What's a functional relationship?

apendrapew's post inspires me to think about dysfunctional relationships - whatever those are.

Isn't the term 'dysfunctional relationship' a pleonasm?

What is a relationship's function, anyways?
Wouldn't a functional relationship be meaningless?

Originally posted by Xev

What is a relationship's function, anyways?

To fuck with a otherwise sane mind.

Wouldn't a functional relationship be meaningless?


If such a thing existed.....yes then it would be.

a functional relationship as i see it is one which makes you happier than you'd be without it.

Originally posted by jps
a functional relationship as i see it is one which makes you happier than you'd be without it.

But eventually for many it turns opposite of ,what you stated, down the road.

jps:
a functional relationship as i see it is one which makes you happier than you'd be without it.

But a relationship doesn't make you happy, what you get out of the relationship makes you happy.

sargentlard:
To fuck with a otherwise sane mind.

Yeah - a sex partner who's readily available.
But sane people are bad lays, right?

I would define a functional relationship as one in which both parties benefit from it in some way. This actually doesn't even need to be in a "desired" way, as some relationships might result in benefit to one or both parties in a way which was not originally intended.

Originally posted by Xev

But sane people are bad lays, right?


Yes...they lack the imigaination and the stamina for the good stuff.;)

Originally posted by Xev

But a relationship doesn't make you happy, what you get out of the relationship makes you happy.

whats the difference?
so a functional relationship is one in you get more things that make you happy then unhappy.

The function of a relationship would be, as I see it, to add to the 'fullness' of each persons life, via companionship, intimacy(physical and/or mental), and support in a variety of areas, be it emotional, psychological, or financial.

Mind you fullness is a subjective term, but I'm hoping you can all understand what I mean. Also, because not everyone needs or even wants a 'significant other' in their life, a relationship is not necessarily required by all.

So I would say, in cases where a relationship is wanted/needed, it is anything but meaningless.

Originally posted by Xev
What's a functional relationship?

I'd say where two people are able to be together, and able to assert their individuality. Where they can be honest with each other and not play phony games. Where there's open communication from both people.


Isn't the term 'dysfunctional relationship' a pleonasm?

Only if all the relationships a person has experienced have been dysfunctional.


What is a relationship's function, anyways?

People get all kinds of things from relationships, here's the ones I can think of right now...

-sex
-economic benefits
-children and support for them
-emotional support (probably the largest)
-relief from loneliness
-sometimes status


Wouldn't a functional relationship be meaningless?

Meaning is subjective. Everything is meaningless unless one places meaning onto it. (Which is important, because, it seems humans have an almost biological need for meaning.)

sargentlard:
Yes...they lack the imigaination and the stamina for the good stuff.

Exactly, it'd be like...listening to the same cd for the rest of your life.

Xenu:
Only if all the relationships a person has experienced have been dysfunctional.

But if the essence of love is to strip off your skin like Narcissus in Midian, and being skinless and devoted means being vulnerable...well you see where I'm going.

People get all kinds of things from relationships, here's the ones I can think of right now...

-sex
-economic benefits
-children and support for them
-emotional support (probably the largest)
-relief from loneliness
-sometimes status

So a functional relationship is one in which you can best exploit your partner to your own ends?

Thanks guys.

Originally posted by Xev
What's a functional relationship?

A functional relationship is one where both people have both social, sexual, and mental stability with one another. It doesn't have to be a long relationship either, it simply must balance out the weaknesses and strengths of both partners.

For instance, The masochist seeks out the sadist. The Mommas boy seeks a women who will take care of him. The high maintenance woman seeks out $$$.

A functional relationship isn't the Leave it to Beaver, All-American, white picket fence dream, that is put out there by physchologists. It's one that fills the voids in your life and keeps challenging you every step of the way.

A functional relationship is one in which all parties are able to have a relationship without having to invest more maintenance in it than is due.

Functional relationships are very rare; it is better to think of most "relationships" as attempted procreations, as they are physical or based on physical convenience only.

For me, the ideal relationship would have the following:

- Mutual respect
- Sex and procreation
- Friendship
- Cuddling

A functional partner would also be able to handle my political/ethical beliefs without vomiting, running away, etc.

