Is It Overprotective to Limit a Partner's Friendships?

[tikay]

You're pretty much confirming that I hit the nail on the head: it's necessary for your self image to get involved in friendships with women you're not attracted to. Otherwise you'd assess yourself as "close-minded, bad, indecent, uncaring," which would be very unpleasant.


I didn't make any such assertion. You can, obviously, have all the 'platonic' friendships with women you want and still have friendships you recognize as essentially based in attraction. The assertion I'm making is that the 'platonic' friendships are artificial constructs in the service of your self image. You want to feel that you are a nice person. It's an ethical, moral stance. I think what SA and I are saying (subject to his response) is that the reason we have to adopt ethics and morals is because the natural proclivity goes in a different direction. I think what he and I share is a recognition and admission of the natural proclivity.




I'm seeing why SA is complaining about you misconstruing what he said.

I do not believe that we do things because we wish to believe things about ourselves per se, I would rather think we do them because we understand that it is just, right, benevolent and good to be that way and the opposite act would be wrong, base, banal, and so on.

there are some definate rights & wrongs in any increasingly evolving society...which nearly every society is... at least on the one level. I do not believe that man is really capable of not growing and learning with each passing day, just that sometimes they will choose wrong over right in an attempt to reach their goals, whatever those may be.
If all my lifes non-sexual friendships were actually subliminally sexual, then, Freud would be right, and I too agree with the others that he was definitely way off key. if every idiot who postulated something in psycology were right, we would totally 'be screwed'. haha
And I would like to think that the man hisself is somewhere in the universe kicking himself for being so idiotic.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't see anything wrong with considering a person attractive. My sister is an attractive woman. Considering a person attractive doesn't make a relationship non-platonic. Sexual desire does. If two people can have a relationship without that desire then I don't understand how the relationship isn't platonic. It's not difficult for me to think of a woman unrelated to me in a similar way that I think of my sister. If a woman shows no sexual interest in me then it's fairly simple, even if I did have sexual interest in her at some point. I don't hold onto that where it isn't wanted because I know the pain it will bring everyone involved. Many men, and sometimes women too, can't reconcile those emotions and ditch the friendship along with the sexual attraction. That's why I think platonic relationships are rare. As unlikely, or even impossible, as it may be for some, it is not as unlikely for everyone. Saying that if one isn't interested then the other most likely is may be correct most times, but it appears to confuse cause with effect to fit the presented model. I don't believe it just happens and doesn't mean anything. I believe there is a cause for that behaviour that does have meaning.

Perhaps there is some confusion on the issue of what presents as "sexually attractive". If I look at a person and consider them to be physically attractive I count that the same as finding the person sexually attractive, the concept of what is physically attractive is based very likely on a biological program which dictates what we perceive as being a likely sexual partner. Since as I have already said that I do not consider it necessary to desire to have sex with any person I find attractive this presents no issue of conflict in having a "normal" relationship with that person( for me anyway). As far as the sister thing goes I have never had any issue there as I unfortunately haven't the greatest relationship with my family and can only try very hard to see anything at all attractive about my sister physically or otherwise. I see the blockage there of perceiving a sister in a sexual context as primarily a social convention, though I am willing to admit to having no direct parallel in my own experience to base this on. We can see in fact though that is it not entirely uncommon for sister and brother to develop a sexual attraction one for another. It is even more common among step siblings where the influence of the social convention among family is at its weakest. One might even suggest that the typical protective instinct of a brother for his younger sister is not wholly unlike a protective instinct for ones own mate (and vice versa).

I said before that I think most women could deal with men thinking of them as sexually attractive. It's when a man presumes that if she enjoys his company then she must on some level be sexually attracted to him that problems arise.

To me this seems not an atypical consideration for either males or females, though their reaction to it may differ. It seems that your average male tends to think females who show any interest in them what so ever are sexually attracted to them and often brag of it to their friends, and females(particularly young females) typically seem to consider any positive attention from males as a sexual advance. If you are concerned of how this may effect women in their dealings with men I think that they have the situation well in hand. Women who are single and have moved beyond any societal brainwashing that they ought be pure innocent flowers of femininity seem to have little issue with the idea that men who give them attention are likely sexually interested in them (and vice versa) and seem to more often consider it complimentary. Less experienced females who have esteem issues seem to take a similar view, all be it more naive and immature, of male attention.

It's not that a man or a woman are necessarily sexually attracted to each other because they enjoy each other's company, but people, particularly single men in my experience, unknowingly filter out platonic relationships that could exist in favor of sexual relationships. The sexual attraction is the reason for initiating a relationship and they don't put energy into non-sexual relationships with women that would otherwise be an improvement in their lives. They can form platonic relationships just fine with old ladies, relatives, or maybe their friend's wives, but don't recognize that it is something about their own mindset that causes them to have difficulty even believing platonic relationships can exist between a man and a woman. There is no innate difference between old ladies, female relatives, and friend's wives that makes them sexually different from other women, except in the mind of the man perceiving them. Some men have a sexual preference for those women. If platonic relationships are rare between unattached men and women, and I do believe they are, then I assume it is because sex is a powerful motivator for both men and women. It is an incentive to preferentially seek sexual relationships.

