Found this (http://msn.match.com/msn/article.aspx?articleid=321&articleSrc=4&sid=BCA13B91-A9C7-4E39-8064-B82C1900F041&trackingid=516311&theme=215&lid=161).... Xev would probably puke when reading this thing..... :D

It basically says that the way to "turn women on" is by being romantic. Well... I think that's bullshit. I mean.... look at the TV.... being stupid and chovinist seem to be the fashion right now (for amny years... :rolleyes: ). I mean... just look at what people look for on each other. It's sad. Guys are usually "macho" (the term in the articale) or cheesy romantic. Both ways seem to work just fine. But what about true romance? I think this is a real question here:

What is true romance?

Is it opening the door of the car and treating girls like fragile dolls? No way! Crap! They are so strong, many times stronger then men! I mean... we (men) don't go through 9 months of emotional swings and nausea, do we? And to deliver a baby sometimes take quite a few hours, and it's not exactly pleasurable, is it!? And we don't have to go through that the mood swings and mestruation every month, do we? So who are stronger, men or women? Common girls! If you valorize those cheesy behaviours, you are just asking to be treated like fragile dolls! Which reminds me of a play.... "The Doll's House" by Ibsen....

So what would be true romance compared to cheesy romance. I guess true romance is to be honest and truthful with your partner. Maybe it is to support each other but not depend on each other. I mean... you can always cuddle and do this kind of thing..... But there's an intellectual and mutual feeling attached to all that. You should be in a relationship for having fun, and not to depend on each other, right?

And above all... listen to your partner, to his/her emotions and problems while not trying to solve everything. It's emotional support, basically.

I think all these cheesy romantic stuff are very untruthful and maybe even ridiculous. It's all this pompous stuff that sometimes doesn't even show your true feelings. The whole article is wrong from the beginning. I mean..." how to turn on a women"? I mean...... look just at the beginning?

"So you read the Mars-Venus books, practiced reciting great pickup lines and learned how to order wine. You tried acting sensitive, and when that didn't work, you reverted to macho. You watched chick-flicks. You kissed women's hands. You took ballroom dance lessons, for Pete's sake.
But nothing seems to be working. When you ask women out, they say they're doing laundry."

Ok. What are you trying to do? You are changing yourself so that the girls will like you? Is that romantic? Geeeeeeezzzzz.... :rolleyes:


Besides, the world today is filled with violent and stupid stuff. Guys are not romantic, and I don't think girls like romantism at all anyways. They seem to prefer the macho guys that treat them like objects and spit on the ground. That's what we see on the TV. All this "bachelor" and stuff. If it is there, it sells. You cannot argue about that cause that's how marketing works. And if it sells, it's because the majority thinks and acts that way. So there ya go - we are not romantic.

So.... what do ya think? Is romance dead?

I think that one aspect of 'true romance' is just taking comfort in the presence of your loved one. It's when you can totally relax in someone else's presence and just be yourself. It's looking outwards at the world together, not gazing goggle-eyed at each other.

My girlfriend and I are very self-reflective. We talk about what we think and what we are feeling, we are open. And when she goes to sleep with her head on my chest, listening to the beating of my heart, I am content. There is no extra baggage, no passionate fervor, just the restful peace of knowing that life is good and tomorrow is always a surprise.

We hold doors for each other as a joke, saying "after you" and smiling. Those cheesy romantic things are jokes, used to give us a chance to be spontaneous and reflective.

" how to turn on a women"?
That's not how you start good relationships. Sure, sometimes it works out, but the majority of relationships who start from sex end in disaster.

Women want men to be strong protectors of them. The most important thing a woman wants from a man is faithfulness. Without a faithful heart there can be no love.
Men want women to need them and to show appreciation for their protective natures. Men want women to be faithful too.
Where there is faithlessness there can never be unity and thus no love or romance.
Romance is only possible in faithfulness because we have to reveal ourselves to eachother. It is this very delicate act of revealing oneself to the other that I would call romance. It is a great evil when one partner then rejects the others trust in them and then chooses to be unfaithful.

Truthseeker, just because you haven't found someone for whom you'd like to be romantic, it doesn't mean that romance is dead.

Fall in love already; it's about time, considering your age.

I think that one aspect of 'true romance' is just taking comfort in the presence of your loved one. It's when you can totally relax in someone else's presence and just be yourself. It's looking outwards at the world together, not gazing goggle-eyed at each other.
Exactly! And that goes really well with my definition of love....
Too bad it's hard to find someone like this....

