to simplify us down to such base instincts. We are better than that.


Haha, did i sound like a broken cassette recorder to you? (wtf is a cassette, says millenials)

Just point needs repeating, nothing personal. We've interact quite some time to know roughly the issue. Cool. 

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Nell said:


> @*series0* you sound so utterly lost lmao.


I am the least lost person I know, not that that really means much. I really do not mind being lost either, in the sense of journeying the unknown. That is where we all are. I just seem more aware of it than many. I admit it and mean the admission.



Nell said:


> Like you tumbled into S&R by accident.


Whim drives us all into our various futures. I can accept that as well to some degree. And I take it in and learn from it, if I can. That happens in sex and relationships also. But some relationships are quite by intent as well. I guess I do tend to prefer the serendipity of random chance, when it feels the least forced, so you may be right.



Nell said:


> Favouring theory vs people in a discussion about relationships?


The theories are about motivations, the only reason to live. Relationships are also. Life is also. Everything meaning depend on meaning and morality, motivations, ... Apparently, 'm' words are big in the truth world.



Nell said:


> Preferring a philosophical approach over applied when discussing relationships ?


Absolutely! This is a non visceral realm. This is a realm of thoughts. In the real world, in any moment, I assure you, I am far more hands on and applied than most are. This IS NOT sex. This is a sex forum. I supposed it can be high brow sex, wordy, relational. But the realm of anger, the physical, is missing.



Nell said:


> Framing inter-sex human dynamics in biodeterministic, jungian terms? Objective morality? Why do this to yourself?


In pursuit of understanding and wisdom, the only reason to do anything. This alignment with objective morality, is the ONLY path to happiness. More people need to know that.



Nell said:


> Are ya sponsored by Jordan Peterson or something? The brand of long winded cringe is similar.


I like him but he misses the value of chaos. He denigrates it too much. I do not if one really understands me.

People cringe at that which they do not understand or want all the time, even if it is truth, especially if it is truth. Wisdom is simultaneously the most needed and least accepted or understood trait of all.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Marvin the Dendroid said:


> That's not the point though, is it? We have varying wants, but they're not just any random wants. I won't wake up tomorrow and want a cup of coffee as I find coffee absolutely disgusting (I hate bitter flavours). But I will probably want a banana. I can say something about the kind of things I tend to want without having to know exactly what I am going to want at 5.12pm on December 3rd.
> 
> Some people's wants are wider and more varied, others' more narrow and focused. I think that at least on average, that is a valid difference between, say, strong Ne-users and strong Ni-users.


I agree but THAT ^^^ which you just said is not the point.

THE point is that self delusion often passes for self awareness. Against the burden of free will and the truth of objective moral truth one is left admitting that:
1) We are all cowards and fail to WANT the right things in fear of them.
2) We are all self indulgent worthlessness wallowers who sense that we do not deserve what is right to WANT.
3) We are all pushy and too assertive or lazy and inactive about what is WANTED.

I know a lot of Ni types and dated them way more than Ne (which is me) ... for balance. Most Ni types cannot take the TRUTH that everyone lies. So they lie to themselves WORSE therefore than anyone, in the name of authenticity often enough. It is the quintessential turning away from the healing truth. It is the Enneatype 4 core failure of special to the point of separation (from love itself) an immoral aim. 

All immorality is morality over expressed or under expressed, causing the imbalance known as immorality.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Veggie said:


> I'm not talking about a conscious reaction to an immediate threat. I'm talking about the unconscious becoming conscious due to the consequences of addiction and neurosis and the paradoxes they can produce - originally to counter your point that chaos can be addictive (so can order). Overthrowing oneself.


Well, we simply disagree here. Addiction is an act of will. Order is a retreat from will, into a lower energy state. This means addiction is ONLY a product of desire. Conformity, crystallization, paralysis, and especially retreat are products of fear. Of course that is my theory. I understand you.



Veggie said:


> Formulas based in objective knowledge can still exist whether there's only one or not. 1, 2 and 3 each need to be added with different numbers to come to 4. The equations are the same in that their sum is the same, but different in that their paths to arrive at this destination are separate.


Again, I understand your point. I left it unsaid above, but add it now, ... you do not understand, or like, or want to deal with, my actual point.

Integration of these many paths is ONE PATH. There is only 1 objective and proper aim and that is love. The various paths to it are all a part of it, but the goal of life is ONLY to align with that single perfect path. And we all have the intuition of course that the whole thing will then start over again. I mean, I'd like to think there was some apres denouement, a refrain, ... but the intuition is that like everything else, even such an exalted state will see a fall to death and then rebirth.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

series0 said:


> *I am the least lost person I know*, not that that really means much. I really do not mind being lost either, in the sense of journeying the unknown. That is where we all are.* I just seem more aware of it than many*. I admit it and mean the admission.











Indeed? Could you unpack this for me?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Denature said:


> A woman is supposed to be motivated by virtue. She's attracted to a particular man because she's thinking about long-term compatibility, not short-term fun and game playing.
> 
> She's looking for a good man in which she can grow with emotionally, intellectually, &c. She finds that his personality is a good fit for hers


How are you supposed to know all that just by looking at someone? Even if it's the goal, the initial phases of this all tend to be a bit shallow. You said that you won't approach women who use, in your opinion, manipulative techniques like dressing a certain way, smiling, making eye contact, etc. But women should? And men don't tend to act like this anyway. They tend to just come over and talk to you.

And I already said that if I were somehow in a situation where I was getting to know someone without dating them, that I'd consider the circumstances. Usually though, guys do express their interest. Or it just naturally develops.



Denature said:


> What motivates me is building a loving relationship in which neither party has reason to feel insecure with one another. I want to build as much trust as humanely possible and be completely confident and happy in my relationship. I want her to feel like she can rely on my judgement and rest assured that I can take care of us. Likewise, I want her to be supportive, to give me a safe place to land when I need it whether it be emotional comfort or simply a something physical like a massage. We should both be thoughtful and respectful individuals who can foresee problems and consciously choose to fix them before they arise or as soon as possible.


This is all just what you want in a relationship. I asked you what would motivate you to ask a woman out in the first place.



Denature said:


> I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. Women who don't make moves don't move on. They don't get to select males, they simply get a roster of men that approach them. Little do you know that there are probably plenty of great guys that pass you up because good men do need some convincing that you're worth it just as good women do.


Plenty of the guys who have approached me have been good, good looking men too. It's not like I'm missing out on the people I'm initially attracted to. I've had my eye on people and I didn't need to make a move because they did it first. I'm not settling for second choices.



Denature said:


> Also, just because a man approaches you doesn't mean that he's so convinced that he's ready to get into a relationship. All he has done is essentially said "You're pretty enough to get a chance and I decided I'd like to at the very least initiate contact with you."


Of course. The issue is when he thinks that the relationship is already on the table though, even if he needs convincing (or maybe doesn't, and has already decided he's in). I need it too. That's the problem. When that isn't recognized and guys get arrogant in thinking that since I'm a woman, a relationship is a given if I show interest. Women need convincing as well. An approach is a good start, for reasons previously stated. Though, like you said, I don't think that it's about "winning" anyone over, but rather in establishing connection (and trust).


----------



## buttons1 (Feb 24, 2019)

I love how threads here evolve because I literally have no idea what the heck people are talking about anymore


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@ZiLi - And damn, sorry I missed you. If you come back and see this, yes, please set me up with Elon Musk.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Nell said:


> Indeed? Could you unpack this for me?


Alas, not a speck of light is showing, 
so surely the danger must be growing ...

This rower for sure keeps on rowing ...


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Denature said:


> A woman is supposed to be motivated by virtue. She's attracted to a particular man because she's thinking about long-term compatibility, not short-term fun and game playing. She's looking for a good man in which she can grow with emotionally, intellectually, &c. She finds that his personality is a good fit for hers and she's not afraid to express herself to him because "He might get arrogant" or "might start to think that he owns me already when he needs to work for me like I'm a goddess."


These are "might be's," but a generalization of what occurs via certain types of dudes. I notice you have to keep dudes humble early on. Kind of like this post, lul. But I don't think they "mean it" maliciously; I think it is just a result of poor self-awareness. 

3 men in this thread have aleady done exactly what I mentioned in earlier posts, although there haven't the slightest clue what they are actually talking about (_about anything they are talking about_). 

I do find it humorous you actually think you are saying something intriguing/interesting. 

I have dated a variety of male specimens - and also had long-term relationships no problem. As for the "goddess," aspect, I have already stated I am a fetishist.

These aren't "games" but a result of direct communication of what I want from a man. Anyone that is interested (genuinely) knows what I bring and want from the table. 

None of them have "jeapordized" forming a 'loving' long-term relationship; nor have I ever had problems with dudes wanting to commit and jump into relationships too soon. 




> What motivates me is building a loving relationship in which neither party has reason to feel insecure with one another. I want to build as much trust as humanely possible and be completely confident and happy in my relationship. I want her to feel like she can rely on my judgement and rest assured that I can take care of us. Likewise, I want her to be
> supportive, to give me a safe place to land when I need it whether it be emotional comfort or simply a something physical like a massage. We should both be thoughtful and respectful individuals who can foresee problems and consciously choose to fix them before they arise or as soon as possible.


OK.



> I'm not sure what you mean by your last question. Women who don't make moves don't move on. They don't get to select males, they simply get a roster of men that approach them.


What makes you think women are making _"no moves"_ - I find it bizarre why you fixate on this in particular if you are a traditional dude. What does it matter? I could put two and two together; but I find it irrelevant to the discussion.

The only "move" isn't cold approach making. I approach male specimens all the time - usually without romantic intent. It is them that start making moves naturally. There is very little energy I must put in in the beginning stages. Other than that, I have never been enticed or interested enough to cold approach a male specimen without any existing reason or attention he has drawn to himself.

The woman usually sits back unless she is impressed. There are some female specimen(s) cold approaching dudes but I intend it is rare. Most formulating of intimate encourters are organic.

You assume most women are just existing to get into a romantic relationship or be approached romantically. 



> Little do you know that there are probably plenty of great guys that pass you up because good men do need some convincing that you're worth it just as good women do.


*Lul? 
* What do you think occurs when establishing compatibility - or dating? I haven't a clue what you are talking about. It isn't all established in formal dating either. Communication happens. 

This "only bad guys" approach rhetoric/nonsense - usually spewed by niceguy/shyguy/autistic internet male shit is tiring.



> Also, just because a man approaches you doesn't mean that he's so convinced that he's ready to get into a relationship. All he has done is essentially said "You're pretty enough to get a chance


This is just my experience, however, all the men that have cold approached me have been persistent/aggressive in establishing deeper connection. They are good men, too. It is always me telling them slow down.

The only times I have seen otherwise is on online dating shit (for me personally). Not sure about other female specimens.



> What is your motivation Catwalk? Are men just your playthings that you use for personal entertainment


Until he shows me otherwise. Indeed. But again, lol. He knows it. I know it. That is how we go about things - depending on the male specimen. 

Psychological manipulaiton/social games are (normal) and apart of courting rituals. Not necessarily "maliciously" done either.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Clearly you both have it _figured out_ and nothing I say will change anything. I'll continue to avoid manipulative people who play games, as this is my way of filtering out those who aren't worth my time. If a woman is interested in me and doesn't speak up, then she's missed out because there's a variety of factors that play into why I may or may not approach someone.

I hope you all have a great day roud:


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

Denature said:


> @*Veggie*
> 
> There are plenty of ways to know some base things about someone. The way they dress, carry themselves, the manner in which they speak, their hygiene, the environment you see them in, who they hang around, &c. are all great ways to get an initial impression of how someone is. But guess what, you're not going to learn any more about this person if you don't approach them and say hello.
> 
> ...


Everyone does this lol. This is not what is being discussed. What do you think no conversation(s) between men/women occur outside of dating?

Again, you approached because had (romantic) intent. I am operating under the context that male interest is obvious - and it almost always is - the moment you approach her she likely already knew you were over there for some serious shit (especially by observation dress, how you carry yourself, body language, environment, et al). You think she really didn't know why out of clear blue sky you come over there asking about her book? Lol. She knew why you were there. It is fairly easy to make this distinction. I can tell when a male specimen wants to fuck and/or waste my time, (or has an interest in establishing something serious), or has no romantic interest at all - and is simply making conversation. 

You underestimate or seem oblivious to what is actually going on. The discussion is about establishing connectivity after the fact; not beforehand. I mean no shit to half of this lul.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

series0 said:


> Alas, not a speck of light is showing,
> so surely the danger must be growing ...
> 
> This rower for sure keeps on rowing ...


Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!”

@*Denature* Ironically there are few bigger red flags for manipulative behaviour than publicly and loudly virtue signaling one's distaste for manipulation and games as a way to one-up someone else in an argument. . 

Manipulation is the essence of emotional intelligence. If you're human, it's second nature, if you can't do it at least as well as the average, or constantly fail to see it in progress you're deemed socially inept. 

L'enfer, c'est les autres.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Nell said:


> Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
> The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
> Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!”
> 
> ...


You've just set everyone up for failure. If they don't recognize manipulation, then they are "socially inept" and if they do so vocally, then they are "more manipulative than average". The only way to "win" then is to not speak up about it and then you're left in the dark.

I recognize it exists just like I can recognize other aspects of evil in this world, but my recognition and adovcation against it does not make me more likely to take part in the action I advocate against.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Nell said:


> Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
> The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
> Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!”
> 
> ...


You've set everyone up for failure. If they don't recognize it, then they're "socially inept", if they do so vocally, then they are "more manipulative than average". The only way to "win" then is to not speak up about it which means being left in the dark.

My recognition of evil and advocation against it does not make me more likely to partake in it.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> I don't know what you mean the highlighted. What is meant by "knowing" here? (e.g. comprehension, scientific "knowing, - propositional stances, et al). I will assume you mean the former. What is your basis for X-specimens lacking "comprehension" of "desire" (i.e. unmet needs, interests, nostalgia, wants).


All 'knowing' is problematic. So it is best to speak of knowing in relative terms only. That is to say never as a state of being, such as 'I know this' in which case one is simply bound to be proven foolish in then two ways, not knowing (of course) and then also not knowing that one did not know. In a purely meta sense then as well three ways, not knowing that knowing is impossible. 

All non conclusions must be relative and people do not prefer it, showing again they do not know what they want, in the same sense. Truth is what is wanted no matter what one thinks one wants. Therefore not wanting truth is wanting reality broken, a simply epic level of foolishness. Therefore in admitting that one DOES NOT KNOW what one WANTS there is great wisdom. 

One is safe then in saying 'relative to most' which sounds then less sure and is also therefore again ... wise. Speaking with better wisdom and clarity, amid all forms of communication is ... again ... wise. Of course, nothing is so much maligned amid human interaction as is wisdom. The coaches will descend on you with offerings of order and chaos: 'Always sound certain. People feel like you know what you're talking about that way.' OR 'Say things in a kind and not so bold manner as truth is best delivered macerated first by the mother bird and regurgitated as pre-digested goo.'