The first thing that you notice about any individual, per force, is their physical appearance (saving internet meetings, wherein even there superficial considerations are not uncommon). There is an interesting looking study I found while googling earlier that says people seem to be capable of determining personality characteristics based solely on physical appearance (mediated by the idea that persons personalities are influenced in part by others perceptions) and I am a firm believer that mere physical characteristics are only part of what attracts one person to another romantically. That is to say that your consideration of a persons physical appearance is likely also a consideration of their personality and hence your perception of any individual as a prospective friend is likely based on an initial response to their physical features. Of course any consideration of a person as a potential mate is based in part on personality features which you likely partially derive from physical features. And any person who tells me that they look for entirely separate personality features in friends as opposed to mates I would laugh at. They either are deluded or only looking for a stead lay as opposed to a potential mate.
As for the difference regarding "old ladies" and "family members" I would say that it is a cultural inhibition. One of my best friends was an older woman who I never considered sexually attractive. She told me that she considered me an attractive man, though never in a flirtatious or sexual manner. While I perceived her in more of a "motherly" fashion, which I am sure she expected, I would be doing her a disservice to figure that she was only jiving me when she said that she would have been "all over me" had she been younger. As if I did not trust her perception and evaluation of me as a potential mate. Whose opinion are we really to trust and appreciate more than that of those matronly figures in our lives? Even my own mother often told me that I reminded her very much of my biological father, and not in a flattering way. Those cultural distinctions seem to begin to blur and not seem so very distinct.

I got the impression that the word platonic is being applied to a person as a state in which all people are viewed platonically, rather than the existing state of an individual relationship. Or perhaps it was the idea that if at any point sexual interest exists then a platonic relationship is forever impossible. I think there was some element in your agument, literal or implied, that was absolute, and I transferred it to another mistakenly. I don't know exactly where that came from, but I do apologize for it.

I am perhaps taking a very literal definition of "platonic" as "strictly and definably separate" where I see the "definable separation" as not being very strict or clear. To be attracted to someone and then decide to just be friends sort of blurs the line between strictly definable categories. You can perhaps create in-between categories but they seem to be artificial (if you'll pardon the term) separations that only really attempt to map the vagaries of reality.edit: @Huck as well, there is no reason for apologies between "friends". I do not chide you to illicit apologies but only to bring your attention to things you seem to have not noticed. We seem to think very much alike although we may take different routes to our conclusions and there is no reason to apologize for that. :-)

 

[rewebster]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4MNANgFCYpk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4MNANgFCYpk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[tikay]

Yeah, but in the end is not even an issue of trust. If a "fairly intimate" behavior makes him feel bad, he should let her know about it. If she ignores it, well, why would he loose any
time in a relationship which makes him feel bad ? Leave her, life is too short to put up with **** which makes you unhappy. This doesn't mean he (OP) shouldn't revisit his behaviors.

I completely disagree, (respectfully)...I think that once you begin to allow yourself to lack trust in loving partnerships you may just haphazardly establish a pattern that will ruin every future relationship, with that same unworked out garbage. Why not be mature, work through this crap with this girl already whos alrady in your heart & in your head?
This one right here that you are entangled with right now. Why put your problem with trust onto the next person, expecting them to behave so differently? That this issue is probably more his prob, than hers.

I believe she sees the other man as just a friend (perhaps a friend who is slightly "crushing on her" but that's not too important). I think she is wise to not toss away a real friend to her, because of her lovers insecurity. She sees that her new friend may be fragile and her friendship IS valuable to him. The crush is placed where it belongs on the back-burner, in her mind, she allows him to be "Just" a friend. She reassures her love, that all is well, that he IS the top priority, and so, yes, she absolutely deserves to be trusted. NOTHING sexual occurs..whats the problem? If I dissolved all my friendships because one of us had a lit'l crush, that could be tragic...there is no reason to be that cutting. People on average deserve better treatment than that, its like calling the flirtation a "sin", and far too extreme.

Again, it doesn't worth it. When love will "ripe" even in a non-sexual relation, from my point of view she is free to live with that guy, not with me.

Then you lose, she and you both lose actually and you have not given her a place in the decision making process of the dissolving the relationship so it was you who really didn't love her (very well) you were the liar not her about your commitment...in that case, so whos REALLY cheating who...with such values? You leave a girl because you are insecure? Thats kind of lame.

Doesn't worth doing it. Why befriend someone you don't like ? To keep a women near you ? There are others out there with a psychological profile who will fit yours better. Leave her.
As she is creating new rules, so do I create mine. And btw, at least for me, trust is never implicit. Trust, like respect, must be earned. The level of trust I begin from is neutral. No distrust, no stupid sharing of my "darkest secrets".

If you cannot trust your girlfriend, you have already left her, you are just holding on for the benefits of staying together a while longer. Perhaps because the search for another victim you can mistrust will be difficult. I say work through your insecure $#!+ and increase your care or go on repeating the mistake of not really caring for your next girl.

You can befriend anyone, its your choice. I believe in the ultimate self-determination of humans. But don't be surprised if he leaves you. A relation takes two. If what you do hurts
the person you are in a relationship, and you persist in this behavior, you don't care as much about him as you care about satisfying your desires. Which is fair, no problems with it, but maybe then you shouldn't have a committed relationship.

We all deserve to be involved with the people we love, if we are open to receive the love they have to give is the question. When we have inner turmoil, that is not always something tthat THEY have created in us, it can be something from OUR past, so i suggest he set to work mentally, work on the turmoil, not trying toss good people aside like a pebble on a beach. Even my (once) five year old son cautioned me, about ending a love affair with my beaux, of five years time, he said you do not just throw people away, (that life is not that simple) and to really think on that one first...he was sooo right! That man and myself did break up but we were friends for five years longer, then he dropped off the map. I stiill try to find out if he's alright sometimes. BECAUSE I just love him, I always will..

Neither do I take any hints from anyone. But one day it hit me. It hit me that I hurt the my girlfriend who loves me and which does a lot for me, by being very close to other women, even if I didn't screw them. It happened when I started to fall for her, some 6-7 months into the relationship.

She probably never expected you to not get close to others, women or anyone, she probably just wanted your best for her when you were with her. At least, If she was a balanced individual. we all want our patners to be balanced i think, and all we can ask then is to draw the line at falling for others, (falling in love) or that they don't have sex. Flirting should be allowed...it happens! So in my opinion its best to not walk away from a good thing over simple flirtations.