My girlfriend and I are very self-reflective. We talk about what we think and what we are feeling, we are open. And when she goes to sleep with her head on my chest, listening to the beating of my heart, I am content. There is no extra baggage, no passionate fervor, just the restful peace of knowing that life is good and tomorrow is always a surprise.
You are lucky...


Truthseeker, just because you haven't found someone for whom you'd like to be romantic, it doesn't mean that romance is dead.
It's not just me.... it also seems that the world is too... I don't know... uncaring, I guess...... Definetely indifferent.....

Fall in love already; it's about time, considering your age.
I sort of did that with.... ahhhh... :rolleyes: my roommate. I tried to avoid this situation but it was hard to. It's a hard situation too. She helped me with some issues and she wants to let me be myself. I mean.. she said it. She said I can be myself with her. Her problem is that whenever there is any problem happening around, she blames me - even if it is something like the weather, for example. And she doesn't care about the fact that I've been organizing her entire stuff because our place is a real mess. She is messy and disorganized, and for some reason she doesn't see it. So... yeah. It seems to me that we both want a good and healthy relationship, but we are kinda having some issues - specially because she always repress her problems and, likely, her feelings......... :eek:

So yeah... right now I have one foot on the relationship and another outside it. I'm not sure if I really want to connect with her... :/

Her problem is that whenever there is any problem happening around, she blames me - even if it is something like the weather, for example.

It's always like that. It's either Mom's fault, or cat's fault, or... the bf's fault. There's no mom or cat, so, hehe.

And she doesn't care about the fact that I've been organizing her entire stuff because our place is a real mess.

See, that's romantic. And it's not dead. Romance is in small things; the key is to be in love. It takes love to appreciate the green goo your partner calls "omlet" and offers for lunch in the kitchen.

Do you mean I'm romantic because I do or she is romantic because she doesn't care? :D:D <----- isn't that romantic? :D

Hey lets face the economy sucks. Between outsourcing, rising deficet, an on-going war, employment and underemployment rates climb, de-valuing of the buck.......Romance has got a black eye. You can only pull the "take her to see the sunset trick" so many times before it gets old. More than 1/2 of all things linked to romance have a $ sign attatched to it and with the dollar becoming more and more scarce and worth less and less....romance is gonna have to take a back seat to neccessities (food clothing shelter) for a while.

Women want men to be strong protectors of them. The most important thing a woman wants from a man is faithfulness. Without a faithful heart there can be no love.
Men want women to need them and to show appreciation for their protective natures. Men want women to be faithful too.
Where there is faithlessness there can never be unity and thus no love or romance.
Romance is only possible in faithfulness because we have to reveal ourselves to eachother. It is this very delicate act of revealing oneself to the other that I would call romance. It is a great evil when one partner then rejects the others trust in them and then chooses to be unfaithful.

Good explanation. Revealing personal secrets with eachother, aka honesty, is the true definition of romance. If you want more info TS, I suggest you check out the 'Theory of Attraction'.

Good explanation. Revealing personal secrets with eachother, aka honesty, is the true definition of romance.
Huuumm.... I think you mean "fidelity" here.... ;)
Trust, for sure....
And the ability to be free to be yourself. Which is love.

If you want more info TS, I suggest you check out the 'Theory of Attraction'.
What is that? Any links? ;)

TruthSeeker
It basically says that the way to "turn women on" is by being romantic. Well... I think that's bullshit. I mean.... look at the TV.... being stupid and chovinist seem to be the fashion right now (for amny years... ). I mean... just look at what people look for on each other. It's sad. Guys are usually "macho" (the term in the articale) or cheesy romantic. Both ways seem to work just fine.
I think maybe it's time you turned off the TV and lived real life.

If you valorize those cheesy behaviours, you are just asking to be treated like fragile dolls!
Mmm hmmm... and if a guy 'valorizes' his nuts, he will not treat her like a fragile doll.