Humorously, desire almost absolutely defies knowing and this then especially to those possessing it. Seeking something implies one is not worthy/content/aware already. This carries a reflection of embarrassment and shame. ALL desire does this. True that more mature 'specimens'(your word) are able to balance this desire with anger and fear and then pretend to wisdom at least in some senses. 

Anger simply is and that is more honest on the face of it. Rather unconcerned with knowing but simply willing to deal with it, anger has a more fundamental unwillingness to desire. I suppose you could say often relative to desire types, anger is more aware or 'knows' that desire is suspect. Fear is terrified of desire often enough, as might be expected. And fear is the most driven to 'knowing' as a need in any case. The need to be aware is a function of order and fear. 

Still, amid the perfection of love, desire is then known. But love is the only possible conclusion and humans so far do not exhibit perfection. So we are left with not knowing and intending wisely to aim at perfection only, eternally.



Catwalk said:


> I use "anecdotal" evidences in (S/R) because I don't priortize "intellectualism" when regarding sex or intimate relationships for that matter. Most knowledge gained when it comes to sex and relationships is derived from watching/experimentation - interactions (e.g. failed relationships, trial/error - observation of others), et al.


I can understand that perspective. But it seems like you are suggesting that intellectualism has no place in such endeavors or a low one. Moral truth is the only truth there is. All virtues are equal. So the need to be aware, even the need to succeed (with being aware), and the need to use good judgment, and the need to vary experience (joy), ALL, are equal. So priority is a J fallacy in general, an order failure in moral terms. Incidentally, I am not sure I believe you. You seem incapable of not intellectualizing. I am on the other hand can animal out real quick like. 

No act in life, including of course sex, is immune to equality of virtues and moral duty. Desire is motivation and part of meaning. It can be aimed at perfection morally or not. Please note: I define love (or the GOOD) as the single pinnacle of perfect maximal balanced fear, anger, and desire. As far as I can tell there is nothing more to it (as if that was not almost impossibly epic on its own).

---

This space left intentionally filled with these words.

---



Catwalk said:


> This sentence is simply gibberish nonsense. _Ethics_ continuously demonstrates "regulation of desires" effectively - to get what we "most" want. (desired). _ "Certainty" is irrelevant, and never has been "relevant,"_ to effectiveness or optimization.


Well, I am glad you say these things. I agree and writing makes it hard to get tone. Were you agreeing with my gibberish? The statements referred to ONLY mean that amid lack of perfection ... there is no certainty, therefore no knowing, not even knowing what one wants, EXCEPT as mentioned, in a relative sense. Judgment allows us to say, 'I believe I know BETTER than you.' Thus this makes no knowing claim. Only a relative claim. The uncertain and imperfect tool of knowledge is only judged then by those at hand who are participating. Of course this is again still no certain thing. The world can say, 'You are wrong series0!' and be each and every one wrong as well. In such ways, discovering one who is right when so many are wrong, the world even, progress is made. The quote that comes to mind egregiously is, 'A reasonable man expects he will have to change to suit the world, an unreasonable man expects the world to change to suit him. Therefore all progress is made by unreasonable men.' And I would modify the quote to say more properly, 'A reasonable person expects that they will have to change to suit the opinions of others, an unreasonable person expects the truth they understand and champion to force the opinions of others to change. Therefore all progress is made by unreasonable people.'



Catwalk said:


> This further demonstrates the below quote [and the rest of the contradictory parts of your post] as being incoherent??????)


If truth is beyond knowing, then proper wanting is beyond knowing. If what is immoral is not wanted amid truth, then immoral wantings are not wantings at all, but some false thing, temptations if you will. Then one who is right says, 'You do not know what you want.' and the tempted say, 'you are incoherent! I see that cookie, and dammit, it's mine!'


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Nell said:


> Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
> The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
> Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch!”
> 
> ...


I like it! And the intent is all. Hell is indeed, other people('s immoral motivations). So, just like all things dealing with morality the intent is the only real question. Deontology is correct. And that was not by L R Hubbard. Snicker Snack! 

But although hell is shared the focal nexus of intent, the self suffers most exquisitely the immoral aims. Granted we are all in this together (Archibald Tuttle).


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

My posts are disappearing. I made two one extensive one to @Catwalk and one to @Nell and both are gone.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Denature said:


> Clearly you both have it _figured out_ and nothing I say will change anything. I'll continue to avoid manipulative people who play games, as this is my way of filtering out those who aren't worth my time. If a woman is interested in me and doesn't speak up, then she's missed out because there's a variety of factors that play into why I may or may not approach someone.
> 
> I hope you all have a great day roud:


I am curious - how can you be sure that you're avoiding game players unless you just avoid everyone? 

And are you sure that a woman with a book is necessarily more solid than anyone else? lol. (You deleted your prior post but I can see it quoted below). That sorta image play can be just as manipulative as things that dudes do. Or maybe it's not. It's a gamble. 

But fair enough if that's what it takes for you to approach. Everyone has their thing(s).


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

series0 said:


> My posts are disappearing. I made two one extensive one to @Catwalk and one to @Nell and both are gone.


One of mine did too but then it reappeared.

PerC is having one of it's fun database error moments.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Denature said:


> You don't know how many girls a guy has approached. For all you know, you could be #5 on his list.


Yes. I don't think that an approach means that the guy has decided that he will live and breathe for me. But number five is better than "not even on my radar" - and like I said, I don't make myself invisible to dudes, so I don't know why that would be the case unless there just wasn't interest.

The need for convincing from there is to ensure that we are both number one. I would never knowingly enter into a relationship where I was number 2, let alone number 5. An approach isn't confirmation of this, but it's a good start.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

jetser said:


> But are they getting it from the men they like?
> If not, why not make a move?
> 
> It's _exactly _because they got a lot of irritating jerks coming to them all the time that they'd just better choose a partner and then have him shake off the other guys that try to make a move.


Shake off other guys like a white knight would for his princess? Didn't you say those days are over?

But fairy tales aside, if she is not worth taking the risk (of rejection), why assume you are bold enough and willing to take risk to protect her?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

mimesis said:


> Shake off other guys like a white knight would for his princess? Didn't you say those days are over?
> 
> But fairy tales aside, if she is not worth taking the risk (of rejection), why assume you are bold enough and willing to take risk to protect her?


Lol, somehow I totally missed what you post quoted. I've gotten so skilled at shaking off people who irritate me that I've gotten compliments on it. I don't need a guy to do it for me.

And very fair follow up point if a dude were to think like this.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Veggie said:


> Lol, somehow I totally missed what you post quoted. I've gotten so skilled at shaking off people who irritate me that I've gotten compliments on it. I don't need a guy to do it for me.
> 
> And very fair follow up point if a dude were to think like this.


Haha, yes I believe you can, and most of my female friends can as well. I'm inclined to let them deal with it themselves before involving myself, which rarely happened, if at all.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

you don't just ask them out you have to see if they have what you want aside from looks. and they have to choose you based on their standards


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Denature said:


> You've set everyone up for failure. If they don't recognize it, then they're "socially inept", if they do so vocally, then they are "more manipulative than average". The only way to "win" then is to not speak up about it which means being left in the dark.
> 
> My recognition of evil and advocation against it does not make me more likely to partake in it.


I'd argue this polarization of common human nature traits as good or evil is just a manipulative gambit in and of itself. If you accept manipulation as inevitable and natural whether conscious or unconscious instead of getting caught up in the cartoony good/evil horseshit the worst outcome you can get is being pleasantly surprised by others when they don't resort to manipulation.

Also there is a difference between openly discussing manipulation and openly and publicly staking your rejection of it as part of your identity. It's a gambit meant to make you seem exceptionally virtuous when it's really just duplicitous nonsense coupled with blind spots in self awareness. It's a huge wool blanket.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Veggie said:


> I am curious - how can you be sure that you're avoiding game players unless you just avoid everyone?
> 
> And are you sure that a woman with a book is necessarily more solid than anyone else? lol. (You deleted your prior post but I can see it quoted below). That sorta image play can be just as manipulative as things that dudes do. Or maybe it's not. It's a gamble.
> 
> But fair enough if that's what it takes for you to approach. Everyone has their thing(s).


I trust my intuition and reasoning to be able to tell.

Those who play games hurt themselves. How can one live with themselves knowing that their relationship is fake?

I simply wanted to make the point that there are more factors than beauty. If I went up to every girl who I thought was beautiful, I'd have too many ladies on my hands (assuming a sizable portion of them returned interest) and beauty doesn't say anything about her values, personality, etc. so I have to be more picky.



Veggie said:


> Yes. I don't think that an approach means that the guy has decided that he will live and breathe for me. But number five is better than "not even on my radar" - and like I said, I don't make myself invisible to dudes, so I don't know why that would be the case unless there just wasn't interest.
> 
> The need for convincing from there is to ensure that we are both number one. I would never knowingly enter into a relationship where I was number 2, let alone number 5. An approach isn't confirmation of this, but it's a good start.


I'll speak for myself here. I might see a girl I find physically attractive, but not approach her. This doesn't mean she's not on my radar or not worth my time, etc. I might be feeling insecure that day, I might not be in the mood to talk to others, etc. who knows?

But if she comes up to me, we chat, I learn more about her and like her personality, hey, she just went from "that girl over there that's kinda cute" to "Jennifer, the sporty girl who I'd like to talk to again."

If she didn't come up to me, I may not have seen her again and neither of us would have the opportunity to meet someone great.



Nell said:


> I'd argue this polarization of common human nature traits as good or evil is just a manipulative gambit in and of itself. If you accept manipulation as inevitable and natural whether conscious or unconscious instead of getting caught up in the cartoony good/evil horseshit the worst outcome you can get is being pleasantly surprised by others when they don't resort to manipulation.
> 
> Also there is a difference between openly discussing manipulation and openly and publicly staking your rejection of it as part of your identity. It's a gambit meant to make you seem exceptionally virtuous when it's really just duplicitous nonsense coupled with blind spots in self awareness. It's a huge wool blanket.


No no no. The worst you get is that by believing manipulation is inevitable, you put yourself in a position of constant stress. You can never trust your partner because "they're probably subconsciously manipulating me." In other words, you make love impossible in your mind because no one can truly be trusted.

Again, it's a lose lose situation. In your eyes, I cannot be good because any good statement I make, it must be because I'm being manipulative. Any bad statement I make will be taken as bad. It doesn't matter what I say about my beliefs or myself because to you, manipulation is inherent and therefore I can never be innocent.

This kind of thinking will not make you happy, but based on your previous statements I think it's clear how it has effected you. It's ironic that you essentially call me manipulative, because that's exactly the problem I state. You can never trust anyone.

Nowhere has it seemed to cross your mind that I'm telling the truth and that I'm actually a good person trying to argue in favor of good. Rather, I'm framed as bad.

Also, I am self-aware and I don't need someone to tell me who I am nor do I appreciate you assassinating my character, so back off.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

jetser said:


> I can see why this was once a tradition but nowadays it seems like a cliché.
> 
> First of all: Women know what they want.
> There's only trouble with males who _think _they know what the woman - they choose - want. So why not switch the roles?
> ...


that's gonna be around, at the very least, for a long looooooong time, regardless of what social movement may come up.


----------



## Catwalk (Aug 12, 2015)

series0 said:


> Incidentally, I am not sure I believe you. You seem incapable of not intellectualizing. I am on the other hand can animal out real quick like.


_So I see. _

Anyway, I withdraw from the discussion(s). We both know this isn't going to go anywhere.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Denature said:


> No no no. The worst you get is that by believing manipulation is inevitable, you put yourself in a position of constant stress. You can never trust your partner because "they're probably subconsciously manipulating me." In other words, you make love impossible in your mind because no one can truly be trusted.
> 
> Again, it's a lose lose situation. In your eyes, I cannot be good because any good statement I make, it must be because I'm being manipulative. Any bad statement I make will be taken as bad. It doesn't matter what I say about my beliefs or myself because to you, manipulation is inherent and therefore I can never be innocent.


People are collections of variables, interacting with external variables and each other's. Good/bad is a heuristic device that pretty much strips life of nuance and makes people miserable and repressed for the most part. . 

It's not stressing when you realize most manipulation is often done by an unaware manipulator and most of the time the objectives are innocent: IE Entertainment, bonding, currying affection. . It's just human nature. Polarizing basic shit as good or evil is ironically a means to control through shame, and it's why organized religion is as prominent as it is and why there were so many goddamn taboos about sex that we're still dealing with. 

It's easy to accept manipulation when you stop thinking of it as this morally charged taboo boogeyman . Your inhibitions are a handicap and the result of using heuristic narratives and archetypal bullshit as crutches to try and reduce human behaviour to simple patterns. It's a crutch people become dependent on every single time, and still people never learn to stop doing it and to just take in the world without the filters. It's why North Americans go apeshit about nudity but are disturbingly accepting of violence.

Everyone is a sinner. Everyone. The concept of innocence as you're using it is just another tool for control through hypocritical shame. The sooner people stop polarizing human behaviour to manufacture validation and control others, the less conflict there will be between the sexes as there's less pressure to alter one's behavour in Inhuman ways. 



Denature said:


> This kind of thinking will not make you happy, but based on your previous statements I think it's clear how it has effected you.


 I get wary every time someone tries to tell me who I am, what I want, or what would make me happy. It's what cults do to prey on people's weaknesses. 

Also, given that you tend to speak of romance in ways myself and others have likened to handling furniture/appliances....I don't think I'm too concerned with what you have to say wrt my happiness vis a vis relationships. Bottom line is I'd be more wary of someone like you than I would of an open womanizer. At least I know what to expect from the latter. 


Aaaand I'm bored of this discussion.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Nell said:


> People are collections of variables, interacting with external variables. Good/bad is a heuristic device that pretty much strips life of nuance and makes people miserable and repressed for the most part.
> 
> It's not stressing when you realize most manipulation is often done by an unaware manipulator and most of the time the objectives are innocent: IE Entertainment, bonding, currying affection. . It's just human nature. Polarizing basic shit as good or evil is ironically a means to control through shame, and it's why organized religion is as prominent as it is and why there were so many goddamn taboos about sex that we're still dealing with.


Why would I trust or be with someone who believes the concept of good and evil is essentially bs?
What you say strips people of responsibility, agency, and morality. Instead, people are just a "collection of variables" and we should just accept it. 

So what do you do with this information? If you truly believe that we're just variables, then can you be happy? After all, if someone loves you then it's "just variables". Behaving in a childish manner towards you? Just variables. Cheated on you? Just variables. Manipulating you? Just variables.

What is real?

Also, if most of the manipulation is unaware, then how can you respect your partner essentially treating them as someone who doesn't know any better? Do you have those standards for yourself? As in, do you allow yourself to manipulate others because it's human nature and can't help yourself?