What I am trying to tell you is that maybe you should take a break and look at the situation from his point of view, see whatever or not your behavior hurts him. Don't expect him to put up with everything you do only because he doesn't owns you. Neither do you own him. If you are not able to do any concession for him, to make him happy, he is better off without you. In the end, in those cases, the one who is less involved in
the relation will usually break off first. Nothing bad with it. No blame, it just didn't worked out. Ah , yes, I also don't believe in fixing relationships. If it works, fine. If it doesn't , why force it ? Past always comes back, humans generally resist change.

I am not saying he should leave her or stay, you are the more controlling one in that when you insist he should probably leave her. I am saying its just best/better to work on his stuff, lest that ruin one relationship after another into infinitum.
Why not give her the benefit of the doubt that the friendship will remain platonic. There is no good reason that he should stop loving the girl over a flirtation. If she said she wanted to do that dude and have him watch, then maybe he should truly begin to worry. The memes of our society are changing, you can go with it or resist these changes. I prefer to get on the bus with the newer modalities. I am only so traditional as to need my guy to trust me a lot, otherwise we can talk about all sorts of kinky stuff happening.

Asexuality appears to be the latest thing going on...

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I like to believe myself, that as humans we are evolving beyond the caveman type mentality that many of you assume is the norm. Because I was raised with an ethical standard which tells me that we humans have an ability to use a high regard for others, and forgo sexual feelings, (and pleasure) when we are wholeheartedly, soulfully bound to a person as their lover, we do not allow ourselves the right, to let sexual attraction flourish with friends, even if these feelings do come up, so it is usually best to trust people.

This is in part the sort of mentality that I am describing. The idea that there is anything "wrong" with considering a friend as a sexual being. It would seem to me that this sort of idea is what creates consternation and disfunction among people who could otherwise be good friends. The discomfort of persons who are the object of attraction or who see the other as an object of attraction driving a wedge between them. It seems between men a women a constant source of distress when there is no reason for it to be. Rather than necessarily ignoring natural inclinations if people could only see it as natural and of no great importance that they find an individual sexually attractive it would not become such a divisive element of our interactions with the opposite sex(or same sex as the case may be).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I completely disagree, (respectfully)...I think that once you begin to allow yourself to lack trust in loving partnerships you may just haphazardly establish a pattern that will ruin every future relationship, with that same unworked out garbage.

I agree with you completely here. It was the point of my earlier responses. If you do not trust a person that distrust does not go away simply because the current focal point for that distrust may no longer be in the picture. Having your girlfriend not speak with a male because you do not trust them together only removes the most current symptom of distrust which may only express itself in other fashions in some other situation at some other point in time. The issue is really something other than what ever external manifestation may be apparent at any given moment.

 

[tikay]

What I am trying to tell you is that maybe you should take a break and look at the situation from his point of view, see whatever or not your behavior hurts him. Don't expect him to put up with everything you do only because he doesn't owns you. Neither do you own him. If you are not able to do any concession for him, to make him happy, he is better off without you. In the end, in those cases, the one who is less involved in
the relation will usually break off first. Nothing bad with it. No blame, it just didn't worked out. Ah , yes, I also don't believe in fixing relationships. If it works, fine. If it doesn't , why force it ? Past always comes back, humans generally resist change.

Oh now I get this having re-read it...you mean me take a look at my relationship stuff...not the OP's point POV. Ok sure... I thought you meant get into his shoes. which I did, i am totally for him having good relationships, starting with this one.

Ok so, if you are saying that I don't get to say how our relationship goes (in part) because i don't own him eather, you are exactly 'right on' with that! & I was not willing to keep myself tied to/with a partner who exibited extreme stress over small flirtations and over no flirting factors also, in certain instances. I had formerly been abused for those reasons.

I was leaving that partner as a lover, (not a friend, since we are still good friends) precisely because he was not willing to face the reality that I am a friendly person who seeks others to be around on occasion to talk to and interact with on a friendly social level.
He being rather hermit-like and anti-social, a bit of an "anger ball", with anyone but me and a few children in common...and I being a social butterfly when i am not isolating to do art, we're totally different, socially.

He appeared to basically hate folks while I (basically) adore them. He wanted to stay away from most people and i longed to give dinner parties. So it was not all about lack of trust see...it was deeper. Nothing is terribly complex, (nor terribly un-simple either once thought is invested) to decide there, we were no longer compatible as lovers. I saw it first and being unwilling to try and change him, i made it simple, I left.

I made an appropriate responce and dissolved a dying relationship before it went on for years and years, increasing the insight into our very real differances, and hurting us both all the more. Luckily he is my best friend. He comes over, helps me with things, we talk laugh and our kinship remains, while we don't have the pressure of that sex thing, to make us cry over.

;~})

 

[DanP]

I completely disagree, once you begin to allow yourself to lack trust in loving partnerships you may establish a pattern that will ruin every future relationship, with that same garbage. Why not be mature, work through crap with this girl already in your head? This on right here that you are entangled with right now. Why put your problem with trust onto the next person, expecting them to behave differently? It is probably more his prob, than hers.

Because is not a problem of trust. I began by outlining this. I can trust you with my life,
if you do things which don't me make happy in a relationship, it doesn't worth. It's not about my trust in you, is about happiness. If you can't work it out with me together, really, what's the point ? There is none.

I don't expect you to behave differently. I say what works for me.

Then you lose, she and you both lose actually and you have not given her a place in the decision making process of the dissolving the relationship so it was you who really didn't love her (very well) you were the liar not her about your commitment...in that case, so whos cheating on who with such values?

Actually, you both gain. Getting early out of a relation which doesn't work for you is the wisest thing you can do. You can both move towards another relation which may work better. ts very simple for you to throw the responsibility on me, but actually I do a very simple and common sense thing. I cut her loose so she can be with whoever she loves. You also seem to have a pretty romantic idea about commitment. If

If you cannot trust your girlfriend, you have already left her, you are just holding on for the benefits of staying together a while longer. Perhaps because the search for another victim you can mistrust will be difficult. I say work through your insecure **** and increase your care or go on repeating the mistake of not really caring for your next girl.