Besides, the world today is filled with violent and stupid stuff. Guys are not romantic, and I don't think girls like romantism at all anyways. They seem to prefer the macho guys that treat them like objects and spit on the ground. That's what we see on the TV. All this "bachelor" and stuff. If it is there, it sells. You cannot argue about that cause that's how marketing works. And if it sells, it's because the majority thinks and acts that way. So there ya go - we are not romantic.
There's romance and then there's the 'what's wrong baby?' after he finished his own mind numbing orgasm after just 2 minutes (including foreplay). And TS, I shall say it again, get away from the TV. It's not real. It is not real life. It may be called reality TV, but it's all put on and orchestrated to appeal to people like you. And for God's sake, get laid or something.

So.... what do ya think? Is romance dead?
Romance is not dead. Far from it. Just look at the earnings from florists on Valentines Day and you'll see that romance is not dead. :rolleyes: After all, it is the one day where people are expected to be romantic. Every other day after that doesn't mean jack shit. Romance is when your loved one goes to a book store and sees something he/she thinks you will like and buys it for you because they know you. Romance is when your loved one gives you a plant instead of a piece hacked off from a plant, wrapped up in pretty paper. Romance is when your loved one knows when to keep the hell away and when not to.

Romance is when your other half doesn't try to be romantic.

And she doesn't care about the fact that I've been organizing her entire stuff because our place is a real mess. She is messy and disorganized, and for some reason she doesn't see it.
Awww... how romantic. You're her maid.

So... yeah. It seems to me that we both want a good and healthy relationship, but we are kinda having some issues - specially because she always repress her problems and, likely, her feelings........
Yes TS. Organising her stuff is such a good basis for a healthy relationship. And she's probably repressing her feelings and problems in the bid that you continue acting like her maid. She's onto a good thing, why ruin it with 'romance', after which she'll have to fold her own underwear.

So yeah... right now I have one foot on the relationship and another outside it. I'm not sure if I really want to connect with her...
It's not a relationship. You're her flatmate. You shuffle through her stuff and try to organise it to your liking. You pick up after her. She tells you to be yourself because as yourself you clean up her mess. She sees you not only as her maid but also her special friend who offloads his problems on her.

And the ability to be free to be yourself. Which is love.
No. Being free to be one's self is not an ability. It does not arrive like a superpower. Being free to be yourself is not love. It only means that you are mature enough to know yourself and your needs and to act selfishly to attain those needs and wants. If you don't feel free to be yourself, you're being someone else.

c20H25N3o
Women want men to be strong protectors of them.
LMAO!

Ahhh that's hilarious... really.. wipes tears of laughter from eyes...

The most important thing a woman wants from a man is faithfulness. Without a faithful heart there can be no love.
There are many loving relationships where both partners aren't faithful, but still love each other more than anything or anyone in the world.

Men want women to need them and to show appreciation for their protective natures.
Snorts...

LMAO!

Got to love that caveman mentality.

There is nothing attractive about a needy individual. Quite off putting actually. Be they male or female.

Truthseeker ... Do you really seek truth or is it that you just lean to your own understanding on every matter?

I could mock you but I will put my mockery away. You are suffering enough!

I was very happy to give my attention and listen carefully to what my Ex was saying, that was why we lasted for 15 years together for we both paid attention to each others needs and wants. It was just that last year when she was keeping the truth about seeing another man behind my back is when things with her really started to start to fade away.I was faithful while she was not. So listening and trusting the other half isn't always going to work out in reality and that is why over 70 percent of ALL marriages fail sometime during there duration.

So women want to have faithfull men as long as they can be unfaithull whenever they feel it is time for them to move along. Women can hide their unfaithfulness from a man much easier than visa-versa. Women adapt quicker to new relationships faster also to forget about those ex's that they really didn't want any longer.

I think romantic attachments are very real, whether it be love story, or an emotional ideal of what one finds appealing to their senses. One can be "romantic" in how they choose to view and relate to things~ such as art, or pleasing narratives, or events
which open the heart and mind more completely. It's not a sappy context to be and feel romantic.

A man's individual intrinsic qualities are romantic to a woman. If a man has an essential nature in how he is a gentleman, it will frame a romantic ideal a woman will have of him. Men who do not have a value or sense for such substance aren't appealing in the long run. Men who place little value on the romance of life, be it in their relationships with woman or interests, don't end up having very satisfying love lives. And for the men who don't care to have appealing or arousing emotion in their lives, these are the guy's the beer commercials are meant for on Saturday and Sunday afternoon. Although, I do have faith that men can be just as excitedly romantic about their women, as they are about their favorite sport team~ bouquets and box scores are a sexy combination when appreciated the same.