Nell said:


> It's easy to accept manipulation when you stop thinking of it as this morally charged taboo boogeyman . Your inhibitions are a handicap and the result of using heuristic narratives and archetypal bullshit as crutches to try and reduce human behaviour to simple patterns. It's a crutch people become dependent on every single time, and still people never learn to stop doing it and to just take in the world without the filters. It's why North Americans go apeshit about nudity but are disturbingly accepting of violence.
> 
> Everyone is a sinner. Everyone. The concept of innocence as you're using it is just another tool for control through hypocritical shame. The sooner people stop polarizing human behaviour to manufacture validation and control others, the less conflict there will be between the sexes as there's less pressure to alter one's behavour in unreasonable ways.


So if someone manipulates you, you don't get mad or think lowly of this person? It's just human nature and should be accepted? It's natural, therefore life goes on?

Even if I can agree to an extent, that doesn't make our conclusions the same. It appears that to you, it's natural and therefore there's no point in fighting it, whereas I could agree, believe it's natural, but instead of accepting it, decide to not partake and not accept it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect others to be respectful and honest, especially when you yourself are.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Denature said:


> Those who play games hurt themselves. How can one live with themselves knowing that their relationship is fake?


A fake relationship would suck, yea. I think we agree in that we want to see the best in people - rather than being perpetually suspicious - but if you don't accept that people can be manipulative, you're possibly setting yourself up for a fake relationship too. Or in finding yourself suspicious anyway - is this person "good" or "bad"?



Denature said:


> I simply wanted to make the point that there are more factors than beauty. If I went up to every girl who I thought was beautiful, I'd have too many ladies on my hands (assuming a sizable portion of them returned interest) and beauty doesn't say anything about her values, personality, etc. so I have to be more picky.


Women are also worried about having too many dudes on their hands. Maybe that guy over there is cute, but what's motivating you to pick up yet another interaction when you already have several going? If he comes to you that's one thing, but if he doesn't? Probably not worth it, considering, yea, you know nothing of their values, personality, etc.



Denature said:


> I'll speak for myself here. I might see a girl I find physically attractive, but not approach her. This doesn't mean she's not on my radar or not worth my time, etc. I might be feeling insecure that day, I might not be in the mood to talk to others, etc. who knows?
> 
> But if she comes up to me, we chat, I learn more about her and like her personality, hey, she just went from "that girl over there that's kinda cute" to "Jennifer, the sporty girl who I'd like to talk to again."
> 
> If she didn't come up to me, I may not have seen her again and neither of us would have the opportunity to meet someone great.


Maybe Jennifer was the love of your life. I can turn what you say around on you too. Maybe you really missed out because you were feeling insecure. Meanwhile that other more confident guy went up to talk to her, and she's texting someone else. Why is it up to her when she could be a total catch? I'd imagine "kinda cute" and "sporty" would be slightly offensive too, and that she likely isn't the love of your life. The love of your life is ideally someone you find gorgeous, hilarious, smart as hell, etc. Again, hard to tell these things from first impressions, but if she's only "meh" in your mind, it's probably a favor to you both that no one's approaching the other person, unless one or both of you is just really horny or bored or something.



Denature said:


> Nowhere has it seemed to cross your mind that I'm telling the truth and that I'm actually a good person trying to argue in favor of good. Rather, I'm framed as bad.


I think the criticism is more on seeing yourself as either "good" or "bad" in the first place. People are humans with both good and bad qualities.


----------



## series0 (Feb 18, 2013)

Catwalk said:


> _So I see. _
> 
> Anyway, I withdraw from the discussion(s). We both know this isn't going to go anywhere.


Aw! Discussion (and sex) are journeys, not destinations. Of course that is only one animal's opinion. And I like to travel.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Veggie said:


> A fake relationship would suck, yea. I think we agree in that we want to see the best in people - rather than being perpetually suspicious - but if you don't accept that people can be manipulative, you're possibly setting yourself up for a fake relationship too. Or in finding yourself suspicious anyway - is this person "good" or "bad"?


I'm not denying that people can be. I'm saying that it's not inevitable. There are people out there who are not manipulative. If you disagree, then you'll just have to live with the fact that your partner doesn't truly love you because they're always manipulating you in some form.




Veggie said:


> Women are also worried about having too many dudes on their hands. Maybe that guy over there is cute, but what's motivating you to pick up yet another interaction when you already have several going? If he comes to you that's one thing, but if he doesn't? Probably not worth it, considering, yea, you know nothing of their values, personality, etc.


See? It goes both ways though. Not just one way for women and one way for men. Therefore, it's illogical to always be the one not approaching.




Veggie said:


> Maybe Jennifer was the love of your life. I can turn what you say around on you too. Maybe you really missed out because you were feeling insecure. Meanwhile that other more confident guy went up to talk to her, and she's texting someone else. Why is it up to her when she could be a total catch? I'd imagine "kinda cute" and "sporty" would be slightly offensive too, and that she likely isn't the love of your life. The love of your life is ideally someone you find gorgeous, hilarious, smart as hell, etc. Again, hard to tell these things from first impressions, but if she's only "meh" in your mind, it's probably a favor to you both that no one's approaching the other person, unless one or both of you is just really horny or bored or something.


Yes, I agree to an extent and that's the point. Either she comes to me or I go to her, but someone has to and it's illogical for either of us to just expect to always be the one making or not making the move.




Veggie said:


> I think the criticism is more on seeing yourself as either "good" or "bad" in the first place. People are humans with both good and bad qualities.


Agreed, but Nell's attitude is essentially deterministic/defeatist by nature. My qualities don't really matter because I'm just a mix of internal and external variables that make me behave in certain ways. She isn't saying that people are a mix, she's saying it doesn't matter period.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Denature said:


> Why would I trust or be with someone who believes the concept of good and evil is essentially bs?
> What you say strips people of responsibility, agency, and morality. Instead, people are just a "collection of variables" and we should just accept it.


Objective morality doesn't exist. Doesn't mean people don't subscribe to a culturally indoctrinated morality to coexist within a society.

This is as basic as it gets. It isn't an objective thing, it's subjective and indoctrinated, so the unexamined mind sees it as objective morality. 




Denature said:


> So what do you do with this information? If you truly believe that we're just variables, then can you be happy? After all, if someone loves you then it's "just variables". Behaving in a childish manner towards you? Just variables. Cheated on you? Just variables. Manipulating you? Just variables.
> 
> What is real?


Ya done ? The answer is yes to all of the above. And the world keeps turning, and will continue turning after you and I die. 

Your emotions and urges are biochemical and electrical impulses, knowing this doesn't make them any less compelling or strip the magic out of them. Nothing changes by deconstructing things. 




Denature said:


> Also, if most of the manipulation is unaware, then how can you respect your partner essentially treating them as someone who doesn't know any better? Do you have those standards for yourself? As in, do you allow yourself to manipulate others because it's human nature and can't help yourself?


I have standards for myself by choice (lol, agency) , but I know full well it's ridiculous to try and force others to follow them. 




Denature said:


> So if someone manipulates you, you don't get mad or think lowly of this person? It's just human nature and should be accepted? It's natural, therefore life goes on?


You're seriously having an emotional BSOD with just this much extra nuance. It's interesting. Bottom line is: yeah.... And this actually helps with relationship longevity.
Manipulation by default won't make me angry, it's gotta be unpacked. Who? Why? How? Were others involved? Who were they? Was it intentional? Is it understandable? Could it have been avoided with more mindfulness? etc etc. 
If I determine wanton behaviour took place I likely will get pissed and act accordingly. Such behaviour is a calculated risk, so retaliation is a weighed risk they accepted. 





Denature said:


> Even if I can agree to an extent, that doesn't make our conclusions the same. It appears that to you, it's natural and therefore there's no point in fighting it, whereas I could agree, believe it's natural, but instead of accepting it, decide to not partake and not accept it.
> 
> I don't think it's unreasonable to expect others to be respectful and honest, especially when you yourself are.


I think it's stupid to expect anything from others as it needlessly opens you to disappointment. Instead I don't expect it, remain observant and am pleasantly surprised on the regular.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Testing?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Denature said:


> I'm not denying that people can be. I'm saying that it's not inevitable. There are people out there who are not manipulative. If you disagree, then you'll just have to live with the fact that your partner doesn't truly love you because they're always manipulating you in some form.


Manipulation doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of love. 



Denature said:


> See? It goes both ways though. Not just one way for women and one way for men. Therefore, it's illogical to always be the one not approaching.


Yea I never used the word "always" - my initial post was that I don't _usually_ approach. Because I don't need to. And given everything I've stated and my reasons, it's kinda "illogical" for me to do it, honestly. 



Denature said:


> Agreed, but Nell's attitude is essentially deterministic/defeatist by nature. My qualities don't really matter because I'm just a mix of internal and external variables that make me behave in certain ways. She isn't saying that people are a mix, she's saying it doesn't matter period.


Well alright.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Nell said:


> Objective morality doesn't exist. Doesn't mean people don't subscribe to a culturally indoctrinated morality to coexist within a society.
> 
> This is as basic as it gets. It isn't an objective thing, it's subjective and indoctrinated, so the unexamined mind sees it as fact.


I'll agree to an extent. However, with this knowledge, what do you choose to believe/do with it? If morality is not objective and just a concept, then you are forced to admit that any beliefs you have on the subject are invalid. For example, any political opinions you have based on a gut sense of morality are baseless. Does this not leave you empty in some way?

Notice how I'm not arguing with you regarding the truthfulness of what you're saying here but rather the effects/results of such a belief. If morality is not objective, then you may as well believe something that results in your happiness right? If you agree, then what do you believe that makes you happy? Or are you fine with the nihilism (Because when you get down to it, that's all that's left if we're all just biologically determined organisms with no free will)





Nell said:


> Ya done ? The answer is yes to all of the above. And the world keeps turning, and will continue turning after you and I die.
> 
> Your emotions and urges are biochemical and electrical impulses, doesn't make them any less compelling. Nothing changes by deconstructing things.


I disagree. Everything changes when you deconstruct things. You begin to stop seeing people as people and instead treat them as systems with inevitable outcomes. If you put A B and C into person Z, they will act Y way. Therefore, I will behave in A B C to get what I want. After all, they can't help themselves and neither I or them are held accountable because this is all inevitable.

Again, how can you respect others seeing them as people who don't know any better or can't control themselves? Doesn't this make you feel alone in your understanding of the world?




Nell said:


> I have standards for myself by choice (lol, agency) , but I know full well it's ridiculous to try and force others to follow them.


 Heck, with your line of thinking, it may be just as ridiculous to try and force yourself to follow your own choices. After all, you, like everyone else, is a combination of internal and external variables. How do you reconcile that sense of internal locus of control while accepting a perspective that is inherently deterministic?




Nell said:


> You're seriously having an emotional BSOD with just this much extra nuance. It's interesting. Bottom line is: yeah....
> Manipulation by default won't make me angry, it's gotta be unpacked. Who? Why? How? Were others involved? Who were they? Was it intentional? Is it understandable? Could it have been avoided with more mindfulness? etc etc.
> If I determine wanton behaviour took place I likely will get pissed and act accordingly. Such behaviour is a calculated risk, so retaliation is a weighed risk they accepted.


If you're willing to accept this behavior in others because "it's inevitable", then what's really keeping you from behaving in a manipulative manner yourself?

You'll never be able to relax in a relationship because as the person with the burden of knowledge, you'll always be the one to have and defend yourself from manipulation while your partner has the benefit of being with you, someone who's actually aware of themselves.

You have to hold them accountable and have expectations, otherwise, I'd imagine you can't help but feel superior to your partner and therefore unfulfilled.

Do you at least expect the other person to be as self aware as you are in terms of the realities of human nature?



Nell said:


> I think it's stupid to expect anything from others as it needlessly opens you to disappointment. Instead I don't expect it, remain observant and am pleasantly surprised on the regular.


How can you be pleasantly surprised though? Anything can be considered manipulation if you twist it enough. Good/loving behavior could just be manipulation so you'll stay and keep providing comfort or whatever other 'resource' you provide in the relationship. Instead of a real connection, relationship just turns into another word for "symbiotic relationship" or something to be terminated based on logic and material/emotional imbalances, etc.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Manipulation doesn't necessarily indicate a lack of love.


Yes, it does. Would you manipulate someone you truly loved?
Maybe out of severe necessity such as someone has a gun pointed at you to do so, but I don't think that's what you meant. Explain. 




Veggie said:


> Yea I never used the word "always" - my initial post was that I don't _usually_ approach. Because I don't need to. And given everything I've stated and my reasons, it's kinda "illogical" for me to do it, honestly.


Haha, well then what would compel you to approach a man then?



P.S. I was having the database problem as well.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Denature said:


> Yes, it does. Would you manipulate someone you truly loved?
> Maybe out of severe necessity such as someone has a gun pointed at you to do so, but I don't think that's what you meant. Explain.


Mmm, so for instance I have a cousin who was on medication that I knew he didn't really want to be on. I left a book on behavioral therapy specific to his situation on the table when I knew he was coming over. As expected, I found him reading it. I let him think it was a coincidence and his idea. I think I've since told him. We talk about this kinda stuff a lot.



Denature said:


> Haha, well then what would compel you to approach a man then?


It's highly irrational. A compulsive urge. I've learned to hold myself back from it though, because it's almost always towards the dudes with the conquest mentality I was talking about. The types to brag, degrade, take pride in seeing themselves as womanizers who don't even have to do anything.

I've also done it when I'm pretty sure there's interest and that the guy's just being shy, insecure, whatever. An ex was sorta like this, despite being very attractive. We had a class together in college and he'd always find a way to be in my proximity. I'd show up at parties and I could see his breath catch. At the time he said that he had to work harder for me than he's ever had to work for a girl before, but I felt like I was almost throwing myself at him at one point. lol. We met in some sort of middle ground I guess. And other people helped facilitate the match making too.

It didn't turn out to be a fantastic relationship. So despite the fact that I'm still attracted to similar personalities, warning bells go off in my head there.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Mmm, so for instance I have a cousin who was on medication that I knew he didn't really want to be on. I left a book on behavioral therapy specific to his situation on the table when I knew he was coming over. As expected, I found him reading it. I let him think it was a coincidence and his idea. I think I've since told him. We talk about this kinda stuff a lot.


Don't you feel guilty? Even if you can justify it and defend it as being in his interest, don't you feel guilty knowing you manipulated him?

Don't you lose respect for him in a way? Because after all, he should have done this research without you having to manipulate him into it. I mean, extend this reasoning to a SO. How can you respect an SO that you have to manipulate every now and then? Even if it's for good reasons?

Just accept that people aren't perfect and need to be manipulated every now and then? Then you may as well just manipulate away, AKA do it all the time to get desired results.



Veggie said:


> It's highly irrational. A compulsive urge. I've learned to hold myself back from it though, because it's almost always towards the dudes with the conquest mentality I was talking about. The types to brag, degrade, take pride in seeing themselves as womanizers who don't even have to do anything.


Why do you think you get this compulsive urge towards these types?
What do you do to stop yourself?