Again, I have to underline you that is not about trust. It;s about whatever the relation works or not. You seem to have a point of view where the man has to trust you with everything you do, but you are unwilling to meet his needs. All in the name of "trust me, I know better". At least this is how you came across to me .

Also for some reason you seem to equate neutral trust with mistrust, which I explicitly said is not the case.

It;s not really about insecure ****, is about indirectly imposing your will. About trying to force your partner to be friends with someone who doesn't want to be and to whom he doesn't relate.

What I say, why not you work through your **** and not repeat the mistake of caring so less of your next man ? A relation is about two persons, not only about you, and the fact that in the name of trust everyone has to take whatever you want. Fine with me , do whatever you want, but don't expect everyone to take it.

She probably never expected you to not get close to others, women or anyone, she probably just wanted your best for her when you were with her. At least, If she was a balanced individual. we all want our patners to be balanced i think, and all we can ask then is to draw the line at falling for others, (falling in love) or that they don't have sex. Flirting should be allowed...it happens! So in my opinion its best to not walk away from a good thing over simple flirtations.

Actually she expected me to share more of my time with her. And you know what ? She was right.

Why not give her the benefit of the doubt that the friendship will remain platonic. There is no good reason that he should stop loving the girl over a flirtation. If she said she wanted to do that dude and have him watch, then maybe he should truly begin to worry.

It;s not about whatever or not those 2 will remain platonic. If her behavior hurts him, even if the relation remains platonic, he is better off without her. This is my point. There is really no issue of trust in the end. Even if you trust her, the question is: Does it works for you ?

The memes of our society are changing, you can go with it or resist these changes. I prefer to get on the bus with the newer modalities. I am only so traditional as to need my guy to trust me a lot, otherwise we can talk about all sorts of kinky stuff happening.

I am pretty much open to any kind of heterosexual relationship, committed, non committed, in 2 , 3 whatever, you name it. I am only traditional in the sense we have to make the rules from the beginning . If we agree on committed relation, then I would appreciate traditionalism in it. No visit with your friends you love whenever you think you should spend time with him alone in your apartment and so on.

If you want another kind of relation, just tell me. If I like the "rules", I won't mind even if you make love with your friend in the next room, you want us both at the same time, or if you are bisexual and come home with another women. It's all OK as long rules are ok for both of us.

 

[DanP]

O

Ok so, if you are saying that I don't get to say how our relationship goes (in part) because i don't own him eather, you are exactly 'right on' with that! & I was not willing to keep myself tied to/with a partner who exibited extreme stress over small flirtations and over no flirting factors also, in certain instances. I had formerly been abused for those reasons.

Exactly. He suffocated you , it didnt worked for you. You left. I have a Gf, it doesn't work for me, I leave. What I try to underline here is that no person should put itself through **** in the name of "Trust". If the relation works for you good, if it doesn't work, also good, it's just life, we can very well be on our separate ways.

 

[tikay]

I agree with you completely here. It was the point of my earlier responses. If you do not trust a person that distrust does not go away simply because the current focal point for that distrust may no longer be in the picture. Having your girlfriend not speak with a male because you do not trust them together only removes the most current symptom of distrust which may only express itself in other fashions in some other situation at some other point in time. The issue is really something other than what ever external manifestation may be apparent at any given moment.

Thank you StatutoryApe, it is nice to be understood. Of all the posts in here, there were four or so (folks) i am most alingned to, in my thinking, and you are definitely one of them!

I have great respect for people who don't box us all into some sexual flavor of the month mode, when discussing sexual modalities. There is no reason to not consider all the many "facets" on the diamond that it is to be human, sex being just one of them.

 

[tikay]

Exactly. He suffocated you , it didnt worked for you. You left. I have a Gf, it doesn't work for me, I leave. What I try to underline here is that no person should put itself through **** in the name of "Trust". If the relation works for you good, if it doesn't work, also good, it's just life, we can very well be on our separate ways.

This is true and thus the lovely quote " c'est la vie " remains popular today, outdoing the formerly popular "que sera sera" by just a tad.
hahaha
;~})

I want only to imagine that in this early love affair he is having just now, he is REALLY invested, as probably he is, Early love can be very intense, and life shaping, remember?
So why not do the mature thing, and establish that, unless he has seen good reason to begin to leave his quest to remain her prince...he should allow that love for her to grow.
Saving himself from leaving every relationship that does not go his way like i did...until he is my age, (48) and saying I have loved countless people, alas, none have LASTED and i am alone...

I am merely coming from my experience, and my life meme...and wishing him better with what we have learned about social patterns & bahaviors over the years, since I left everyone, for the next similar relationship. (i.e. we take ourselves with us)

 

[tikay]

I agree with this. I could never wrap my head around statements like "I thought we could be friends for what is inside me, not for my body" or "Well, (s)he got this position of work because he is an attractive person and used his sexuality ... "


What "defines" a person is a set of attributes. This includes your physical looks. There is nothing bad in using your looks in making your way though life, not anymore than using your brain. They are both *you*. There is nothing wrong in appreciating a person for their bodies and sexuality, as there is nothing wrong in appreciating , let's say, their PhD in English literature and the passion for it :P

Why try to separate the two ?

Well for instance, why keep a baby who has deformities then? Eugenics would surmise it best to destroy children who will possibly be at a great disadvantage in life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Is it then something we should consider, to eliminate babies born with atrociously un-lovely hair lip, (cleft pallet) and such? Should we be kinder to the beautiful people,simply because they had healthier DNA, and because they are beautiful? Should I have been destroyed for having spinal meningitus as an infant?

 

[DanP]

This is true and thus the lovely quote " c'est la vie " remains popular today, outdoing the formerly popular "que sera sera" by just a tad.
hahaha
;~})

And all will be well. si Deus quiser...