I was very happy to give my attention and listen carefully to what my Ex was saying, that was why we lasted for 15 years together for we both paid attention to each others needs and wants. It was just that last year when she was keeping the truth about seeing another man behind my back is when things with her really started to start to fade away.I was faithful while she was not. So listening and trusting the other half isn't always going to work out in reality and that is why over 70 percent of ALL marriages fail sometime during there duration.

So women want to have faithfull men as long as they can be unfaithull whenever they feel it is time for them to move along. Women can hide their unfaithfulness from a man much easier than visa-versa. Women adapt quicker to new relationships faster also to forget about those ex's that they really didn't want any longer.

I am sorry for you. I know your pain. She will never be happy.

I will never find anyone like her again for I have lost trust in ALL women. When one person is betrayed it doesn't sit well for the remainder of their lives. I still love her today but never will trust her or see her again. It has been 25 years since our divorce.

I think maybe it's time you turned off the TV and lived real life.
TV is a reflection of real life. That's a fact in psychology and sociology (other sciences, also).

Mmm hmmm... and if a guy 'valorizes' his nuts, he will not treat her like a fragile doll.
Yeah.... but if he overvalorize them, he will treat her badly...

There's romance and then there's the 'what's wrong baby?' after he finished his own mind numbing orgasm after just 2 minutes (including foreplay).
That's a loser....

And TS, I shall say it again, get away from the TV. It's not real. It is not real life. It may be called reality TV, but it's all put on and orchestrated to appeal to people like you.
1) I'm not talking just about reality TV. Movies are also an expression of society. If people didn't like them, we wouldn't have them.
2) I'm not appealed by that shit.

And for God's sake, get laid or something.
I'm working on it...

Romance is not dead. Far from it. Just look at the earnings from florists on Valentines Day and you'll see that romance is not dead.
That's not enough to define romance. Flowers are also an indication of cheesy romance (like Titanic- yuck!). Romance is waaaaaaaaaaaay more then just flowers. It's a deep conenction between two people. If you ever study psychology, you will learn that you cannot be in a healthy successful relationship until you resolve your identity. You need a strong sense of identity in order to have a healthy relationship, because the other pesron must not "complete" you. It should be like... an association. It's independent, and at the same time it is caring (which is the "dependent" side, which is not really dependent). In this scenerio you are free to be yourself and that is true romance.

After all, it is the one day where people are expected to be romantic.
Cheesy romantic, unfortunately. Do you know society thinks that "Bachelor" is romantic? I bet it does....!

Every other day after that doesn't mean jack shit. Romance is when your loved one goes to a book store and sees something he/she thinks you will like and buys it for you because they know you.
That's a great example! Hey... my roomate does that.....!

Romance is when your loved one gives you a plant instead of a piece hacked off from a plant, wrapped up in pretty paper. Romance is when your loved one knows when to keep the hell away and when not to.
You have some idea of romantism.

Romance is when your other half doesn't try to be romantic.
There's no "other half". It's two wholes.

Awww... how romantic. You're her maid.
Yeah.. I know... :/
That's why I asked whitewolf if that was really romantic....

Yes TS. Organising her stuff is such a good basis for a healthy relationship. And she's probably repressing her feelings and problems in the bid that you continue acting like her maid. She's onto a good thing, why ruin it with 'romance', after which she'll have to fold her own underwear.
Actually, I rethink what I said. You have no idea what romantism is. And I think it's because you miss the whole point of romantism.

It's not a relationship. You're her flatmate. You shuffle through her stuff and try to organise it to your liking. You pick up after her. She tells you to be yourself because as yourself you clean up her mess. She sees you not only as her maid but also her special friend who offloads his problems on her.
I don't think she is aware of the problem. Not to mention that I already told her to organize her stuff. I put everything aside and she is gonna do it. So, no. You are not right.

No. Being free to be one's self is not an ability. It does not arrive like a superpower.
Swimming is an ability. So... by you rlogic, swimming is a superpower....

Being free to be yourself is not love. It only means that you are mature enough to know yourself and your needs and to act selfishly to attain those needs and wants.
That is not selfish. What is selfish about being yourself!?

If you don't feel free to be yourself, you're being someone else.
Oh, really!?



Truthseeker ... Do you really seek truth or is it that you just lean to your own understanding on every matter?
I do lean on my understanding since that's the only way I can communicate! :eek:

But I'm clearly open-minded to new thigns, as long as you can come up with real evidence against any of my claims. Which is often not the case because I have a wide range of knowledge that I can go through to support my thesis and refute many arguments against them.