Relationships for sex only, and sex becoming boring: I think sex is overrated. Not saying that I don't enjoy it, but that I think the variations between individuals are overemphasized when the attitudes of individuals are underemphasized. I doubt I would enter a relationship for sex alone; :m: is much better for solo flying and has fewer disadvantages.

A functional relationship is like a Tango, in unspoken harmony, two must read each other perfectly. This relationship needs two syncronized players to make it work perfectly. For two to be in a functional relationship, they must be self correcting to each other's weaknesses and supplemental to other's strength. Terms that need to complimented are:

- Physical strength
- Understanding
- Skill level
- Passion
- Emotions
- Economic powers
- Sexual satisfaction
- Ect...Ect..

This is why I have always found that opposites attract and make for a good couple. When one lacks patience, the others must substitue, when one is scared, the other should be brave, when one is bad with money, the other must watch out, when one in mad the other must be ready to patch things up, when one likes to be complimented, the other likes to compliments, ect..ect..

Functional: Designed for or adapted to a particular function or use

With this definition of functional, we can see that a 'functional relationship' is simply a relationship where both members receive what they desire out of said relationship. This differs, obviously, from person to person. So, a 'functional relationship' is a subjective thing. What appears functional to some is not functional to others.

"What's a functional relationship?"
Semantically, a relationship that functions--which would therefore apply to all relationships. Because the existence of a relationship constitutes its functionality.

Pragmatically, every individual in or intending to be in a relationship expects (subconciosly or not) that relationship to provide certain functions. This is true for all relationships--business, emtional, parental, sexual, etc. However, since no two or more individuals in a given relationship share the shame expectations or rewards, the existence of a relationship indicates some DESIRED function. Else, that relationship woud be ceased. Therefore, all relationships are inherently functional.

"Isn't the term 'dysfunctional relationship' a pleonasm? "

No, it is an oxymoron. A relationship provides certain functions desired by by the individuals in that relationship. So far as that relationship exists, it is provide all or some functions.

"What is a relationship's function, anyways?"
It depends on the ralationship; each one has a various functions.
Sex, for one.

Wouldn't a functional relationship be meaningless?

This is a pleonasm, and No as it performs a function---assuming of course that you are attributing meaning to functionality.:m:

No No No. You could have a dissfunctional relatioship. It exists.

Look at the machines, they can be deemed disfunctional, while they are really somewhat functional, just the efficiency is not functioning correctly.

A disfunctional relationship is one that skips a beat, lot of beats, one that you wouldn't buy if you saw on the shelf.

But if the essence of love is to strip off your skin like Narcissus in Midian, and being skinless and devoted means being vulnerable...well you see where I'm going.

I wouldn't say that's the essence of love. Honesty about oneself doesn't necessarily mean vulnerability. Honesty about oneself equals vulnerability only if you are ashamed of yourself.


So a functional relationship is one in which you can best exploit your partner to your own ends?

Oops, took your question wrong the first time. I would say that list is a partial answer to your question "What is a relationship's function, anyways?". Humans do need to satisfy needs, and relationships make that easier.

However on another level, functional relationships provide dynamics in our lives. Being close to someone and being open to them, gives you a new unique perspective on the world. It can round a person out.

Shoot I had more, but I got distracted because I just found that Reason 2.5 is out.
www.propellerheads.se

Ahh, who needs women when you've got Reason. :p I'll post more later.

Look at the machines, they can be deemed disfunctional, while they are really somewhat functional, just the efficiency is not functioning correctly.

Efficiency and dynfunctionality are two different things. Dysfucntional means abnormal or impaired functioning. A perfectly functioning machine can be less efficient than another. A dysfunctional gun might blow up in your hand when you try to fire it. A less efficient gun might only fire its bullet 6 meters instead of a potential 9 meters. If a relationship exists, it provides a fucntion. A machine has a (set of) function/functions. A relationship never provides all its potential functions--as they change. While it exists, a desired function, whether negative or not, is desired, and thus the relationship's prolonged existence.
Thus every relationship is functional. -->Instead of dysnfunctional relationhip, I would say, a relationship that is relatively non-beneficial to one or more of the participants. This is different from dysnfunctional.

Originally posted by thefountainhed
Semantically, a relationship that functions--which would therefore apply to all relationships. Because the existence of a relationship constitutes its functionality.