I want only to imagine that in this early love affair he is having just now, he is REALLY invested, as probably he is, Early love can be very intense, and life shaping, remember?
So why not do the mature thing, and establish that, unless he has seen good reason to begin to leave his quest to remain her prince...he should allow that love for her to grow.

Because at no age it worth to get stuck in a relationship which doesn't work for you.

I am merely coming from my experience, and my life meme...and wishing him better with what we have learned about social patterns & bahaviors over the years, since I left everyone, for the next similar relationship. (i.e. we take ourselves with us)

As we do all. From wildly different cultures and life encounters.

 

[tikay]

Exactly. He suffocated you , it didnt worked for you. You left. I have a Gf, it doesn't work for me, I leave. What I try to underline here is that no person should put itself through **** in the name of "Trust". If the relation works for you good, if it doesn't work, also good, it's just life, we can very well be on our separate ways.

Ok yes, BUT, you and I both know that if we continue to leave everyone who does not fit, that maybe...noone is ever going to fit, and eventually we have to look to ourselves for what the dang problem is really, are all people scarred and unacceptable to us, or are we? Am I right?

 

[DanP]

Should we be kinder to the beautiful people,simply because they had healthier DNA, and because they are beautiful? Should I have been destroyed for having spinal meningitus as an infant?

No, but why not accept what you are ? Be comfortable in your skin, and if your looks can help you, don't be ashamed to use it. Nobody blames you if you use your brain, so nobody should blame you if you use your ***. It's still *you* :P

 

[DanP]

Ok yes, BUT, you and I both know that if we continue to leave everyone who does not fit, that maybe...noone is ever going to fit, and eventually we have to look to ourselves for what the dang problem is really, are all people scarred and unacceptable to us, or are we? Am I right?

This is where you start to negotiate. And maybe my games, my hikes and my friends will not be anymore so important, and your time with your friends will be less fiercely defended. And maybe we meet somewhere where both are very comfortable with each other.

 

[tikay]

Because at no age it worth to get stuck in a relationship which doesn't work for you.

Ahhh BUSTED! i was perhaps being somewhat ageist, PERHAPS!

But having so many relationships, can be a burden too. Especially for us women who are slutty, while you men are considered Romeo's. (So Not FaiR)!
;}

I find myself wishing that i had gone to more intense therapy with that first husband of mine. i find that the mistakes REPEAT and Repeat. i think that perhaps I am the one who leaves most often, (& isn't able to maintain stability) albeit for good reason maybe.

You see, at 48 i have moved from place to place on average once a year, I have counted forty-one moves, SO...Kind of hard to learn about long term relationships like this!
What my gypsy-hearted mom has started, that fire she put under my arse, remains lit, and it gets hot, so i move on, but this life isn't for many!

 

[DanP]

Ahhh BUSTED! i was perhaps being somewhat ageist, PERHAPS!

But having so many relationships, can be a burden too. Especially for us women who are slutty, while you man are considered Romeo's. (So Not FaiR)
;}

Don Juan is dead. In this age we are called "men with issues of commitment". Unfair too !

I find myself wishing that i had gone to more intense therapy with that first husband of mine. i find that the mistakes REPEAT and Repeat. i think that perhaps I am the one who leaves most often, (& isn't able to maintain stability) albeit for good reason maybe.

I think couple therapy doesn't work after the **** hits the fan. It may help before , helping the two not to end in a spot where all is wrong already.

You see, at 48 i have moved from place to place on average once a year, I have counted forty-one moves, SO...Kind of hard to learn about long term relationships like this!
What my gypsy-hearted mom has started, that fire she put under my arse, remains lit, and it gets hot, so i move on, but this life isn't for many!

Not bad. At least is not a boring life :P I like traveling its one fo the best things in life. See new places. Meet new ppl.

 

[tikay]

No, but why not accept what you are ? Be comfortable in your skin, and if your looks can help you, don't be ashamed to use it. Nobody blames you if you use your brain, so nobody should blame you if you use your ***. It's still *you* :P

Well, I'm fairly comfortable with me. I am fairly well adjusted in my own mind...LOL

I am just saying that to bear down on people, treating them differently because they look different, or have lesser ability, is inherantly wrong, and to eliminate folks from your life
(essentially "killing them off") because they don't suit your high standards, where appearance is concerned, well the killer is the loser then, because most peoples "value" is not based on their looks.

Yes, sadly, people will get jobs and the like based upon lessened ability, and better looks, but that is just corporate b.s., we can understand the hypothesis behind it but we don't have to agree with it.

So that, sure, if you or I have an unlimited bank account, we are not going to go out and buy a crappy looking car from the local junk heap and fix it up (well if it were a 'classic' maybe yeah~ still)...The basic premis is that WE can afford any car on any lot, and we will buy exactly what we really want.

This idea is not necessarily wrong, but it is about good fortune (and the choices of youth). Some don't have this good fortune, and sometimes it is in the looks department. Does that make them unworthy of a nice car? No, not necessarily, they may deserve it far more than you or I, but we hit the lotto, you know?

Such is my idea, so that "companies" who hire the young inexperienced person for their looks do so because they have that leverage of having the ability to get what they want, any kid on the lot is thiers, for the taking, but does the kid deserve the job more than old Uncle Joe? Probably not... therefore, if things were more fair in life, they would be hired to learn under uncle Joe and eventually deserve said position they will more than likely beat him out of.

Business like that shouldn't be allowed to poliferate, we should basically boycott companies who are predjudiced based upon age, physical handicap, or appearance. And I hope people will begin to see the value in people more, based on things other than appearance.

 

[tikay]

Don Juan is dead. In this age we are called "men with issues of commitment". Unfair too !
.

Okay, a bit of both is going on, that's true! Still you know many who believe that women who sleep around are cold-hearted sluts, and guys who do are um, LUCKY bastads. While maybe we were merely raised during the oft' forgotten sexual revolution, and it held some sway with us.