Veggie said:


> I've also done it when I'm pretty sure there's interest and that the guy's just being shy, insecure, whatever. An ex was sorta like this, despite being very attractive. We had a class together in college and he'd always find a way to be in my proximity. I'd show up at parties and I could see his breath catch. At the time he said that he had to work harder for me than he's ever had to work for a girl before, but I felt like I was almost throwing myself at him at one point. lol. We met in some sort of middle ground I guess. And other people helped facilitate the match making too.
> 
> It wasn't a fantastic relationship after a couple of years. So despite the fact that I'm still attracted to similar personalities, warning bells go off in my head there too.


What do you personally need to fall in love?


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Denature said:


> You've set everyone up for failure. If they don't recognize it, then they're "socially inept", if they do so vocally, then they are "more manipulative than average". The only way to "win" then is to not speak up about it which means being left in the dark.
> 
> My recognition of evil and advocation against it does not make me more likely to partake in it.


I've been skimming through the thread, just wanna give you props for having personal integrity.

That is all.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Denature said:


> Don't you feel guilty? Even if you can justify it and defend it as being in his interest, don't you feel guilty knowing you manipulated him?
> 
> Don't you lose respect for him in a way?


I didn't feel guilty and I didn't lose respect for him.



Denature said:


> Why do you think you get this compulsive urge towards these types?
> What do you do to stop yourself?


Because they're charming and hot. lol. I override the feels with the thoughts.



Denature said:


> What do you personally need to fall in love?


It's kinda hard to say. That was one of the only times I've ever been in love (I do fall in lust a lot). Things shifted when he started calling every day. He initiated the DTR talk.

Every situation's unique, but I guess momentum and consistency. Staying on my mind. Creating trust. A dude who can take charge but make me feel comfortable to be and share myself.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

crazitaco said:


> I've been skimming through the thread, just wanna give you props for having personal integrity.
> 
> That is all.


Thank you!

I'm really trying to get down to the core of the issue. Belief systems effect how we interact in the world. If we believe others to be incapable of rational thought, I believe it becomes easier to treat others like children and this makes both the people you interact with and yourself unhappy and unfulfilled in your interpersonal relationships, especially romantic ones.

So regardless of whether or not we're all just animals or gene machines, the superior way to behave is with integrity and respect (to not manipulate others) for this is the only way you can be happy interacting with others.



Veggie said:


> I didn't feel guilty and I didn't lose respect for him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would you lose respect for an SO though if you had to manipulate them?

What makes them charming and hot to you? Like you said, they're just players, negative people, and undeserving of your attention. How can someone be both charming/hot and also "brag, degrade, take pride in seeing themselves as womanizers who don't even have to do anything."?

Would you be ok with being manipulated if it meant that you'd have your expectations met of consistency, momentum, etc.?


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Denature said:


> Thank you!
> 
> I'm really trying to get down to the core of the issue. Belief systems effect how we interact in the world. If we believe others to be incapable of rational thought, I believe it becomes easier to treat others like children and this makes both the people you interact with and yourself unhappy and unfulfilled in your interpersonal relationships, especially romantic ones.
> 
> So regardless of whether or not we're all just animals or gene machines, the superior way to behave is with integrity and respect (to not manipulate others) for this is the only way you can be happy interacting with others.


I still don't buy into objective morality, but I always saw it as kind of irrelevant anyway. Because even if its entirely subjective atleast you believe in _something. 

_There's somet​hing treacherous and unsettling to me about the idea of rejecting even subjective morality. I don't want to live in a world where no one has any personal integrity.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Denature said:


> Would you lose respect for an SO though if you had to manipulate them?


Nope.



Denature said:


> What makes them charming and hot to you? Like you said, they're just players, negative people, and undeserving of your attention. How can someone be both charming/hot and also "brag, degrade, take pride in seeing themselves as womanizers who don't even have to do anything."?


Their charm and the fact that they're hot. lol. I don't really know what more you want from me here. And how can they be both? Because people are multi-faceted and complicated. 



Denature said:


> Would you be ok with being manipulated if it meant that you'd have your expectations met of consistency, momentum, etc.?


Sure. I actually even give respect to well played manipulation (well, so long as it isn't, like, sh*tty passive aggression). I find it clever and such. lol. I mean, it depends on what their intention is. If they're doing it because they're genuinely into me, then kudos and good game.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Denature said:


> Yes, it does. Would you manipulate someone you truly loved?
> Maybe out of severe necessity such as someone has a gun pointed at you to do so, but I don't think that's what you meant. Explain.
> 
> 
> ...


I was like you back then, denature. I stubbornly wanted just to be plain me and i wish women can see that value of me, as i were.

Turned out it's not the way things work. Like it or not we need to somewhat project the image of a suitable suitor. At the very least, mask some rough edges while a bit polishing here and there.

The subjective part is the relative size of the masking. This is where conscience and self esteem play the part. 

It's analogue to why women do makeup. They will explain in very relative way and most will probably answer they don't really depend on it. Whatever, just take those answers as the 'masking some rough edges' too.

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## pwowq (Aug 7, 2016)

Social conditioning+ Biological wants.
Because if I never ask people out I'll be alone forever. *Nobody* so far came for me initially.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Denature said:


> I'm not denying that people can be. I'm saying that it's not inevitable. There are people out there who are not manipulative. If you disagree, then you'll just have to live with the fact that your partner doesn't truly love you because they're always manipulating you in some form.


If you see manipulation as invariably evil despite the fact people do it as often as they breathe and it pretty much is how humans maintain relationships...yeah.

Have you noticed your mentality is far more likely to make you miserable than mine because you block out positive possibilities? 





Denature said:


> Agreed, but Nell's attitude is essentially deterministic/defeatist by nature. My qualities don't really matter because I'm just a mix of internal and external variables that make me behave in certain ways. She isn't saying that people are a mix, she's saying it doesn't matter period.


You're not getting it. Your qualities are influenced by those variables, but there's too many wildcard ones for it to be a deterministic approach. It lets you see what factors resulted in a decision so you get a far more nuanced judgment than just "GOOD/EVUL". You're appraising humans, not fucking cartoons. 

Your approach personalizes and polarizes shit needlessly, the natural outcome of that is just seething and chastising people for arbitrary bullshit, and getting frustrated because they are themselves and not some sentimental fucking mannequin of virtue you've been taught to want. 

Doesn't it feel empty to realize all your wants are mainly what you've been fed throughout your upbringing as Non Evil without any questioning and deconstruction (otherwise you wouldn't bother with such terms) on your part because they paint a feel-good picture of belonging to something bigger than you? It's just enabling intellectual dishonesty and personal weakness. 

You need to rely on that sort of simplification to live life day by day , and in the process you just flatten the shit out of life and guillotine a shitload of growth opportunities in the process. It's dishonest and detrimental. 






Denature said:


> Thank you!
> 
> I'm really trying to get down to the core of the issue. Belief systems effect how we interact in the world. If we believe others to be incapable of rational thought, I believe it becomes easier to treat others like children and this makes both the people you interact with and yourself unhappy and unfulfilled in your interpersonal relationships, especially romantic ones.
> 
> So regardless of whether or not we're all just animals or gene machines, the superior way to behave is with integrity and respect (to not manipulate others) for this is the only way you can be happy interacting with others.


Hey congrats on the dopamine hit from your virtue signaling. It paid off without you showing any actual proof of virtue.
Also you still don't get it. People's ability for rational thought is yet another variable that comprises them. I don't flatten human beings, I try to take them in their entirety instead of using kiddy crutches to summarize them. 
Your notion of superiority is just a pretty title bandied around for external validation. 

The approach I'm using basically makes it easier to accept all the facets of a human being, and still come to love them anyway. Your approach hinders the SHIT out of that because it leaves you hunting for archetypes instead of humans. 





Denature said:


> I'll agree to an extent. However, with this knowledge, what do you choose to believe/do with it? If morality is not objective and just a concept, then you are forced to admit that any beliefs you have on the subject are invalid. For example, any political opinions you have based on a gut sense of morality are baseless. Does this not leave you empty in some way?


Not at all. It's in fact liberating. I'd argue self delusion to avoid this is the truly empty path. 
Also, having opinions that delve mainly from gut is why politics is an absolute disaster. Having politicians cater to self deluding idiots and their obstinate clinging to sentimental constructs is an easy way to not address any actual issues. I steer away from decisions based on guts if I cannot get to why my gut feels that way. 




Denature said:


> Notice how I'm not arguing with you regarding the truthfulness of what you're saying here but rather the effects/results of such a belief. If morality is not objective, then you may as well believe something that results in your happiness right? If you agree, then what do you believe that makes you happy? Or are you fine with the nihilism (Because when you get down to it, that's all that's left if we're all just biologically determined organisms with no free will)


It's less that free will doesn't exist, and more that it is merely the last step of an entire process you're gleefully overlooking. 



Denature said:


> I disagree. Everything changes when you deconstruct things. You begin to stop seeing people as people and instead treat them as systems with inevitable outcomes. If you put A B and C into person Z, they will act Y way. Therefore, I will behave in A B C to get what I want. After all, they can't help themselves and neither I or them are held accountable because this is all inevitable.


The "Inevitable" outcomes is your own invention. And seeing people as systems beats the hell out of reducing them to "GOOD/EVUL" because you can't grasp that manipulation can be innocent. 

Knowing the universe didn't revolve around Earth , didn't change anything about it. It kept turning as it always had regardless of what people believed. 




Denature said:


> Again, how can you respect others seeing them as people who don't know any better or can't control themselves? Doesn't this make you feel alone in your understanding of the world?


Stop making up shit. 
I can see where people's decisions come from. as I learn about their variables. If the overall decision process is understandable when all factors are weighed, and no wantonness is determined why would I disrespect them? 

And I don't seek to understand the world as a means to bond with others, I do it to satisfy my own curiosity. That question just sounds to me like "If you don't believe in God, how do you make friends ? You don't go to Church. " 

Who cares? Understanding is about the truth, not about matching someone else. 





Denature said:


> Heck, with your line of thinking, it may be just as ridiculous to try and force yourself to follow your own choices. After all, you, like everyone else, is a combination of internal and external variables. How do you reconcile that sense of internal locus of control while accepting a perspective that is inherently deterministic?


Easy, it ain't deterministic. 
Motivation is also the result of those variables. Let me try a ZeFrank style analogy: Imagine a massive steering wheel that has many many hands trying to direct it at any given time. That's how your variables and agency do. 






Denature said:


> If you're willing to accept this behavior in others because "it's inevitable", then what's really keeping you from behaving in a manipulative manner yourself?


Sigh....you really have a one track mind with the manipulation = evil thing. Kinda like new concepts that don't line up with your sentimentalities get resisted something fierce. It's a hindrance. 
I don't start using people willy nilly because of my own pride/standards/personal framework/aesthetics. Also because there's often a less harmful alternative available. Also because I plain don't like people so the less I deal with them the better. 




Denature said:


> You'll never be able to relax in a relationship because as the person with the burden of knowledge, you'll always be the one to have and defend yourself from manipulation while your partner has the benefit of being with you, someone who's actually aware of themselves.


What if I want to be manipulated? What if I chose them because they're able to manipulate me into losing my mind like no one else can? 
Seduction is manipulation after all. 

If you're aware of the process, you can stop it at any time. If you know the person makes your happiness an extension of theirs, you just enjoy the ride. 

You can be aware and relaxed. It also beats deluding yourself into not expecting a behaviour that a person is hard wired to do, consciously and unconsciously. 




Denature said:


> You have to hold them accountable and have expectations, otherwise, I'd imagine you can't help but feel superior to your partner and therefore unfulfilled.


This makes no sense to me. 



Denature said:


> Do you at least expect the other person to be as self aware as you are in terms of the realities of human nature?


Nah, what matters to me is the relationship we have. I want drive and I want to grow while having a blast along the way. If they can help me with that in a way no one else can, we're good. 




Denature said:


> How can you be pleasantly surprised though? Anything can be considered manipulation if you twist it enough. Good/loving behavior could just be manipulation so you'll stay and keep providing comfort or whatever other 'resource' you provide in the relationship. Instead of a real connection, relationship just turns into another word for "symbiotic relationship" or something to be terminated based on logic and material/emotional imbalances, etc.


Because I start becoming grateful for little things folk like you actually *expect* as a bare minimum. 

It's like having a spouse get used to receiving flowers. What was a spontaneous touching gesture is stripped of meaning by virtue of it being taken for granted as an expectation. The act is devalued and the absence of it is now a cause for resentment. 

That's what expectations truly do.

Why can't symbiosis turn into a real connection? It's kind of annoying how your belief system arbitrarily makes things mutually exclusive when they aren't necessarily.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Veggie said:


> Nope.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Very interesting! Thank you for your responses Veggie.



contradictionary said:


> I was like you back then, denature. I stubbornly wanted just to be plain me and i wish women can see that value of me, as i were.
> 
> Turned out it's not the way things work. Like it or not we need to somewhat project the image of a suitable suitor. At the very least, mask some rough edges while a bit polishing here and there.
> 
> ...


Interesting idea. Thank you.


----
@Nell

Alright there's a lot to quote so lets simplify. Essentially you're saying that by limiting myself to the concept of good and evil, I'm setting myself up for disappointment and oversimplifying humans which are amoral beings made up of complex variables. When a human behaves like a human, I shouldn't expect much of them because they are simply human. Instead, I should just love others with all their faults and if they do good then good, if bad, then try to understand why. Once I understand why then I can't really feel mad because I "get it". They're just humans. Of course this doesn't mean I just let people do whatever, but there's no use in having high expectations.

Right?


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

@Denature - this may be a semantics issue too, as manipulation does often have negative exploitative connotations. Maybe you'd be more comfortable with the term persuasion? Attempting to influence the outcome of a situation without purely self serving purposes. I'd agree that having an A, B, C formula there could be detrimental in that it could operate on broad assumptions rather than genuinely being open to learning the nuances of a particular situation (and individual person), but at the same time, the more nuanced the formula, the more I'd likely see it as social intelligence rather than as something purely deceptive. This I would be able to respect.

But yea, intent does come into play. Dating is to some extent selling oneself, and there's a difference between outright lying and simply wanting to be seen in a more favorable light. Between understanding a person and using that understanding to try to prevent unnecessary conflict, or to try to persuade them in what you believe may be mutual interest, and using the understanding to exploit them in some way.