Pragmatically, every individual in or intending to be in a relationship expects (subconciosly or not) that relationship to provide certain functions. This is true for all relationships--business, emtional, parental, sexual, etc. However, since no two or more individuals in a given relationship share the shame expectations or rewards, the existence of a relationship indicates some DESIRED function. Else, that relationship woud be ceased. Therefore, all relationships are inherently functional.


No, it is an oxymoron. A relationship provides certain functions desired by by the individuals in that relationship. So far as that relationship exists, it is provide all or some functions.


It depends on the ralationship; each one has a various functions.
Sex, for one.


This is a pleonasm, and No as it performs a function---assuming of course that you are attributing meaning to functionality.:m:

Boring word games - the existence of a relationship does not denote its functionality. A relationship, like all things, has an inception, a duration and a conclusion; during the time it is a relationship, it is most often trying to be a relationship.

Kids, don't confuse a few things memorized in semantics textbooks for real philosophical knowledge.

TheFountainHead, you're named after a philosophically-ignorant book.

XEV...so how does sex play into this. I know many people who feel good sex can even account for some personal differences in relationships.....so is amazing sex also part of a so called.."functional relationship" or is it a maladaptive part of a dysfunctional relationship since eventually the participants will eventually realize that only fucking around is getting them through???:m:

Xenu:
Honesty about oneself equals vulnerability only if you are ashamed of yourself.

No, complete honesty equals vulnerability if one has any weaknesses whatsoever.

Oops, took your question wrong the first time. I would say that list is a partial answer to your question "What is a relationship's function, anyways?". Humans do need to satisfy needs, and relationships make that easier.

Rather Machiavellian of you, I like it although I don't agree. Relationships exist to satisfy needs - honesty is valued because your ability to force the other to satisfy your needs is increased the more you know of their vulnerabilitys....is this your argument?

Prozak:
Functional relationships are very rare; it is better to think of most "relationships" as attempted procreations, as they are physical or based on physical convenience only.

I wasn't thinking soley about sexual-romantic relationships.

Sargentlard:
I know many people who feel good sex can even account for some personal differences in relationships.....so is amazing sex also part of a so called.."functional relationship" or is it a maladaptive part of a dysfunctional relationship since eventually the participants will eventually realize that only fucking around is getting them through???

I'd say that the essential need being satisfied by the relationship is sexual, thus the relationship is functional.

Anyways, I'm bored now.

Originally posted by Xev
I wasn't thinking soley about sexual-romantic relationships.
[/B]

Me either; I was asserting that most relationships didn't even need to be attempted relationships, as it seems to me many don't start out seroma (sex-romantic) but become that way by convenience + biology.

In that case I agree completely.
I think the attempt to find salvation or 'meaning' in the relationship is another reason.
When will people learn to take care of themselves?

Originally posted by Xev

I think the attempt to find salvation or 'meaning' in the relationship is another reason.
When will people learn to take care of themselves?

What I have learned, in part, agrees with this strongly. Regardless of the ideology behind it (traditional/open/polyamoristic/etc) a relationship survives only outside of dependency and other psychological projection factors.

Drugs make it twice as bad too!

Originally posted by Xev
In that case I agree completely.
I think the attempt to find salvation or 'meaning' in the relationship is another reason.
When will people learn to take care of themselves?

What if you find yourself incapable of taking care of yourself? Maybe you can't speak ... Your loved one is important ... He/She knows what you want - since you didn't put it into a will ...

Take care of yourself at the expense of some company along the way - the kind that would walk beside you regardless of how you feel.

Pity the cold souls that cannot laugh at themselves.

Slip into something black, relish your flowing beauty, grab a beer and start typing.

there is no such thing as a functional relationship.......

prozak:
What I have learned, in part, agrees with this strongly. Regardless of the ideology behind it (traditional/ open/polyamoristic/etc) a relationship survives only outside of dependency and other psychological projection factors.

Yes, that's what I find odd about the current perception of relationships. 'Love' is seen as something almost necessary to life.

I have not found this to be the case. I went without being 'loving' or being 'loved' for 18 years and it did not affect me adversely. Indeed, I was rather more productive.

Being with my Other is a privilege, not a necessity. Humans, to my mind, function best alone.