I think couple therapy doesn't work after the **** hits the fan. It may help before , helping the two not to end in a spot where all is wrong already.

.

Absolutely correct, and everyone should know these days that marital therapy alone, won't often work without heavy emphasis on anger management for the abusive partner (sometimes female). And that with abusive folk it may increase the liklihood of another explosion to expose the attacker to another person, right in front of their bruised ego.

Not bad. At least is not a boring life :P I like traveling its one fo the best things in life. See new places. Meet new ppl.

It's has its up's & down's, don't know my blood family any longer. got lots of surrogate family though, in many different places.

speaking of travel i have to leave in five to pick up my ex from the metro, He is comin in from Los Angeles...he is bringing in a couple ah keys... (to my house)!
hahaha

HappY Day Everyone, if I don't get back, we may BBQ.

 

[DanP]

Okay, a bit of both is going on, that's true! Still you know many who believe that women who sleep around are cold-hearted sluts

Actually, some of my favorite beings alive are "cold-hearted sluts"

 

[zoobyshoe]

This is in part the sort of mentality that I am describing. The idea that there is anything "wrong" with considering a friend as a sexual being. It would seem to me that this sort of idea is what creates consternation and disfunction among people who could otherwise be good friends. The discomfort of persons who are the object of attraction or who see the other as an object of attraction driving a wedge between them. It seems between men a women a constant source of distress when there is no reason for it to be. Rather than necessarily ignoring natural inclinations if people could only see it as natural and of no great importance that they find an individual sexually attractive it would not become such a divisive element of our interactions with the opposite sex(or same sex as the case may be).

Amen.

 

[tikay]

And maybe we meet somewhere where both are very comfortable with each other.

I suggest you come to my house for a great dinner party!

 

[DanP]

I suggest you come to my house for a great dinner party!

I love party !

 

[tikay]

I love party !

hehehe
Everyone can come!
LOL

This is how I see young love~

I can't post from youtube...
here is my link...then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXN30DpC9vk&feature=related



"Babylon" By Angus & Julia Stone



Red blooded, spirit filled, heartening, joyous~ I would never try to tell the young man to move on from Love, only to sink in and stay as Long as Love will have the two of you over!

In other words "hunker down" my friend, she is worth it for a while!
;~})

 

[DanP]

hehehe
Everyone can come!
LOL

This is how I see young love~

I can't post from youtube...
here is my link...then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXN30DpC9vk&feature=related
"Babylon" By Angus & Julia Stone
Red blooded, spirit filled, heartening, joyous~ I would never try to tell the young man to move on from Love, only to sink in and stay as Long as Love will have the two of you over!

In other words "hunker down" my friend, she is worth it for a while!
;~})

And this is how I see it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0E_f03gJ8io&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0E_f03gJ8io&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Hot blooded, filling the holes, dynamic & unforeseeable

Routine breeds prediction and respect. Both are boring. Ill take wet passion instead. No matter how long it lasts

 

[tikay]

So in love sometimes you bleed a little, if you stay to bleed, there are increasing benefits...the time worn lovers who last, have said through-out time that they just took the person for worse, for better...and sometimes you die by the drop.

If you know what I mean...

I kindly disagree that LOVE is EvER BoRinG!
;~})

 

[DanP]

So in love sometimes you bleed a little, if you stay to bleed, there are increasing benefits..

Did it worked for you ? For me it did not.

 

[tikay]

Did it worked for you ? For me it did not.

I bled plenty, and then when I was done with bleeding with any particular guy, I left or he did because i'd begin to grumble and rawr.. It worked while it worked, an then it didn't. I'm just saying that if he is just in a bit of pain, and the love is still flowing pretty freely...well "Suck it up bro", and enjoy the ride. Sort of like riding a roller-coaster, it has it's scary moments but is totally worth if, if you don't have a queasy tummy (because nobody likes throwing up).

Or do they?

 

[DanP]

...

Or do they?

I have no idea. What I know is that life is awesome, no matter through what you ride

 

[tikay]

I have no idea. What I know is that life is awesome, no matter through what you ride

Absolutely, all in all, what I have wanted to say to Mentallic is that there are challanges in ANY relationship, so yeah, try to enjoy the ride!

 

[Huckleberry]

Perhaps there is some confusion on the issue of what presents as "sexually attractive". If I look at a person and consider them to be physically attractive I count that the same as finding the person sexually attractive, the concept of what is physically attractive is based very likely on a biological program which dictates what we perceive as being a likely sexual partner. Since as I have already said that I do not consider it necessary to desire to have sex with any person I find attractive this presents no issue of conflict in having a "normal" relationship with that person( for me anyway). As far as the sister thing goes I have never had any issue there as I unfortunately haven't the greatest relationship with my family and can only try very hard to see anything at all attractive about my sister physically or otherwise. I see the blockage there of perceiving a sister in a sexual context as primarily a social convention, though I am willing to admit to having no direct parallel in my own experience to base this on. We can see in fact though that is it not entirely uncommon for sister and brother to develop a sexual attraction one for another. It is even more common among step siblings where the influence of the social convention among family is at its weakest. One might even suggest that the typical protective instinct of a brother for his younger sister is not wholly unlike a protective instinct for ones own mate (and vice versa).


To me this seems not an atypical consideration for either males or females, though their reaction to it may differ. It seems that your average male tends to think females who show any interest in them what so ever are sexually attracted to them and often brag of it to their friends, and females(particularly young females) typically seem to consider any positive attention from males as a sexual advance. If you are concerned of how this may effect women in their dealings with men I think that they have the situation well in hand. Women who are single and have moved beyond any societal brainwashing that they ought be pure innocent flowers of femininity seem to have little issue with the idea that men who give them attention are likely sexually interested in them (and vice versa) and seem to more often consider it complimentary. Less experienced females who have esteem issues seem to take a similar view, all be it more naive and immature, of male attention.