That being said I don't think that manipulation is always consciously devious, or a perpetual manner of acting. If someone were able to own up to or apologize when it was brought to their attention I don't think that it would necessarily be detrimental to the relationship.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Denature said:


> Very interesting! Thank you for your responses Veggie.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I ain't telling ya what you should do. Just saying what works out for me. 
Humans aren't amoral, but there's no objective morality and imposing your morality on others simply alienates them unnecessarily. It's easier to just observe and get close to the ones you like than to broadcast a morality manifesto... though I guess the broadcasting really helps you present favourable optics to others which gets you validation. That's the whole point of organized morality

You can feel whatever you want, it's up to you to accept or reject a behaviour or a person, I personally prefer knowing where it came from before I pass any judgments if I have to at all. But to just dismiss the behaviour as evil by default without getting to the heart of it is just heuristics and reductionism. It's easy, it's lazy. Some like that, It doesn't sit well with me because I think I'm better than that. No heroic narrative of good vs evil. I just think I'm better than that. It's hard to unsee it once you see it.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Nell said:


> I ain't telling ya what you should do. Just saying what works out for me.
> Humans aren't amoral, but there's no objective morality and imposing your morality on others simply alienates them unnecessarily. It's easier to just observe and get close to the ones you like than to broadcast a morality manifesto... though I guess the broadcasting really helps you present favourable optics to others which gets you validation. That's the whole point of organized morality
> 
> You can feel whatever you want, it's up to you to accept or reject a behaviour or a person, I* personally prefer knowing where it came from before* I pass any judgments if I have to at all. But to just dismiss the behaviour as evil by default without getting to the heart of it is just heuristics and reductionism. It's easy, it's lazy. Some like that, It doesn't sit well with me because I think I'm better than that. No heroic narrative of good vs evil. I just think I'm better than that. It's hard to unsee it once you see it.


Where do you learn information pertaining to this?

What topics interest you in particular?


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Denature said:


> Where do you learn information pertaining to this?
> 
> What topics interest you in particular?


The person themselves. People often hate explaining why they do the things they do or why they feel a certain way. Some think you can't necessarily describe these things, I say you can at least try and the process uncovers collateral knowledge. Some people don't understand themselves, that's another thing to factor in. Some aren't in touch with their emotions. Some understand them but deny them or reject them, or want to change. Some act according to a set of aesthetics not of their own making. There's always some distortion to take into account. 
If I am thinking of a specific incident , I look at people involved in the situation, what evidence points at, relevant precedents....think of it as playing detective. I don't mind not knowing or operating on likelihoods, theories or educated guesses. It's often the best you can do with people.

And this is kinda why I don't like them. They're exhausting, needy and often misleading and you can't always tell if it's on purpose. Getting pissed at that is like throwing a fit over the weather...

As for what topics interest me? Depends on the given time and what I've been exposed to. I have phases where I zero in on specific things, then new things take me by surprise and before I know it I'm in another phase... attention span of a ferret basically.


----------



## Denature (Nov 6, 2015)

Nell said:


> The person themselves. People often hate explaining why they do the things they do or why they feel a certain way. Some think you can't necessarily describe these things, I say you can at least try and the process uncovers collateral knowledge. Some people don't understand themselves, that's another thing to factor in. Some aren't in touch with their emotions. Some understand them but deny them or reject them, or want to change. Some act according to a set of aesthetics not of their own making. There's always some distortion to take into account.
> If I am thinking of a specific incident , I look at people involved in the situation, what evidence points at, relevant precedents....think of it as playing detective. I don't mind not knowing or operating on likelihoods, theories or educated guesses. It's often the best you can do with people.
> 
> And this is kinda why I don't like them. They're exhausting, needy and often misleading and you can't always tell if it's on purpose. Getting pissed at that is like throwing a fit over the weather...
> ...


Do you ask people to explain themselves with the belief that people don't like to?

Exactly, so you're forced to take the lonely life with this knowledge. Not saying this is bad, but it's the reality. Because like you said, people are exhausting.

What are you interested in at the moment?


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Denature said:


> Do you ask people to explain themselves with the belief that people don't like to?


Nah, I ask them while being mindful of that as a possibility.
There's a biiig difference. 




Denature said:


> Exactly, so you're forced to take the lonely life with this knowledge. Not saying this is bad, but it's the reality. Because like you said, people are exhausting.


There's loneliness and there's solitude. I think the "Better alone than in bad company" school of thought corresponds to the latter. 

It's a lost art by design, people who are afraid of being by themselves are more likely to do whatever it takes to attract a mate, which makes them impressionable buyers. Being devoid of self awareness or understanding of relationships coupled with sentimental garbage also makes for copious amounts of lavish weddings and divorces not to mention real estate and other purchases and sales. Yay North American corporatism. 



Denature said:


> What are you interested in at the moment?


Bird flight, aerodynamics, acrobatics, bird body language, physical expression, balancing appeal and realism. What is appeal? Rules of immersion in fictional works. Timing in animation, cinematography and storyboarding. Pixar. Professionalism and what it means. How to obtain drive and focus.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

contradictionary said:


> I was like you back then, denature. I stubbornly wanted just to be plain me and i wish women can see that value of me, as i were.
> 
> Turned out it's not the way things work. Like it or not we need to somewhat project the image of a suitable suitor. At the very least, mask some rough edges while a bit polishing here and there.
> 
> ...


When I was testing the waters of relationships I didn't do masking, neither physically with makeup or by trying to make myself seem like something I'm not. To me it seems like this projecting would just cause problems down the road because lies eventually catch up with you. Makeup eventually has to come off. People eventually see through you, especially when you're getting so personal with them. Just seems like a waste of time for everyone involved to go through the process of masking and unmasking, I don't understand why people work so hard to maintain these projections.


----------



## theshowgoeson (Jul 15, 2011)

crazitaco said:


> When I was testing the waters of relationships I didn't do masking, neither physically with makeup or by trying to make myself seem like something I'm not. To me it seems like this projecting would just cause problems down the road because lies eventually catch up with you. Makeup eventually has to come off. People eventually see through you, especially when you're getting so personal with them. Just seems like a waste of time for everyone involved to go through the process of masking and unmasking, I don't understand why people work so hard to maintain these projections.


Lol i like real people like you, I’m the same, especially as the years go by. That in itself is a nice trait, being real. But everyone has a seemingly “best foot forward” version of themself. That image is apart of you just like the subpar part. People just need to be realistic. Instagram promotes perfection... I don’t know how people get down on themselves from it. It’s a highlight reel. If post real pictures, only real, smaller amount of people like it. It doesn’t mean it’s not you though. I prefer a girl that can go without makeup sometimes to class for a more complete “image” and I can maybe dress down more in sweats... even though sweats are my norm now because I don’t care even though i like fashion, even high fashion. 
People that are let down by manipulation, or presentation, like you mention should know better by a certain age. You just met them, most people won’t show their belly until you’ve met them. It’s understandable. I see it as a privilege for someone to show all their cards eventually.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

theshowgoeson said:


> Lol i like real people like you, I’m the same, especially as the years go by. That in itself is a nice trait, being real. But everyone has a seemingly “best foot forward” version of themself. That image is apart of you just like the subpar part. People just need to be realistic. Instagram promotes perfection... I don’t know how people get down on themselves from it. It’s a highlight reel. If post real pictures, only real, smaller amount of people like it. It doesn’t mean it’s not you though. I prefer a girl that can go without makeup sometimes to class for a more complete “image” and I can maybe dress down more in sweats... even though sweats are my norm now because I don’t care even though i like fashion, even high fashion.
> People that are let down by manipulation, or presentation, like you mention should know better by a certain age. You just met them, most people won’t show their belly until you’ve met them. It’s understandable. I see it as a privilege for someone to show all their cards eventually.


True. I also do not understand why people need to 'project' any image. @crazitaco

Makeup is only analogue, rough edges could manifest in many forms. For example, being a rude uptight righteous bastard i have to frequently bite my own tongue in any early relationship, in any kind of courtship. 

If only world do not really pay attention to first impressions. h:

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Lion87 (Jul 15, 2018)

crazitaco said:


> When I was testing the waters of relationships I didn't do masking, neither physically with makeup or by trying to make myself seem like something I'm not. To me it seems like this projecting would just cause problems down the road because lies eventually catch up with you. Makeup eventually has to come off. People eventually see through you, especially when you're getting so personal with them. Just seems like a waste of time for everyone involved to go through the process of masking and unmasking, I don't understand why people work so hard to maintain these projections.


WE created a fabrication or mesh of thoughts and perspectives of what standards or better beauty can be when we should be looking beyond that.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

theshowgoeson said:


> Lol i like real people like you, I’m the same, especially as the years go by. That in itself is a nice trait, being real. But everyone has a seemingly “best foot forward” version of themself. That image is apart of you just like the subpar part. People just need to be realistic. Instagram promotes perfection... I don’t know how people get down on themselves from it. It’s a highlight reel. If post real pictures, only real, smaller amount of people like it. It doesn’t mean it’s not you though. I prefer a girl that can go without makeup sometimes to class for a more complete “image” and I can maybe dress down more in sweats... even though sweats are my norm now because I don’t care even though i like fashion, even high fashion.
> People that are let down by manipulation, or presentation, like you mention should know better by a certain age. You just met them, most people won’t show their belly until you’ve met them. It’s understandable. I see it as a privilege for someone to show all their cards eventually.


That's what I don't get about dating. Seems like it would just be faster to "show your belly" right from the getgo, that way you both basically know immediately if what you see is acceptable to you or not. Its not that you shouldn't show your strengths too, but you can't hide flaws, and everyone has them.


----------



## Negotiator (Mar 15, 2018)

crazitaco said:


> That's what I don't get about dating. Seems like it would just be faster to "show your belly" right from the getgo, that way you both basically know immediately if what you see is acceptable to you or not. Its not that you shouldn't show your strengths too, but you can't hide flaws, and everyone has them.


If you're on a date with _me_, I better hope you'd be making an effort. h:

Nah jk, but somehow style does say something about how well you can play the game of life. If you're in finance and wearing shoes from hushpuppies, I can only conclude you won't make it very far. That out-of-placeness would disturb me because in your world, you're a loser. If you're a tech guy wearing a hoodie that's fine as you can still fit in.

I wear make up for every new person I meet, regardless of gender, because it's normal and I want as many areas of compatibility as possible.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

You guys are so full of shit.... Show your belly from the get go? I've yet to meet someone who doesn't bolt when you do that. It's like pushing them into a lake instead of letting them ease into the water 

You would be uncomfortable doing it and you would not enjoy it if it was done to you.


----------



## theshowgoeson (Jul 15, 2011)

crazitaco said:


> That's what I don't get about dating. Seems like it would just be faster to "show your belly" right from the getgo, that way you both basically know immediately if what you see is acceptable to you or not. Its not that you shouldn't show your strengths too, but you can't hide flaws, and everyone has them.


Because that’s how you play the game in life, like @Negotiator said. You catch more flies with honey.
Same with job hunting. I’m not going to tell an employer I like being late sometimes, I’m going to stress my skill set and everything else because it’s off putting in making her decision. She’ll find out eventually, but at least i got the job that I know I’m capable of. When they do ask for your weakness... to be totally upfront... you have to give ones you can spin into a positive lmao.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Negotiator said:


> If you're on a date with _me_, I better hope you'd be making an effort. h:
> 
> Nah jk, but somehow style does say something about how well you can play the game of life. If you're in finance and wearing shoes from hushpuppies, I can only conclude you won't make it very far. That out-of-placeness would disturb me because in your world, you're a loser. If you're a tech guy wearing a hoodie that's fine as you can still fit in.
> 
> I wear make up for every new person I meet, regardless of gender, because it's normal and I want as many areas of compatibility as possible.


The challenge would be how much you can be you while not getting out-of-place, right. 

Are you for real.
Or you are all but projection. 

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Nell said:


> You guys are so full of shit.... Show your belly from the get go? I've yet to meet someone who doesn't bolt when you do that. It's like pushing them into a lake instead of letting them ease into the water
> 
> You would be uncomfortable doing it and you would not enjoy it if it was done to you.


No need to be rude. I'm writing from the perspective of someone who does not play the game or understand the game. I'm trying to understand the game, and for that to happen I need to see why the rules are the way they are in the first place.

In my limited experience dating I showed my belly because he showed his first. He was upfront before we were even dating that he had been cheated on and had some trust and self-esteem issues. I started dating him because I liked his honesty and that he wasn't afraid to be emotionally vulnerable with me even early on. I was also upfront early on about being asexual, and he didn't break up with me over it. This never made me uncomfortable, and I don't have any reason to believe that it made him uncomfortable either, it's not like I forced him or anything. He opened up entirely on his own so I reciprocated.




Negotiator said:


> If you're on a date with _me_, I better hope you'd be making an effort. h:


Make an effort to do what, exactly?



> Nah jk, but somehow style does say something about how well you can play the game of life. If you're in finance and wearing shoes from hushpuppies, I can only conclude you won't make it very far. That out-of-placeness would disturb me because in your world, you're a loser. If you're a tech guy wearing a hoodie that's fine as you can still fit in.


Why is someone a loser to you just because of their shoes? They could theoretically be perfect for you in every other way besides footwear, but you'd never know that because you didn't try to judge them as a whole.



theshowgoeson said:


> Because that’s how you play the game in life, like @*Negotiator* said. You catch more flies with honey.
> Same with job hunting. I’m not going to tell an employer I like being late sometimes, I’m going to stress my skill set and everything else because it’s off putting in making her decision. She’ll find out eventually, but at least i got the job that I know I’m capable of. When they do ask for your weakness... to be totally upfront... you have to give ones you can spin into a positive lmao.


I find it rather depressing that romantic relationships, considered to be the most emotionally intimate of relationships, is being compared to the relationship between a boss and their employee. Especially because a lot of people hate their boss.

And of course you're assuming that your weaknesses aren't a major dealbreaker and you won't be fired in a week. And then you're right back where you started, now with a history of being fired.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

crazitaco said:


> No need to be rude. I'm writing from the perspective of someone who does not play the game or understand the game. I'm trying to understand the game, and for that to happen I need to see why the rules are the way they are in the first place.


Personally, I'm someone who's had to learn to "play the game" (sales jobs, getting hit on all the time, having idealistic romantic notions about stuff I'd like to see come to fruition) - and so I appreciate that trait in other people because they're more likely to be someone I get along with. I'm suspicious of manipulation - even if it's not a deal breaker. or even respected played right - and to me there's a show and don't tell aspect to this all. Even if that show is still manipulative, at least it's manipulative in a way that makes sense to me, or that demonstrates a possible desire for similar things (it can be more self aware than people who don't even realize that they're ultimately being dishonest or manipulative too). 

I want to meet a mind mate. Someone who gets that games can just be a part of life at times. But not someone who thinks it's all of life.

So it's still a gamble, but everything is. That guy with his heart on his sleeve could be exploiting you too (or possibly just full of it (or inexperienced) without even realizing he is).


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

crazitaco said:


> No need to be rude. I'm writing from the perspective of someone who does not play the game or understand the game. I'm trying to understand the game, and for that to happen I need to see why the rules are the way they are in the first place.
> 
> In my limited experience dating I showed my belly because he showed his first. He was upfront before we were even dating that he had been cheated on and had some trust and self-esteem issues. I started dating him because I liked his honesty and that he wasn't afraid to be emotionally vulnerable with me even early on. I was also upfront early on about being asexual, and he didn't break up with me over it. This never made me uncomfortable, and I don't have any reason to believe that it made him uncomfortable either, it's not like I forced him or anything. He opened up entirely on his own so I reciprocated.


I don't play it either, but it's not hard to understand and I am pretty positive you do understand it, you just wish you didn't. Kinda like I do. 

Basically you need a foot in the door to begin feeding data to a potential suitor, and that's what the first impression does. Your rolled-out-of-bed look and neuroses aren't more representative of you than your perfectly manicured self and your accomplishments They're all facets of the same thing, but if you initiate with the former, most people will avoid before they get the full picture. 