Relationships for sex only, and sex becoming boring: I think sex is overrated.

I'm not sure if it's sex that's overrated, more that it's trivialized through excess. American culture is so saturated with sexualized images that sex is seen as a indispensible fact of life, akin to eating cereal for breakfast and imbued with as much significance.

I'd prefer the old view of sex as a dirty, evil, sinful thing to the current view of sex as a non-thing.
Nowadays, transgression lies not in being a slut but in being selective, being "anti-pleasure" according to the current cultural gibberish.
Not that I have any religious affinity for virginity or seeing sex as a significant act, of course, but I've come to find it a - refreshing change - from the inane hedonism I notice.

It would seem that passion and the ability to actually empathize with one's partner is the new sexual rebellion.

Originally posted by Xev

Yes, that's what I find odd about the current perception of relationships. 'Love' is seen as something almost necessary to life.



We are approaching this from different ends of the issue, through definitions. You say the perception of what a relationship is, should change; I say that not everything needs to be a relationship. My own prediction is that more friends who fornicate will become the norm, as people try to find modern people who aren't screwballs.

I think the whole concept of relationship (and Other People) as being the fulfillment of life is a giant reeking crock that is outdated in social effect.


I have not found this to be the case. I went without being 'loving' or being 'loved' for 18 years and it did not affect me adversely. Indeed, I was rather more productive.

Being with my Other is a privilege, not a necessity. Humans, to my mind, function best alone.


Isolation is power.


I'm not sure if it's sex that's overrated, more that it's trivialized through excess. American culture is so saturated with sexualized images that sex is seen as a indispensible fact of life, akin to eating cereal for breakfast and imbued with as much significance.

I'd prefer the old view of sex as a dirty, evil, sinful thing to the current view of sex as a non-thing.
Nowadays, transgression lies not in being a slut but in being selective, being "anti-pleasure" according to the current cultural gibberish.
Not that I have any religious affinity for virginity or seeing sex as a significant act, of course, but I've come to find it a - refreshing change - from the inane hedonism I notice.

It would seem that passion and the ability to actually empathize with one's partner is the new sexual rebellion.

Classical values are eternal. The modern is transient, but made of 10,000 year plastic.

prozak:
We are approaching this from different ends of the issue, through definitions. You say the perception of what a relationship is, should change; I say that not everything needs to be a relationship. My own prediction is that more friends who fornicate will become the norm, as people try to find modern people who aren't screwballs.

You think the fuckbuddy is the new frontier? I'm a bit unclear.
I don't think that the definition of a relationship should change, I simply find the current attitude towards relationships to be invalid.

I think the whole concept of relationship (and Other People) as being the fulfillment of life is a giant reeking crock that is outdated in social effect.

Agreed.

I regard the Mills and Boone view of love/relationships as a necessary part of life as an inane and transparent attempt to sell people crap.

Buy self-help books so that you can be in a good relationship.
Buy "Mars and Venus" books so that you can prune and manipulate your relationship.
Buy membership to dating sites so that you can have a relationship.
Buy cosmetics so that you can attract people for a relationship.
Buy cards to maintain your relationship.

You see where I'm going.

Isolation is power.

This is so. The options are not to dominate or submit, but to dominate, submit or isolate.

Domination never feels as good as you think it will. 9 times out of 10, the desire for status and wealth simply entangles one in a web of insidious social control.

Or as Hegel pointed out, he who would rule is ruled by those he allegedly rules.

No, complete honesty equals vulnerability if one has any weaknesses whatsoever.

Not if you are aware and accept your weaknesses. An example of this is AA, in which one of the main foundations is being honest about your addiction to yourself, others, and others in the program. It is because of this honesty that this program is successful as it is.

Someone who's been sober for a number of years knows that they still have a weakness for alcohol, but only because they are aware of this and accept this, they become invulnerable to people who may try to pressure them to drink. They may still have a weakness, but they aren't vulnerable if they don't allow it. For instance, they may know that if they go to a bar they may fall of the wagon, but they can choose to not go to a bar.

Rather Machiavellian of you, I like it although I don't agree. Relationships exist to satisfy needs - honesty is valued because your ability to force the other to satisfy your needs is increased the more you know of their vulnerabilitys....is this your argument?