The first thing that you notice about any individual, per force, is their physical appearance (saving internet meetings, wherein even there superficial considerations are not uncommon). There is an interesting looking study I found while googling earlier that says people seem to be capable of determining personality characteristics based solely on physical appearance (mediated by the idea that persons personalities are influenced in part by others perceptions) and I am a firm believer that mere physical characteristics are only part of what attracts one person to another romantically. That is to say that your consideration of a persons physical appearance is likely also a consideration of their personality and hence your perception of any individual as a prospective friend is likely based on an initial response to their physical features. Of course any consideration of a person as a potential mate is based in part on personality features which you likely partially derive from physical features. And any person who tells me that they look for entirely separate personality features in friends as opposed to mates I would laugh at. They either are deluded or only looking for a stead lay as opposed to a potential mate.
As for the difference regarding "old ladies" and "family members" I would say that it is a cultural inhibition. One of my best friends was an older woman who I never considered sexually attractive. She told me that she considered me an attractive man, though never in a flirtatious or sexual manner. While I perceived her in more of a "motherly" fashion, which I am sure she expected, I would be doing her a disservice to figure that she was only jiving me when she said that she would have been "all over me" had she been younger. As if I did not trust her perception and evaluation of me as a potential mate. Whose opinion are we really to trust and appreciate more than that of those matronly figures in our lives? Even my own mother often told me that I reminded her very much of my biological father, and not in a flattering way. Those cultural distinctions seem to begin to blur and not seem so very distinct.

I am perhaps taking a very literal definition of "platonic" as "strictly and definably separate" where I see the "definable separation" as not being very strict or clear. To be attracted to someone and then decide to just be friends sort of blurs the line between strictly definable categories. You can perhaps create in-between categories but they seem to be artificial (if you'll pardon the term) separations that only really attempt to map the vagaries of reality.


edit: @Huck as well, there is no reason for apologies between "friends". I do not chide you to illicit apologies but only to bring your attention to things you seem to have not noticed. We seem to think very much alike although we may take different routes to our conclusions and there is no reason to apologize for that. :-)

A person can have any number of qualities I consider attractive and not be considered sexually attractive. A person can also be considered sexually attractive without desiring to have sex with that person. Attractiveness describes a quality, or group of qualities, that draws my favorable attention towards the attractive subject. It does not necessarily include a desire or a desirable intent of the nature of the quality describing it towards the attractive subject.

I can say a sunset is beautiful and I mean physical attractiveness is one of its qualities. I can say Mickey Rourke is sexy and I mean that sexual attractiveness is one of his qualities. It doesn't mean I desire to possesses the attractive qualities of, or desire to have sex with sunsets or Mickey Rourke, though those desires can also exist. It's a perception of those qualities in the subject that I am observing. If I say to a woman that she is sexy it means that I want to have sex with her as much as it means I want to look like her if I say she is beautiful. People commonly associate attraction as a personally possessive quality unto itself rather than a favorable subjective observation.

I recognize a biological sexual drive. There is a general societal norm for sexual behaviour, and the closer one shifts their view towards individuals the more variance one sees. It appears to me that sexual preference is a learned behaviour somewhat separate from the sexual drive. I recognize no universal dictate in how the desire for sex is felt or expressed. A natural feeling or expression of desire for one person may be completely unnatural to another. Availability of sexual options may be a factor in what someone finds sexually attractive, but even that isn't guaranteed by any means.

I agree that not seeing a sister in a sexual context is a social convention. So is not seeing other races, same sexes, the very old, the very young, animals, corpses, and volleyballs named Wilson in a sexual context; to varying degrees depending on the individual's learned behaviour. Sometimes a person's natural sexual desire leads them to unconventional places. Brainwashing is just a way for saying that one disagrees strongly with a societal customs. If it is possible to have a platonic relationship with anyone of a sexually preferred gender then sexual attraction is subject to an individual's perception, regardless of the source of that perception. We're also assuming the subject of attraction is alive, able to reciprocate equally, and of the same species, but since any relationship would be questionable in that context it isn't meaningful to talk about platonic relationships.

I'm not sure what you mean by defining platonic as "strictly and definably seperate." What is it separate from? I'm guessing that you mean an admiration for the personality of a person separate from their appearance would be platonic, but is unlikely because how one perceives another's appearance is also how they are likely to perceive another's personality. I wish it weren't so, but there are many women whose personality I admire and I do not associate that with physical attraction. Personality is reflected in a person's appearance, but it is not synonymous with it. Even a blind man can see someone's personality.

It can be very annoying when people are all over you with sexual propositions. Then when you tell them you aren't interested they continue to do it over and over. It's like going on a car trip with a 5 year old who keeps asking "Are we there yet?" So you turn your head to the backseat and sternly say "Stop that now or we're pulling this relationship over!" Then when they give up they become petulant and say "Fine! You're ugly anyway!" or something equally inflammatory, or maybe they just decide to disappear without a word. That happens enough and you come to expect it any time someone shows sexual interest without first finding interest in your other qualities. It can feel like people are trying to tear off pieces of you while you watch helplessly. So when women, and sometimes men are guarded and annoyed when someone finds them sexually attractive I get it. It sucks, but it's their problem. The problem exists because the other person is objectifying them, disregarding their personality. There mere fact that someone is considered sexually attractive is complimentary if the person saying it can be trusted to be relaxed about it. Not everyone is as laid back about their sexual desires as you are.

 

[Hestia]

He's what you would describe as being an emo.

being emo doesn't automatically make you emotionally unstable. You cannot judge a person on what type of music they listen to. That is just being stereotypical.
P.S if you don't like emos why are you dating one? Your girlfriend certainly sounds like one.

 

[DanP]

. I can say Mickey Rourke is sexy and I mean that sexual attractiveness is one of his qualities. It doesn't mean I desire to possesses the attractive qualities of, or desire to have sex with sunsets or Mickey Rourke, though those desires can also exist.