Plus there's the side of the person initiating.... it's really scary to open up from the start to someone you aren't fully familiar with, or to walk around with your guts hanging. So the appearances thing is just as much self protection as it is positive advertisement. 




crazitaco said:


> Make an effort to do what, exactly?


Push the reply button on PerC, have INTP above their name and maybe remember to shower....
Oh yeah, and having lotion handy after hitting "Play" on the webcam.


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Nell said:


> Push the reply button on PerC and maybe remember to shower....


Why you so mean lately?


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Why you so mean lately?


I don't understand why people keep posturing so transparently lately. It's way more transparent than it ever has been, either that or my brain is mutating something fierce from overworking


----------



## Veggie (May 22, 2011)

Nell said:


> I don't understand why people keep posturing so transparently lately. It's way more transparent than it ever has been, either that or my brain is mutating something fierce from overworking


Idk, I can't preach bc I've been there too. Usually it's when I wonder why I'm even here (what in the f*ck am I associating myself with). But I'm here because people tend to be more intelligent, unique and funny than many that I meet. At least as an overall whole.

I did used to make a drinking game out of the posturing on S&R tho.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Veggie said:


> Idk, I can't preach bc I've been there too. Usually it's when I wonder why I'm even here (what in the f*ck am I associating myself with). But I'm here because people tend to be more intelligent, unique and funny than many that I meet. At least as an overall whole.
> 
> I did used to make a drinking game out of the posturing on S&R tho.


The fact you still have a liver is miraculous.


----------



## crazitaco (Apr 9, 2010)

Nell said:


> I don't play it either, but it's not hard to understand and I am pretty positive you do understand it, you just wish you didn't. Kinda like I do.
> 
> Basically you need a foot in the door to begin feeding data to a potential suitor, and that's what the first impression does. Your rolled-out-of-bed look and neuroses aren't more representative of you than your perfectly manicured self and your accomplishments They're all facets of the same thing, but if you initiate with the former, most people will avoid before they get the full picture.
> 
> ...


I don't know why you're being so nasty to me for no reason, but take a break from work if its that's bad.

And I don't have a rolled out of bed look, you've never seen or met me in person.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

crazitaco said:


> I don't know why you're being so nasty to me for no reason, but take a break from work if its that's bad.
> 
> And I don't have a rolled out of bed look, you've never seen or met me in person.


Nooo I don't mean yours specifically. I meant anyone's. 

One facet isn't representative of the whole person, so no matter what you introduce yourself with, be it your good sides or bad sides the picture you get from a first impression is never going to be complete So why not show an amenable presentation to start the conversation?

That's the basic rationale for any introduction in human relationships, creative works, advertisement, news articles, any kind of information media.... It's pretty much universal for anything that requires another human being's attention: Give the person a reason to care long enough for you to paint a complete picture.


----------



## Ttalkkugjil (Feb 1, 2017)

Most men are straight and hence they ask girls out.


----------



## Izo - neXus (Jan 19, 2014)

jetser said:


> I can see why this was once a tradition but nowadays it seems like a cliché


I am totally the "asking a guy out" type but it would be easier if they would not feel insulted because of the gesture [I had this] or insulted when I want to split the bill at the restaurant. There are two sides to every story. I personally don't know how to behave in a way that won't insult his "masculinity", I'm kind of straight-forward and they get judgmental [thinking that I'm "easy"]. On the other hand, many guys told me they enjoy the "hunt" so I see no problem with that. People are confusing


----------



## Aarya (Mar 29, 2016)

Because when both parties fail to initiate it, better be someone who feels like they must do it in order to make it reality. Also it initiates a circle of giving-taking. In my opinion it would depend on what partner is more dominant or certain of their actions, and I honestly prefer my boyfriend to be certain of his decisions not ask things simply out of politeness and then if I accept, get something of an 'oh I didn't really mean it' attitude. You say something? MEAN IT. I hate promises that go unkept, and you don't need to impress me like that; better remain silent than fake it, at least then you are respectful of the other's emotions.

I was the one for example to notice we get along and invited him to some small events with friends and asked him out, opened discussions about things we both like; invited him at mine and proposed a relationship. He reacted very well to these and was happy so I felt good about it; but the reason I did it is, he was my 'captain' at a certain sport that I just started to attend with 2 of my friends. I was getting extra tips, help and equipment to do my thing from him from the beginning which was cute; He did not notice that when I was asking him something he completely ignored everyone else who waned to even approach him or told them to wait. I watched amused over his shoulder once how another old club member had something important to tell him, was right next to his ear but he was totally deaf in his explanation streak to me and didn't even break eye contact. Told him later about these and he was surprised he did them ))
Even now, 2 month after, he is really attentive and protective; if I told him something he'd immediately shift focus. 

Would you rather it went like:
'I'm a male I'm not supposed to do this f it'
'I'm a female I'm not supposed to do it either f it'


----------



## Negotiator (Mar 15, 2018)

@crazitaco It isn't a 'must' for everyone but I gave an example for when it might say something about your ability to blend in. Being able to adapt to your environment says a lot about you. 
Same could be said about trying too hard though... 

If you're not in that kinda world though, looks shouldn't matter as much. Still, _effort_ to enhance your strong points in any way will be appreciated. Effort = sexy. Doesn't mean you can't have weaknesses, but they will be OK _in light of_ other things.

@Nell Nah, what you said about me that isn't how it is.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Negotiator said:


> @crazitaco It isn't a 'must' for everyone but I gave an example for when it might say something about your ability to blend in. Being able to adapt to your environment says a lot about you.
> Same could be said about trying too hard though...
> 
> If you're not in that kinda world though, looks shouldn't matter as much. Still, _effort_ to enhance your strong points in any way will be appreciated. Effort = sexy. Doesn't mean you can't have weaknesses, but they will be OK _in light of_ other things.
> ...


Gotta admit that TJ people is rather too conscious to have everything 'proper' though h:

_Sent sans PC_


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

Why do you all assume this is tradition rather than an actual human behaviour? Most species do this, so how is it any different for people?

If you think women have better communication skills, then isn't that exactly why a man should do the initiating? I don't simply asking someone out, but buying the drink, taking her out to a place, something like that. With men actions speak louder than words, and asking someone out is more of an action, the way I see it. The communication part is actually building the relationship. But women aren't always the better communicators. I sure haven't been on dates I've been on.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

This question only makes sense for the lazy male. It would be much easier for the lazy male if the females would approach him. But the hardworking male would have no time for unwanted females. Lazy males are not attractive enough to expect female initiation and hardworking males have no time for females. Therefore, there is a stigma against females, especially by hardworking males who have no time for them.


----------



## Izo - neXus (Jan 19, 2014)

Izo - neXus said:


> I am totally the "asking a guy out" type but it would be easier if they would not feel insulted because of the gesture [I had this] or insulted when I want to split the bill at the restaurant. There are two sides to every story. I personally don't know how to behave in a way that won't insult his "masculinity"


On another hand, I honestly like guys all worked out and setting a goal like "I'm gonna get this woman" and If they succeed they get confident and lond of ... happy about it, so I would not take that away from them. No matter how shy a guy is, if he really wants to ask you out he will otherwise there are so many guys out there and he would not risk losing the opportunity [my experience]. If they don't really care that much, they are OK with anything. So, to sum up I am perfectly capable to ask someone out and I would if I really like them but I prefer them to take the initiative. So, it's not expected but if you care enough, you will ask the girl out, seriously [at that point your ego will become less important that winning her "heart" or anything poetic that kids use nowadays while dating]


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

If you are complaining because you do not generally get asked out? Well I would suggest you just accept it, and if you ever want a date succumb to the fact you may have to ask others out.

As far as the whole social dynamic thing: Pretty sure anything goes in this regard. Women can and do sometimes ask men out. However many people are still hard wired in their respective comfort zones. So do not hold your breath on it.


----------



## shazam (Oct 18, 2015)

it's just done differently depends really


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't expect anything from anyone these days. How the hell should I care whether or not a guy's expected to ask a woman out. And if they have beef with it, I can understand the frustrations, but in this day and age, that rule seems a little outdated. 

I thought people just hung out together. Kept it casual, and then should anything serious come about it, then two people work out a nice romantic dinner date or keep it as a surprise. This formality crap is from the 1950s. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's N/A. Not applicable for today.

And, just because someone's polite and formal, and asks a woman out like a gentleman, doesn't mean their intentions align together. The dude may just want to bed the chick, and it's up to the girl if she's okay with that, not unless she wants something more meaningful, so the formality again here is _null and void._


----------



## Highway Nights (Nov 26, 2014)

Honestly it sounds like a lot of guys on here are just waiting passively and expecting a relationship to just drop into their laps



strawberryLola said:


> I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't expect anything from anyone these days. How the hell should I care whether or not a guy's expected to ask a woman out. And if they have beef with it, I can understand the frustrations, but in this day and age, that rule seems a little outdated.
> 
> I thought people just hung out together. Kept it casual, and then should anything serious come about it, then two people work out a nice romantic dinner date or keep it as a surprise. This formality crap is from the 1950s. Not that it's a bad thing, but it's N/A. Not applicable for today.
> 
> And, just because someone's polite and formal, and asks a woman out like a gentleman, doesn't mean their intentions align together. The dude may just want to bed the chick, and it's up to the girl if she's okay with that, not unless she wants something more meaningful, so the formality again here is _null and void._


Yeah, I've never even really seen the whole "formal dating rules thing," as particularly common, so I don't think OPs experiences are universal.

The people who play "the game," with this stuff have always seemed to overlap pretty well with "person who ends up having issues," anyway,, so I'm not sure what's being complained about here.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

Rebelgoatalliance said:


> Honestly it sounds like a lot of guys on here are just waiting passively and expecting a relationship to just drop into their laps
> 
> 
> Yeah, I've never even really seen the whole "formal dating rules thing," as particularly common, so I don't think OPs experiences are universal.
> ...


Exactly. I remember when I was into the scene, one of the books people raved about was "The Rules."

Fuck that. Who are you to tell me how to act how to act. And not only that, these "rules" are so manipulative.

Keep it care-free and go-with-the-flow. When people keep it natural, they don't have to worry about these contrived issues. K.I.S.S.


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

Hello @Nell, don't reply to me if you don't feel like. This is a bit of an off-topic discussion, so I want to keep it short. But I want to point out a few things.



> I'd argue this polarization of common human nature traits as good or evil is just a manipulative gambit in and of itself. If you accept manipulation as inevitable and natural whether conscious or unconscious instead of getting caught up in the cartoony good/evil horseshit the worst outcome you can get is being pleasantly surprised by others when they don't resort to manipulation.


First of all, this is an extremely arbitrary statement. You’re implicitly (later on explicitly) suggesting the concept of good and evil has to follow a polarized dichotomy, whereas a system of polars doesn't have to follow a two-value logic, in this case: something is either good or bad. However, everyday morality doesn’t follow a two-value logic: there are varying degrees of morality. 

For example, in such a system it is possible to say that holocaust is worse than a teenager stealing a wallet to buy himself (or herself) some drugs. In your reply you kind of consider just an absolute dichotomy, so they would be equally "BAD", as something is either absolutely bad or absolutely good. In other words, yours is a strawman.

Mind that, if you were not implying this (and you do: see the quote below where the good/bad polarity is opposed to a generic "nuanced judgement"), then your entire point would have very little relevance, if any at all. 



> You're not getting it. Your qualities are influenced by those variables, but there's too many wildcard ones for it to be a deterministic approach. It lets you see what factors resulted in a decision so you get a far more nuanced judgment than just "GOOD/EVUL". You're appraising humans, not fucking cartoons.
> 
> Your approach personalizes and polarizes shit needlessly, the natural outcome of that is just seething and chastising people for arbitrary bullshit, and getting frustrated because they are themselves and not some sentimental fucking mannequin of virtue you've been taught to want.


While I sympathize and agree with your overall message to some degree, your language still accuses people of reducing their (otherwise?) rich nature to simple patterns. But then your criticism fails to show a much greater complexity and still resorts to a naive dichotomy akin to the one you just criticized. 

For example. In a passage (quoted below) you claim average morality (and traditions such as religion) are bound to very simple and straightforward mechanics. However, your judgements violate the very spirit of your previous statements: they "personalize and poralize shit needlessly", to the point that they might "chastise people" for "bullshit". Perhaps your own heuristic approach is not much more open-minded?



> People are collections of variables, interacting with external variables and each other's. Good/bad is a heuristic device that pretty much strips life of nuance and makes people miserable and repressed for the most part. .





> Objective morality doesn't exist. Doesn't mean people don't subscribe to a culturally indoctrinated morality to coexist within a society.


Interestingly, you utilize a deterministic, third-person perspective when you refer to many ‘personality variables’ (ungh, that word is so bad to describe humans' world) but then you switch perspective when you speak of morality as if you’re implying we have a good degree of agency over morality, more than most 'personality variables'. Except that morality in your system should reasonably fall inside that 'personality variables' bracket upon which we have very little, if any control, because as you said above "there's too many wildcards". But not when it comes to what you dislike. Then you can formulate straightforward judgements and know their mechanics to the fullest.



> Polarizing basic shit as good or evil is ironically a means to control through shame, and it's why organized religion is as prominent as it is and why there were so many goddamn taboos about sex that we're still dealing with.


This is a blatant example. What you’re doing here is analyzing the elements which you criticized in a very small dimension, removing a lot of diverse and deep elements that religion and moral values do bring to the table. For the sake of clarification: I am not denying that what you say might also be true (ie. that religion also serves to control people, among many other things), just that is a very simplistic and inaccurate view of what you're describing.



> Your emotions and urges are biochemical and electrical impulses, knowing this doesn't make them any less compelling or strip the magic out of them. Nothing changes by deconstructing things.


There are several experiments that prove otherwise. Stripping people of their sense of agency and self-determination alters their conduct, for example makes them more likely to cheat and steal, for example.
Furthermore, in most of contemporary theory of mind a lot of people disagree about the identity between emotions and brain parts. In a world where X causes Y, in no way it proves that X=Y. 



> It's easy to accept manipulation when you stop thinking of it as this morally charged taboo boogeyman . Your inhibitions are a handicap and the result of using heuristic narratives and archetypal bullshit as crutches to try and reduce human behaviour to simple patterns.


It is inevitable to question the heuristic device you presented as a possible alternative to traditional viewpoints and see if it actually manages to deliver the values which you yourself posed (capacity to go beyond a simple pattern of explanations). I frankly don't think your system delivers the depth you promise.

Also, as a final note. You have seemingly placed a strong correlation between openness to experience and freedom. If I am overall correct, and you are right on this correlation between openness and freedom, then your attitude isn't only close to new experiences, but you are much less free and self-aware than you think to be.

Good provocative posts though, reminds me of 90s/teenagers' existential angst and all their triggering might.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

^ You wanted to keep it short, you say?


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

Nell said:


> ^ You wanted to keep it short, you say?