You are taking parts of my point of view out of context of other parts. Are you really trying to understand my position or are you just trying to discredit me? Or maybe I'm just not clear?

Yes on one level of a relationship there exists a satisfaction of needs. Historically, marriages have been about economics - often a way of tying two families together, to increase survival. This is important in relationships today. It's a lot easier to survive in groups than by individuals (hence the evolution of language and culture). On a relationship level this is the same. If one person doesn't provide for anything and doesn't offer any support at all, not contributing to the relationship (physically, economically, or emotionally), can this be a functional relationship? Can you see such a situation last, even if the other person claimed to love them? It's not necessarily about exploiting your partner at this level, but about combining resources. It would be exploitation if the person manipulated the other to do something that they didn't want to do, such as "take out the trash, or you don't get laid tonight".

However, I'll restate, this is only one level, but I'd say is a foundation needed for what I'm saying next.

On another level (one that I consider more important) a functional relationship provides a union where both individuals can assert their individuality. It provides mutual discovery, through another's point of view, via intimacy. For instance, I could be a hermit all my life and never love anyone, and yes I could live well and quite possibly be perfectly happy. However, being intimate with someone, in a relationship where both partners stand their own ground and free from phony manipulation games, one gains another perspective, one can develop a more clearer understanding of the world from another's perspective, giving the person a much "wider" experience of life.

Isolation is power.

A person who isolates has power over what or who?

A functional relationship is a relation ship that functions. If the relationship is not functioning then it nolonger exists.
A functional relationship may result in happy ever after, couple suicide or murder. It is one of the worlds most meaningless terms.

Boring word games - the existence of a relationship does not denote its functionality. A relationship, like all things, has an inception, a duration and a conclusion; during the time it is a relationship, it is most often trying to be a relationship. Kids, don't confuse a few things memorized in semantics textbooks for real philosophical knowledge.

LMAFAO. Is someone high on Prozac? I thought the combination of such a potent drug and bigotry would be enough. There is such a thing as a semantics textbook? The question posed was whether "dysfunctional relationship" is a pleonasm. It is, 'Semantically.' "real philosphical knowledge"? This thread is under Free thoughts!!! The intentions of my last post were not to present 'philosophical knowledge'. What is philosphical knowledge anyway? The memoralization of Kant? Plato? Nietzche? Their works are their opinions/thoughts. Kids don't let your spite be obvious; and don't confuse your insecurity-induced egos for knowledge.

"during the time it is a relationship, it is most often trying to be a relationship"

Wow. elightening. :rolleyes: And while it is a 'relationship' it is performing a fucntion and thus functional. And u want to discuss the irreverent?


TheFountainHead, you're named after a philosophically-ignorant book.

If one more ignorant twit misspells my damn name....The name is the thefountainHED, not thefountainHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As for the book in particular being philosphically ignorant, you are wrong. What Rand presents in this book are her OWN philosphical views, however contradicting they might be. That is not ignorant. What she says in other books, essays or interviews is irrelevant. Her inability to realize that a lot of the philosphers she claims to disagree with share some of her views is irrelevant to the book. And when the did I say I agree with Rand on most things she says? Hell, I have on more than one occasion dissmissed Atlas Shrugged, etc as mere regurgitation of old views and her views as overly influenced by her experiences with the 'ad bad communists.' >[url]http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22515

FOUNTAIN + HED!!! It is a mutherfucking derision.

Originally posted by Xev
prozak:

You think the fuckbuddy is the new frontier? I'm a bit unclear.
I don't think that the definition of a relationship should change, I simply find the current attitude towards relationships to be invalid.


Understood. I think it's one and the same. Whether attitude changes or definition changes, it is a modification of process. I think the fuckbuddy is where most smart people are going until they either find 1) a "life partner" (which most people seek) or 2) a comfortable environment that includes family and social group and regular sex, balanced with job and other crap.


I regard the Mills and Boone view of love/relationships as a necessary part of life as an inane and transparent attempt to sell people crap.

Buy self-help books so that you can be in a good relationship.
Buy "Mars and Venus" books so that you can prune and manipulate your relationship.
Buy membership to dating sites so that you can have a relationship.
Buy cosmetics so that you can attract people for a relationship.
Buy cards to maintain your relationship.