I hope from all my heart that you are a women. I mean, a man finding another man sexy ? Its ... gay. Not that is anything wrong with being gay.

 

[arildno]

I hope from all my heart that you are a women. I mean, a man finding another man sexy ? Its ... gay. Not that is anything wrong with being gay.

I am gay. But...Mickey Rourke? The girls can have him

 

[Mentallic]

being emo doesn't automatically make you emotionally unstable. You cannot judge a person on what type of music they listen to. That is just being stereotypical.
P.S if you don't like emos why are you dating one? Your girlfriend certainly sounds like one.

I classify him as emo because he's had suicidal tendencies, not because of the music, but that does fit the stereotype. My girlfriend isn't emo, and I didn't say I hate them, just that I don't trust them once they have a thing for my girlfriend and start asking her out

I am gay.

I don't come by gays very often, so seeing this is like 1 in a (insert percentage of gay population to total population here, then take its reciprocal and multiply by 100).

Nice to see that you're open about it

As for Mickey Rourke, I had to google image the guy, and by the very first image that pops up... damn... I'm with arildno on that one.

 

[arildno]

As for Mickey Rourke, I had to google image the guy, and by the very first image that pops up... damn... I'm with arildno on that one.

A sensible boy you are!

 

[TubbaBlubba]

I don't come by gays very often, so seeing this is like 1 in a (insert percentage of gay population to total population here, then take its reciprocal and multiply by 100).

Something like 1 in 10-20, but I don't think most people are that open about it. Number is, of course, frequently debated.

As a heterosexual male, I can say that I find it difficult to tell when men are attractive, I can't see it. I can however generally see when men are ugly. And Mickey Rourke is ugly.

 

[Mentallic]

Something like 1 in 10-20, but I don't think most people are that open about it. Number is, of course, frequently debated.

It's those damned bisexuals I tells ya. Overcomplicating these statistics with their crazy antics... who do they think they are!?

As a heterosexual male, I can say that I find it difficult to tell when men are attractive, I can't see it. I can however generally see when men are ugly.

Same here

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't come by gays very often...

Do you live in an underground bunker or something?

 

[gabbagabbahey]

Do you live in an underground bunker or something?

Maybe he's from Texas.(Or Iran; if you believe their loony-toons president)

 

[Huckleberry]

I hope from all my heart that you are a women. I mean, a man finding another man sexy ? Its ... gay. Not that is anything wrong with being gay.

No accounting for taste on my part apparently, but yes, I think he's a sexually attractive man. No, I'm not gay, but I've been called that before several times. Once by a roomate who was a divorced wife beater/deadbeat dad, and another time by a great uncle who was over 70 and liked to crudely proposition cocktail watresses for sexual favors. The odd thing is that I don't even like homosexuality, but much like I view attraction, there isn't a dislike associated with a person who is homosexual. I hope that one day it won't be necessary to add a disclaimer such as 'not that there is anything wrong with that' to differentiate between an unfavorable practice and an association of that unfavorable view towards a person. What I hate is insecure machismo, mostly because it threatens to punch me in the face or belittles me in front of my relatives any chance it gets. As of yet, no homosexual has ever threatened me in any way because of their homosexuality. Live and let live.

 

[Mentallic]

I don't come by gays very often

Do you live in an underground bunker or something?

Why, you see them all the time? I live in an average suburb, do you live in a gay club?

 

[lisab]

Why, you see them all the time? I live in an average suburb, do you live in a gay club?

You may not recognize them when you see them. Like TubbaBlubba said, the exact percentage isn't exactly known but 1 in 20 is probably close.

 

[DaveC426913]

Why, you see them all the time? I live in an average suburb...

Of what size city and what country?

I live in a Megatropolis in Canada and I would say 1 in 20 is low*. And that's not even counting the fact that I have the worst gaydar on the planet.

*I'm sure being the home of one of the largest gay pride parades in the world had nothi9ng to do with it



There are some men who are attractive no matter your persuasion.

I would have George's children.

 

[Mentallic]

Well I don't see how "I don't come by gays very often" is giving everyone the impression that I never come by gays That is a qualitative term which can just as easily represent 1 in 10-20. And remember that I can't spot a gay from a mile away, many are discrete about their sexuality.

 

[tikay]

Do you live in an underground bunker or something?

hehehe
~Thats what I am wondering, maybe Utah? Some heavy morman state?
(pun intended)

;~})

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Huck: I think that we are just coming at this from different directions and more or less see things similarly so I'm figuring on dropping the discussion unless there was anything I had said that you are particularly interested in having some clarification on.

Well I don't see how "I don't come by gays very often" is giving everyone the impression that I never come by gays That is a qualitative term which can just as easily represent 1 in 10-20. And remember that I can't spot a gay from a mile away, many are discrete about their sexuality.

I do not remember if you mentioned your age but I get the impression that you are fairly young, in the vicinity of 18 maybe? I can not think of anyone I knew of in high school (that is, actually at school) who was out of the closet. It was not until I had a social life outside of my school mates that I started meeting people who were openly gay. Hanging out at a coffee house probably had something to do with it too.

Just ask people what they think of Liza Minnelli. Madonna works too but results may be more mixed.

 

[tikay]

Of what size city and what country?

I live in a Megatropolis in Canada and I would say 1 in 20 is low*. And that's not even counting the fact that I have the worst gaydar on the planet.

*I'm sure being the home of one of the largest gay pride parades in the world had nothi9ng to do with it



There are some men who are attractive no matter your persuasion.

I would have George's children.

Silverlake has a nice little gay parade yearly, the turn-out is MARVELOUS DaRLink~

George Michael?

I am considering becoming a bi-sexual person lately, the pickin's are slim here for good guys.

 

[DaveC426913]

Just ask people what they think of Liza Minnelli. Madonna works too but results may be more mixed.

Or Streisand...
Or Abba...