Oh, well, I specified I wanted to keep short the discussion (not my speech hehe), but I’ll break a lance in your favor: I see the irony in decrying contrasting attitudes while indulging in them myself.


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

Silastar said:


> Oh, well, I specified I wanted to keep short the discussion (not my speech hehe), but I’ll break a lance in your favor: I see the irony in decrying contrasting attitudes while indulging in them myself.


If you really wanted to do me a favour you'd break your keyboard.... 



Silastar said:


> Hello @*Nell*, don't reply to me if you don't feel like. This is a bit of an off-topic discussion, so I want to keep it short. But I want to point out a few things.


First and last time. I gave you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you, but it mostly seems like you just wanted to take the piss.



Silastar said:


> First of all, this is an extremely arbitrary statement. You’re implicitly (later on explicitly) suggesting the concept of good and evil has to follow a polarized dichotomy, whereas a system of polars doesn't have to follow a two-value logic, in this case: something is either good or bad. However, everyday morality doesn’t follow a two-value logic: there are varying degrees of morality.
> 
> For example, in such a system it is possible to say that holocaust is worse than a teenager stealing a wallet to buy himself (or herself) some drugs. In your reply you kind of consider just an absolute dichotomy, so they would be equally "BAD", as something is either absolutely bad or absolutely good. In other words, yours is a strawman.
> 
> Mind that, if you were not implying this (and you do: see the quote below where the good/bad polarity is opposed to a generic "nuanced judgement"), then your entire point would have very little relevance, if any at all.


Using it as the OP used it. Maybe point your logorrhea in his direction? 
Doesn't matter that there's a morality spectrum, the effect I mentioned is the same. Framing decision-making in moralistic terms creates emotional baggage that ultimately hinders proper analysis. It's unnecessary. 




Silastar said:


> While I sympathize and agree with your overall message to some degree, your language still accuses people of reducing their (otherwise?) rich nature to simple patterns. But then your criticism fails to show a much greater complexity and still resorts to a naive dichotomy akin to the one you just criticized.
> 
> For example. In a passage (quoted below) you claim average morality (and traditions such as religion) are bound to very simple and straightforward mechanics. However, your judgements violate the very spirit of your previous statements: they "personalize and poralize shit needlessly", to the point that they might "chastise people" for "bullshit". Perhaps your own heuristic approach is not much more open-minded?


Really long and pretentious way to say "I take issue with your tone and language". 
Get in line. Also stop with the stupid platitudes before aiming your word vomit at me. I don't buy it, you don't mean it. Why bother? 



Silastar said:


> Interestingly, you utilize a deterministic, third-person perspective when you refer to many ‘personality variables’ (ungh, that word is so bad to describe humans' world) but then you switch perspective when you speak of morality as if you’re implying we have a good degree of agency over morality, more than most 'personality variables'. Except that morality in your system should reasonably fall inside that 'personality variables' bracket upon which we have very little, if any control, because as you said above "there's too many wildcards". But not when it comes to what you dislike. Then you can formulate straightforward judgements and know their mechanics to the fullest.


It's not just personality. It's upbringing, it's genetics, culture, education, diet, etc. Then there are also external/situational variables to consider. Also other people and their own sets. You could at any given point in time take a snapshot of a scenario and map internal and external variables at play with one another and how they lead to specific outcomes.

The fact you think it's just personality shows you're not understanding what you're replying to. 

The variables don't control your behaviour, they comprise/influence it. Subtle but significant difference. Hence the metaphor involving the steering wheel. Tug of war with more than two sides to the rope could work too



Silastar said:


> This is a blatant example. What you’re doing here is analyzing the elements which you criticized in a very small dimension, removing a lot of diverse and deep elements that religion and moral values do bring to the table. For the sake of clarification: I am not denying that what you say might also be true (ie. that religion also serves to control people, among many other things), just that is a very simplistic and inaccurate view of what you're describing.


...pretentious way of saying "You're not acknowledging the good things about religion" 

Yeah, I'm not. Because it's got nothing to do with the discussion. 
Also because they are a flash in the pan next to the negative. It's like prefacing a critique on Chairman Mao with an enthusiastic round of compliments on his hairstyle. 



Silastar said:


> There are several experiments that prove otherwise. Stripping people of their sense of agency and self-determination alters their conduct, for example makes them more likely to cheat and steal, for example.
> Furthermore, in most of contemporary theory of mind a lot of people disagree about the identity between emotions and brain parts. In a world where X causes Y, in no way it proves that X=Y.


The idea that describing how someone's emotions work on a material level strips someone of agency simply doesn't make sense to me. It's a conclusion you came to on your own. To me it sounds like saying you don't feel hunger anymore/digest properly after going through lectures on the digestive system....



Silastar said:


> It is inevitable to question the heuristic device you presented as a possible alternative to traditional viewpoints and see if it actually manages to deliver the values which you yourself posed (capacity to go beyond a simple pattern of explanations). I frankly don't think your system delivers the depth you promise.


Your face is a heuristic device. 




Silastar said:


> Also, as a final note. You have seemingly placed a strong correlation between openness to experience and freedom. If I am overall correct, and you are right on this correlation between openness and freedom, then your attitude isn't only close to new experiences, but you are much less free and self-aware than you think to be.



Your uninformed opinions are duly noted



Silastar said:


> Good provocative posts though, reminds me of 90s/teenagers' existential angst and all their triggering might.


Why couldn't you have saved me the pain of going through the pretentious shitshow above and just said this? It's clearly all you actually had to say.

Oh right, precisely because of umbrage.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

Nell said:


> I don't play it either, but it's not hard to understand and I am pretty positive you do understand it, you just wish you didn't. Kinda like I do.
> 
> Basically you need a foot in the door to begin feeding data to a potential suitor, and that's what the first impression does. Your rolled-out-of-bed look and neuroses aren't more representative of you than your perfectly manicured self and your accomplishments They're all facets of the same thing, but if you initiate with the former, most people will avoid before they get the full picture.
> 
> ...


Compared to me, who, deliberately gives no fucks then lets people pass the "test" by expecting them to look beyond the surface level BS and think a bit more out of the box (or they can be disqualified, as this is actually a trait I look for). People who play the game don't always need to play by others' rules to be met with success. I pretty up for my partners instead.

I also prefer people to be themselves upon initiation. I never trust first impressions anyways, as those are often misleading.

And I basically can / have walked around with "my guts hanging out" very comfortably.

Those things are not representative of a person? It's more about having the other person accept you as you are, flaws and all. That seems much more authentic to me. It eliminates some insecurity and fear for me, because I know if I'm accepted in a state that is less than my best, then I don't have to worry about revealing or exposing myself as much later. Go without judging me at my worst, then you can be rewarded with my best.

It also helps me to see through peoples' motives more easily, and be approached less. I am someone who is constantly approached despite neglecting myself just to dodge attention, but I have dealt with a lot of manipulative fakers who just want to get in my pants. If I don't put my best foot forward, I kind of eliminate at least some of the shallow fuckers.


----------



## Aqualung (Nov 21, 2009)

I'm INFP, went on my first date at 22 after she initiated it. My brother is ESTJ & was dating before he could drive. Many times in school & later friends would tell me a girl wanted to go out with me & I wanted to also but I didn't have the nerve to ask. That finally changed in my mid 20s.


----------



## Lunacik (Apr 19, 2014)

They're not...and I personally prefer to do the chasing, I trust those who chase me less. The last time I chased a guy he rejected me once, but now we are together.

I'm sorry but the original post...a lot of those just really aren't facts...


----------



## Wisteria (Apr 2, 2015)

You know if you're asking this because you're a guy who doesn't like making the first move, why don't you use Bumble or something?


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

@Nell


> Doesn't matter that there's a morality spectrum, the effect I mentioned is the same. Framing decision-making in moralistic terms creates emotional baggage that ultimately hinders proper analysis. It's unnecessary.


Well... it depends.
Decision-making often involves morality to some degree; sometimes it is appropriate to use moral terms to define what is going on, other times it isn’t. As for the idea that a “proper analysis” of one’s psyche, also, should somehow involve detaching from [your] emotional baggage, well, I find this idea fanciful. In the end the structure of experience can’t be fully detached from its emotions, otherwise you’re, by definition, betraying the inherent structure of your field of study, as you understand mental states first and foremost from your own experience and without it, you wouldn't understand what are their necessary properties.

Furthermore, bias is found everywhere, not only in emotions. The idea someone should be able to detach herself or himself from her/his emotions and conduct a ‘proper analysis’, as if to find an "objective nature" without considering our emotions is wishful thinking.



> Really long and pretentious way to say "I take issue with your tone and language".


It’s not the language alone that I take issue with, but the contraddictions it mantains underneath. I’m going to paraphrase a little, removing some precision for the sake of clarification (because my first formulation wasn't understood):

You claim that morality and religion are bad because they use dichotomical or strict, close-minded categories to formulate judgements which dampen what are humans’s rich ‘variables’, yet at the same time you resort to strict and severe categories to decree that such a view is bad, which should reasonably also dampen humans’ rich variables, by what you’ve presented so far. 

It’s not that I am telling you “you should not criticize this thing” or that "I don't like your tone" (which is also true), but that the foundation for your disagreement is later denied by your own criticism. Take the following quote.



> It's not just personality. It's upbringing, it's genetics, culture, education, diet, etc. Then there are also external/situational variables to consider. Also other people and their own sets. You could at any given point in time take a snapshot of a scenario and map internal and external variables at play with one another and how they lead to specific outcomes.
> 
> The fact you think it's just personality shows you're not understanding what you're replying to.


I think you're being too defensive here. There's so much to say about this. 
Anyway, I'll start by saying that the _underlined_ part is a strawman; I never claimed it is "just personality", I merely used the only referent to the variables you offered in your post so far, which is personality (also I referred to 'variable' as a bad term to describe an individual's traits, not the term personality, although I concede my phrasing was ambiguous). 
You can add more variables to people's behavior. The more variables we place the merrier, but their number is completely irrelevant to my point, which isn’t about the amount of variables that contribute to human’s behaviour but rather that you bring up this huge amount of variables mostly when it suits you, just to remove this complexity, again, when it suits you. 
As an obvious example, see this reply, when you vouch for how I haven’t possibly grasped the complexity and quantity of human-defining variables, but then make it clear that it _has _to be my fault (no other variables at play here, huh), and that of course it also _has _to mean I haven’t grasped how profound the topic is (still no other possible solution here, huh), _maybe _subtly implying that discussing with people (such as me) that don’t have this depth wouldn’t go anywhere, so you can rightfully leave the discussion mantaining a sense of superiority (speaking of defensive manouvers huh).



> The variables don't control your behaviour, they comprise/influence it. Subtle but significant difference. Hence the metaphor involving the steering wheel. Tug of war with more than two sides to the rope could work too


That’s, like, huh, your opinion. There are many conlicting theories about behavior, human nature and its formation. I don’t think you have elevated yourself above all these debates and found a solution to all these problems yourself and even if you did, you’d definitely understand my skepticism. 



> ...pretentious way of saying *"**You're not acknowledging the good things about religion" *
> 
> Yeah, I'm not. Because it's got nothing to do with the discussion.


No, that's not my point. But I like the nature of the misunderstanding because it's exactly what I accused you of: you claim to rely on complexity and richness, but ultimately your reasoning is callow and, when confronted with a more structured point, you don't even understand the point which is formulated. At best, you have to oversimplify the opponent's argument, then attack this oversimplified version.



> The idea that describing how someone's emotions work on a material level strips someone of agency simply doesn't make sense to me. It's a conclusion you came to on your own. To me it sounds like saying you don't feel hunger anymore/digest properly after going through lectures on the digestive system....


Well. I wasn't referring to describing how emotions work on a material level, but rather the view you gave, that "emotions are biochemical and electrical impulses" (your words). This is a materialistic and deterministic view where the mental states such as emotions are identified with brain states or similar material causes. Such a view, almost inevitably*, buys a world which denies free will. As a consequence...

-- Rigoni et al. (2011): Inducing disbelief in free will alters brain correlates of preconscious motor preparation: the brain minds whether we believe in free will or not.
What does that mean? They made an electroencephalography experiment showing that inducing disbelief in free will changes the neural processes underlying voluntary action. "Our findings indicate that abstract belief systems might have a much more fundamental effect than previously thought."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21515737


-- Vohs and Schooler (2008): participants who were primed with disbelief in free will cheated more often than a group of control participants.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18181791: "Two experiments examined whether inducing participants to believe that human behavior is predetermined would encourage cheating." (spoiler: it does)

-- Baumeister, (2008): in general, believing in free will increases one’s motivation and willingness to make efforts (and self-control).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2008.00057.x

-- Baumeister, R. F., Masicampo, E. J., and DeWall, C. N. (2009). Prosocial benefits of feeling free: disbelief in free will increases aggression and reduces helpfulness. 
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19141628: "Three studies tested the hypothesis that disbelief in free will would be linked with decreased helping and increased aggression ... Although the findings do not speak to the existence of free will, the current results suggest that disbelief in free will reduces helping and increases aggression."

*While you try to save agency (post #146), you really don't; the steering wheel example works even better in a deterministic setting without free will... with motivation (your word) being just an integrable part in said system (->for example, it can be identified in what you defined an urge or something similar, which you presented as an inherently materialistic phenomenon in the previous post). If you believe that certain mental states (emotions, urges) are identified with materialistic elements, it's nearly impossible for you to get out _unless_ you don't abritrarily ascribe a special ontological value to other mental states out of the blue. 



> Why couldn't you have saved me the pain of going through the pretentious shitshow above and just said this? It's clearly all you actually had to say.
> 
> Oh right, precisely because of umbrage.


I mean, Nell, your posts contain provocations and yet you blame people for being provoked, as if that implies they are being uncovered somehow. In all of this, you seem highly judgemental, if not slightly moralistic. Considering I disagree not only with the tone of your post, but also with its content, I took the freedom to adress both. 

Also, you keep speaking about objectivity and tossing emotions aside, but from the looks of it you are emotionally invested in these conversations and kind of enjoy that feeling of being involved. So perhaps we could both act in a more mature way.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Silastar said:


> First of all, this is an extremely arbitrary statement. You’re implicitly (later on explicitly) suggesting the concept of good and evil has to follow a polarized dichotomy, whereas a system of polars doesn't have to follow a two-value logic, in this case: something is either good or bad. However, everyday morality doesn’t follow a two-value logic: there are varying degrees of morality.
> 
> For example, in such a system it is possible to say that holocaust is worse than a teenager stealing a wallet to buy himself (or herself) some drugs. In your reply you kind of consider just an absolute dichotomy, so they would be equally "BAD", as something is either absolutely bad or absolutely good. In other words, yours is a strawman.


I think this is a strawman argument, at least not a very good one, because I don't think she implied that in any post, and this was neither even implied in context, ie 'manipulation is *equally* as evil as holocaust'. It was the categorical rejection of manipulative behavior as *all* bad. 