You see where I'm going.


Marketing stops for nothing. And not to mention the entertainment industry: if people weren't craved for "love" all the time, would they buy as many songs/movies/books about it?


This is so. The options are not to dominate or submit, but to dominate, submit or isolate.


I'd add another one: "achieve function," in which domination and submission are shared unequally across several modes of operation.


Or as Hegel pointed out, he who would rule is ruled by those he allegedly rules.

Slaves... and masters.

Originally posted by thefountainhed
There is such a thing as a semantics textbook? The question posed was whether "dysfunctional relationship" is a pleonasm. It is, 'Semantically.' "real philosphical knowledge"? This thread is under Free thoughts!!! The intentions of my last post were not to present 'philosophical knowledge'. What is philosphical knowledge anyway? The memoralization of Kant? Plato? Nietzche? Their works are their opinions/thoughts. Kids don't let your spite be obvious; and don't confuse your insecurity-induced egos for knowledge.


Yes, there are semantics textbooks. Regardless of where this thread is, spewing tired and pointless and inaccurate data is foolish. So I would repeat your last sentence to you.

As for the book in particular being philosphically ignorant, you are wrong. What Rand presents in this book are her OWN philosphical views, however contradicting they might be. That is not ignorant.

...Spewing tired and pointless and inaccurate data is foolish...

*sigh*

So bleek.

Relationships?

Wow.

The most basic use for "other people" is goods. If some farmer in Wisconson doesn't kill lettuce plants for you, you starve. Lot of times you're find that if you're a total fucking DICK to that farmer, he won't sell you lettuce and YOU in particular are fucked because you couldn't predict his social requirements for a business transaction.

The same kind of deal works between people in non-business relationships. It's all about economics really. For instance, I get a lot of fun feedback from you people here. As such, I appreciate that you exist. In order to express that appreciation I use social skillz to communicate complimentary thoughts to you such that you'll hopefully acknowledge my appreciation. I benefit from you, you benefit from me (at least in some manner). I hang with people whom I relate to because they offer me pleasure in some form. I aim to increase my pleasure (which is a form of survival in that it's increasing my "standard of living" to experience pleasure and a few other things like positive feedback from cursory social interactions.. blah blah) thus I seek social scenarios that allow me to gain more of it.

If your social skills suck, you will justify to yourself that being a loner is the thing to do. Why? That increases your pleasure no? You don't have to deal with your suckass social skillz being put in your face by random fucks you don't care about... so your mind will justify all scenarios that you can find to avoid social contact and tell you that you're better off for it because it sees it as you getting more pleasure (at least less unpleasurable bullshit).

A "dysfunctional relationship" is a name for a relationship between people that is more damaging than good, but people percieve their deal a pleasurable.. so they stick with it. It's like heroin or something. People know it's killing them but FUCK it feels good.

A "functional relationship" is where people can still maintain their comfortable level of individuality while being in some sort of commitment to a mate. Basically it's when someone can actually put up with your sorry ass when then know what your crotch smells like after a day at the beach. It's that they can deal with it, accept it and be improved by that acceptance rather than it being traumatizing to them (which in the case of my particular .. well, hehe.. I can't believe I've got a chick!).

Actually a 'functional relationship' can be much more basic.. and doesn't mean necessarily that people like each other... but obviously it's the context in which you use the phrase that defines it. In other words, I was talking about marriage type of "functional relationships" above.. but a more simplistic definition is also available. It could mean for instance the relationship between the farmer selling lettuce and one of their customers. That's functional relationship. Hehe.. hell the relationship between my foot, the accelorator and the fuel injectors on my car is functional as well, so basically I'm spewing drivel. Pardon.

Eh, I'm spent for now.

Just to add on Dr. Wesmorris valuable comments:

That heroine that makes people stay in the relationship is not their love for their partner, it's a selfish act and love for oneself. In normal situation, people hate to admit that they are failures, and their declaration that the relationship is no longer working is somehow a declaration that they are failures. No one wants to declare that they are failures.... There is also the fear of "What's next if this doesn't work". Way too many people justify staying in failing relationships because they are terrified of the unknown future.
.

Originally posted by Flores
Just to add on Dr. Wesmorris valuable comments:


I've only got a stinking BS, but thanks!
Originally posted by Flores

That heroine that makes people stay in the relationship is not their love for their partner, it's a selfish act and love for oneself.


Agreed, but there's a synergy kind of thing to it a lot of times... I mean, the sick twisted pleasure feeds the other person's sick twisted pleasure.. but you have a good point.
Originally posted by Flores

In normal situation, people hate to admit that they are failures, and their declaration that the relationship is no longer working is somehow a declaration that they are failures. No one wants to declare that they are failures....


Excellent point.
Originally posted by Flores
There is also the fear of "What's next if this doesn't work". Way too many people justify staying in failing relationships because they are terrified of the unknown future.
.

Another good point. At least they know what to expect, even it is merely misery. Of course, that means they are likely accustomed to misery or possibly not self-aware enough to realize that they are in it. It's amazing how distracted people can get.

...Spewing tired and pointless and inaccurate data is foolish...

This: "TheFountainHead, you're named after a philosophically-ignorant book." is "tired and pointless and incurrate data."

----> My name is FountainHED. You are regurgitating bullshit you read somewhere. Philosphically ignorant? What kind of meaningless label is that?

This: "As for the book in particular being philosphically ignorant, you are wrong. What Rand presents in this book are her OWN philosphical views, however contradicting they might be. That is not ignorant." is obvious.

---> She wrote a book on her views

A relationship??? Probably our modern counterpart of what monkeys do to each other, namely "grooming" each other...it builds bonds and lowers stress (at least according to the Discovery Channel :D).

Other than that? Sex. Always sex. Enough justification.

You know I swear to myself I will have nothing to do with Xev and that is when she is most determined to be the only person that thinks for herself on this forum. But there is only one problem:

Xev, you can't only think your way through life, you have to live it too.

prozak:
Understood. I think it's one and the same. Whether attitude changes or definition changes, it is a modification of process. I think the fuckbuddy is where most smart people are going until they either find 1) a "life partner" (which most people seek) or 2) a comfortable environment that includes family and social group and regular sex, balanced with job and other crap.

I agree that the fuckbuddy is probably the most logical choice. 'Love' relationships eat one alive - but friendship and good sex? Most sensible.

Marketing stops for nothing. And not to mention the entertainment industry: if people weren't craved for "love" all the time, would they buy as many songs/movies/books about it?

I'd suspect that most people knew what "love" is, they'd not be able to sell a damn thing using it.

I'd add another one: "achieve function," in which domination and submission are shared unequally across several modes of operation.

Interesting...could you give an example?

Slaves... and masters.

Precisely, master becomes a function of slave. Of course it never works out this perfectly - lip service can be paid to the slave's ideals while they are ignored. The Borgias come to mind.

Originally posted by Xev


1 - I agree that the fuckbuddy is probably the most logical choice. 'Love' relationships eat one alive - but friendship and good sex? Most sensible.

2 - I'd suspect that most people knew what "love" is, they'd not be able to sell a damn thing using it.

3 - Interesting...could you give an example?

4 - Precisely, master becomes a function of slave. Of course it never works out this perfectly - lip service can be paid to the slave's ideals while they are ignored. The Borgias come to mind.

4 - The best servant is one who doesn't care about anything but immediate gratification and, if masters must be servants, the best master, too.

3 - Imagining for a moment there are two people in a relationship: one is a liberal arts type, very organic thought process but not interested in say, mathematics; the other is an engineer and devout Hindu. If these people were to have a relationship, whether professional or romantic, two major areas would be explored:
- How to assign duties based on strengths/weaknesses.
- How to criticize the other in the other's area of expertise when the other is not quite figuring it out.
For the first question, the answer is simple: recognize which strengths each has and delegate to them questions in this area. The second question is harder: 90% of it is solved by pure civility, and 10% is knowing when someone is underconfident and to let the problem die or be obliquely resolved instead.

I've met a few of these pairings. You generally never hear about them because they have few crises.

2 - Intangibles never sell anything. Lust, dependency, plastic... all of these can be sold.

1 - I think this goes back to the point you made in #2 - as a culture, we've become divorced from love. If we knew what love really was, we might see it as closer to friends who fornicate who could see themselves keeping up the partnership for long enough to raise a child.