Just like there are levels of nuance, there are levels of dichotomous thinking. Dichotomous Thinking and Categorical/Imperative or Categorical Thinking is also referred to as Absolutist Thinking.

Dichotomous thinking is typically observed in young children, who can only focus on one conceptual perspective at a time. But it's also observed to increase in adults capable of complex thinking, under stress (Fight flight response, low time/energy consuming, certainty over ambiguity, etc). It's also related to cognitive distortion, perfectionism, bias, dysrationalia etc. 

https://aeon.co/ideas/the-danger-of-absolute-thinking-is-absolutely-clear
@Nell responded to @Denature 's categorical rejection of manipulation, as (all, always) evil, sinful, bad, wrong, or 'necessarily indicate lack of love', whatever. Maybe he doesn't see Veggie's example of benevolent manipulation of a loved one as "equally' bad as his examples of manipulation (I don't know), but it was apparently still something (self) culpable and sinful. 

So that's the problem with your example, because you give examples of three 'evils', or sins. 

It would, for example, already add complexity and ambiguity, if it were 'stealing money to buy medicine'. (Like the Proverbial stealing of bread) And this may depend on whether one sees addiction categorically as personal moral failing, or a disease and in case of opiod addiction, as an epidemic with a complexity of causality or 'wrongs', if you will, involved. 

It's not just this categorical rejection of manipulation as evil, it was also the presumption and self-presentation not to manipulate oneself, and for no apparent reason, as someone who knows oneself. The man doth protest much!

But that's what categorical thinking also does, it may skew self perception because even the slightest notion of inner contradiction, or publicly admitting to it may feel detrimental to ones virtuous self concept/image, not able to oversee its ramifications and so, intolerant to the ambiguity it causes, doubling down. 

You might say in this case it's in the nature of the mind to manipulate, even if it is unconsciously. This is something @Nell also pointed out. An example of brain chemistry involved would be the chemicals involved when we are in love and how this may skew our perception of the loved one, or what we feel, but the evolutional benefit appears to be to insure a mating couple to stick together, and to warrant safety and security at least until the critical stage of brain development in the first year of the infant.

It's not just human nature, for instance animals playing dead or freeze, or biological mimesis, when a non poisonous snake has evolved to mimick a poisonous snake. It's also a common self preservation trait to be inconspicious, not to attract attention to perceived vulnerabilities. 

And how making yourself look good for a significant event, to present yourself in your 'sunday best' rather than casual, would necessarily be manipulative, and not for instance an expression of reverence and sacredness, is another example of this categorical thought, and perhaps the hypocrisy it may involve.


----------



## SirCanSir (Mar 21, 2018)

After seeing the OP i have one question to ask. What do you mean by first move? A straight out asking or making the girl like you? Personally i dont really care if im interested in a girl to make the first move or wait for her to show signs first. You can just wait for her to show she is interested before you go all in from the first time you meet her, because doing so will either give her full control of the situation (rejecting,accepting,judging you) or you are going to overwhelm her enough to kill the mood (lets be honest , if you cant present yourself in a way that she is going to see you as hot from the moment you talk, then going all in is going to be a disaster). 

So my take is to try to find a way to become interesting first and who makes the move can be decided later. Personally i dont like giving them too much control by randomly appearing and worshipping them by treating them drinks or playing their game as im expected to do. Why make them be the only judges of this game. If you are interesting enough to get a chance, then show them that they ve also got a chance to be with you and you are not the only one trying. 

Instead of mindlessly trying to make moves to get a "yes" answer make yourself the center of interest and then you might manage to get asked out first before you do the asking.


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

mimesis said:


> I think this is a strawman argument, at least not a very good one, because I don't think she implied that in any post, and this was neither even implied in context, ie 'manipulation is *equally* as evil as holocaust'. It was the categorical rejection of manipulative behavior as *all* bad.


It's a good point. However, Nell already recognized this (if I recall correctly?) and moved away from the holocaust example when she accepted the possibility that "there's a morality spectrum". By accepting the idea of a moral spectrum, she can get away from that argument. If I were to perorate my holocaust example after her clarification, it would be a strawman all along. 

But to point out why I formulated it in the first place: most of Nell's rhetorical grip is founded upon mocking Denature's ideas by presenting the good and evil concept as always inherently flawed, cartoonish and simplistic: moral judgements don't have enough nuanced judgement, are too polarized and so forth. Now, the radical version of these statements, which Nell sympathized with, would lead to my holocaust argument. So she was indeed very close to that point of view, and I mostly did it to underline how grotesque her claims were. This was just a minor flaw I took issue with, which is mostly parallel to my main point.



> Nell responded to Denature 's categorical rejection of manipulation, as (all, always) evil, sinful, bad, wrong, or 'necessarily indicate lack of love', whatever. Maybe he doesn't see Veggie's example of benevolent manipulation of a loved one as "equally' bad as his examples of manipulation (I don't know), but it was apparently still something (self) culpable and sinful.


Yes, I agree so far. What I took issue with is that Nell formulates the same simplistic judgements against morality that Denature formed against manipulation (in the name of depth and complexity, even!) You could say "_I responded to Nell's_ _categorical rejection of morality as (all, always) wrong, miserable, unfullfilling, repressive, stripping life of nuance, whatever._" (it is exactly the same logic used by Denature and which you kind of dismissed as non-persuasive).

Furthermore, there's even a certain irony: her rejection of morality claims the idea that the good/bad dichotomy is _bad _for life; which is a judgement that relies on a good/bad dichotomy.

This, and similar issues, are what I took issue with. 



mimesis said:


> You might say in this case it's in the nature of the mind to manipulate, even if it is unconsciously. This is something Nell also pointed out.


Well, I didn't discuss the concept of manipulation. As I said in my previous post, I actually sympathize with Nell's idea that Denature was too drastic in his statements.


----------



## Fohra (May 26, 2018)

From my primitive point of view, the male genitalia was designed to be out while mine is not. So, it is obvious who is supposed to chase who based on the law of nature. Simple!


----------



## Necrofantasia (Feb 26, 2014)

@mimesis basically Silastar isn't trying to make actual arguments, he just dislikes my tone/demeanour. He knows why his arguments are strawmen/near-sighted interpretations of my writing, he still launches them anyway to passive aggressively troll/waste time.

It's kinda why his reply has my name every other sentence, it's personal for him.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

I've never asked a girl out and I've never not been in a relationship and I've never not had female companionship for more than a month or two at a time. I'm 38 and my romantic life started around 14. I did nothing special to attract women. I'm not super attractive. I'm not super successful. I'm not overtly ambitious. Not narcissistic. Not super rich. None of that crap applied or hindered me in my life. I didn't have a leg up on "other men". I was simply me. And am simply me. And that's always been more than enough. Women like me for who I am. Some women don't like me. I don't care about that. Why would I? You only need 1 partner in life so it's ok to wait, not have one, but all the while there's really nothing wrong with just trekking through life with a positive attitude, an appreciation for humanity as a whole and a desire to keep working on oneself. 

And no. I've really never asked a girl out. I've never dated, but I've never not been in a relationship of some kind or the other. I've never wanted to be *always* in a romantic relationship and I haven't cared if I'm in love with a girl, or if she's in love with me and all of that crap .. If we gel, have a good time and enjoy each other's company, why does it have to be official, or a relationship beyond what we're already enjoying? And why would I want to force a romantic relationship and not let it happen organically in due time when it will happen? 

I've had friends, companions, girls I'd call sisters, girls I've spoken to at length but nothing happened, girls I've rejected, or girls I've been oblivious to who wanted to be in a relationship with me. I consider all of this fairly normal tbh. I have a hard to time understanding that any guy out there that is just being a decent guy wouldn't be able to have normal relationships with women and not be asked out ... even once in their life? Are you even interacting with enough women? Are you even talking to women like individuals? What exactly is going on with regards to not being able to progress regular "first" contact with a woman and it not progressing into something romantic? There is no way am I believing that there aren't enough women out there for men who want to be asked out. 

I also see the same old group of whiners reject what women on this forum who have made 100s of posts about having _no _quips about asking someone out (or have asked someone out) if they genuinely liked them and honestly speaking that also speaks to a lack of self-awareness and it by itself is a major socialization issue where you are already indicating to these women that you have issues around communication/understanding of women. I have almost literally not seen one post from someone who said that the expect to be asked out .. at least not on PerC. Society isn't stuck in the old 50-60s bubble by and large and more and more people are changing/adapting to the times. 

BTW, do you really think you're an appealing guy if a woman tells you something that is true about her and how she feels (or navigates life) and you just outright reject what she's staying about her views while staying stubbornly rooted to your original idea? Stubborness is not appealing. Not being open-minded is not appealing. Not being able to say "hey, I might be wrong here about something and maybe I do need to work on myself" is not appealing. 

I see so many unappealing men on perc that I wouldn't even want to be friends with because of their attitudes, it doesn't surprise me that the same men are often times incapable of having healthy/normal relationships with women. No one is even entitled to anyone's friendships so being entitled to be asked out is an even bigger sense of entitlement than that. And no one should feel that entitled (that does go for women as well). And no it's never been easy for women to find good/perfect mates either. And at times, being asked out actually invokes a sense of fear in them because the person is so entitled to not being rejected that a lot of them end up abusing a woman for simply saying no, or abusing them in passive aggressive ways later on and shit like that. Even women who let guys down gently. 

Instead of focusing on what's wrong with society, focus on what's wrong with you first and fix that.


----------



## ponpiri (Apr 30, 2017)

lol

Sounds like you want it easy. I've asked a guy out twice because I was really interested in them. If you want a relationship with someone bad enough, you'll do it too.


----------



## Steelight (Mar 15, 2017)

angelfish said:


> Me personally I've mostly encountered it with who pays - I _prefer_ to pay at least half and I'd rather pay more if I'm the one making the larger salary at the time - but it's interesting how I've heard plenty of men talk about how they _want_ women to pay but then in reality the men I've gone out with tend to get a bit uncomfortable or even upset if I pay more or more often. When I've asked they have typically said it's a pride/ability thing. FWIW I take pride in it too and it seems a little weird because hello I'm offering you free food because I find you appealing, this is a compliment incarnate, don't you want to take me up on that? But I try to remember that I don't have the pressing cultural expectation of being a male provider and try to be gracious about giving them the option if they want.


I can sorta relate to the pride thing. I always offer to pay. HOWEVER....if I offer to pay and the woman says she'll pay for her own, or even that she'll pay for mine, I don't fight her on it. I might ask her about 5-6 times if she's SURE she's okay offering to pay mine, depending on how she sounds, but I won't fight her paying for hers, that's for sure. One time, I had my card out to pay while I'm ordering all my food and after she orders hers, she took out her card and said "Don't worry babe, I got this". Because of how utterly sure she sounded (and the fact that she made a lot more than I did), I put my card away. She practically shoved it aside anyway. You're the boss hun!!!


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Steelight said:


> She practically shoved it aside anyway. You're the boss hun!!!


Lol I love it. 

I like the game where I "accidentally" get a hold of their credit cards and oops guess since you don't have your wallet readily available I am paying.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

angelfish said:


> Lol I love it.
> 
> I like the game where I "accidentally" get a hold of their credit cards and oops guess since you don't have your wallet readily available I am paying.


Evil lol


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Veggie said:


> @ZiLi - And damn, sorry I missed you. If you come back and see this, yes, please set me up with Elon Musk.


Can I visit? 

To answer the thread: it depends on the people. I can't imagine a woman genuinely being really into someone and not saying so, but also I just can't suppress impulses and care very little for tradition for it's own sake. Some people love tradition.


----------



## Silastar (Mar 29, 2016)

mimesis said:


> My educated observation is that you took offense, and that your strategy is rather defensive and seems to be targeted at neutralizing her arguments by trying to frame it as contradictory, rather than engaging in a debate, argue against, or even just disagreeing *on substance*. It appears to me, by the specific quotes you selected, that you intepret these as a categorical rejection of religion, morality/traditions (whatever???) as bad (in and of itself), which I suppose is the perceived contradiction.


By definition, if I am offering arguments to prove that her points are contradictory, I have engaged in a debate. I have just selected my arguments carefully, without exposing needlessly and indeed it has been a successful strategy. If there is a contradiction, I have proven that her argument is impossible (therefore it has to be false). So mine is indeed a substantial disagreement and, if correct, it completely proves as false the second part of her post. I’m not sure what you mean for “not focusing on the substance” here, honestly. Besides I have disagreed with several other points (ie. her materialistic view). 

So far, I’m also the the guy in the discussion who is trying not to attack anyone’s credibility, rather I try to focus on the arguments. I’m not being dishonest either: I have stated I disagree on many levels, for example not only the content, but also the style used by Nell. But at the same time it seems, to me, you, and especially Nell, are trying to punish me for being straightforward and focus, more than necessary, on the fact I, among other things, mentioned I _also_ disagree on the language used.

Why do you defend Nell and why are you so obstinate in doing so, what does a continued attempt implies? Do your overly polite manner hide a subtle anger for my posts? What is your psychological motivation, should I somehow exploit it to attack your credibility? It wouldn’t be fair and it is a pointless way to discuss: even if your motivation is indeed personal, does it detract any validity from your arguments? It doesn’t, no. More than that, are our arguments an occasion from which we can learn something, rather than just a way to prove people wrong? I am absolutely certain that can be the case and I believe, indeed, that if taken seriously, rather than personally, my points would provide benefit for Nell. 

So, what I’m saying here is: if people are to mantain good standards in a discussion, it is advisable not to interpret too carefully the psychological motivations that bring one person to post: that’s not how gentlemen should discuss.



> that you intepret these as a categorical rejection of religion, morality/traditions (whatever???) as bad (in and of itself), which I suppose is the perceived contradiction.


The fact morality is seen as simplistic isn’t a contradiction per se, but rather because of what she wrote. Either way, I also don’t think it’s possible to go beyond the categories of good and evil, but this isn’t an argument I bothered to introduce, because it would only lead us to a another web of arguments.



> I think she was first and foremost describing/criticizing specific human attitudes and behavior and social dynamics and processes regarding morality. They may perhaps all be applicable in religious context, but not exclusively, or necessarily intrinsically (with perhaps one specific exception in case of an attribution to 'cult' behavior). For instance 'cartooney':


In this case, no. Her points were very clear that she made generalizations about morality as a whole. Thinking otherwise is wishful thinking.


----------



## Convex (Jan 5, 2015)

It's really not an expectation, just how most men and women like things


----------



## Fischer (Aug 16, 2012)

They are not. I've asked guys out too with no complaints. :laughing:


----------



## Anunnaki Spirit (Mar 23, 2018)

Sensational said:


> Depends
> If it’s a lead upto to tickling a prostate sure
> Or a packaged gift in part with some ball juggling and cock sucking
> 
> ...


The things that some men get themselves into is nothing short of disgusting and will never understand how eating ass can turn someone on much less the more bizarre things one can find online much less hear about in person. Unnatural and bizarre use of the body beyond its natural use is never a good sign when it comes to mental health and general state of the person or persons in question. 

This world is truly the Mütter museum of the human soul.


----------