If you can come up with any evidence against my claims, go ahead. But I don't think that will ever happen - at least not in your case. Because you don't often come up with any evidence at all.

I could mock you but I will put my mockery away.
You cannot mock me, unless you are proud of yourself. And if you are proud of yourself, then all your arguments about Christian humility are blatant filthy lies. ;)

You are suffering enough!
Who said I'm suffering!?! I'm much enjoying my time, here!


I was very happy to give my attention and listen carefully to what my Ex was saying, that was why we lasted for 15 years together for we both paid attention to each others needs and wants. It was just that last year when she was keeping the truth about seeing another man behind my back is when things with her really started to start to fade away.I was faithful while she was not. So listening and trusting the other half isn't always going to work out in reality and that is why over 70 percent of ALL marriages fail sometime during there duration.
There's no other half!!!!! That's exactly why this kind of relationship fails! The problem is not the "listening" and "trusting", is "the other haf"! You are half a person!? How can you have a healthy relationship with someone that needs to complete you, that you are dependent upon!

You MUST resolve your identity before you can go into a healthy intimate relationship. Study Erikson (http://ethics.emory.edu/news/archives/000340.html). He does a great job on that.

From site:
"In his classic work Childhood and Society, Erik Erikson offers an eight-stage sequence of developmental passages that constitute the human life cycle. He names the entry into the adolescent years as the passage into dealing with “Identity versus Role Confusion.” This refers to the developmental task for forming a sense of self, with inner coherence and outer boundaries. Erikson knew that important cognitive and emotional developments parallel the move into the physical and emotional and maturing of adolescence.

He saw adolescence as a time of engaging in psychosexual maturation through coming to know friends of both sexes in ways that shared the mysteries and joys of intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth-and self-discovery.
In the course of identity formation the experience and knowledge of self that comes from deep friendships or love relationships strongly contribute to our forming a sense of identity and of self-worth.

In this way we take on the challenges of coming to know others in depth. These relations of love and friendship, Erikson believed, prepare us for the young adult challenges that he calls “Intimacy versus Isolation.” He sees movement into this stage emerging in ages eighteen to twenty-two, the era of the traditional college years.

Intimacy, for Erikson, means having a clear enough grasp of one’s own identity and personhood to be able to bring a firming sense of self into trusting and non-exploitative relationships with others. Identity means developing values and purpose, self-knowledge, self love, judgment and choice. ‘To claim genuine intimacy involves bringing the maturing selfhood of each partner into emotional, intellectual and moral closeness with each other. Intimacy means developing the capacity to engage in closeness with others, including sexual closeness, without needing to use or manipulate the other, and without allowing or fearing the loss or abuse of oneself. Intimacy inherently involves boundaries and mutual commitment."

To be married is to have your identity as well as her own one or his own one. We had that.

TV is a reflection of real life. That's a fact in psychology and sociology (other sciences, also).

So when you watch Star Trek you see that as a reflection of real life? TS, TV is fantasy. It's not a reflection of real life. Do you seriously think that reality TV is a reflection of real life? Hmmm yes, I can see it now... soooo many people gather 20 men or women in a house and then go through each one until they find their perfect match. Soooo many people live just like the people on Friends, Seinfeld, ect, do. If you are going to live your life based on what you see on TV, then I suggest you start saving now for your therapy sessions that will be sure to follow later on in your life.

1) I'm not talking just about reality TV. Movies are also an expression of society. If people didn't like them, we wouldn't have them.
2) I'm not appealed by that shit.
Movies are fantasy. That's why people like them. We don't go and see movies because they mirror our lives. We watch them because they do not.

That's not enough to define romance. Flowers are also an indication of cheesy romance (like Titanic- yuck!). Romance is waaaaaaaaaaaay more then just flowers.
And I see that you fail to recognise sarcasm. You're the one going on about how movies mirror reality because you see them as an expression of society. If that was the case, then many people would be identifying themselves in movies such as Titanic and they would be living their lives like characters on a soap opera and expecting flowers and chocolates because that's what movies and TV tells us is romantic.

It's a deep conenction between two people.
Yes. But then you also have the case where two people can feel a deep connection and not feel any way inclined to feeling romantic towards each other. A parent will feel a deep connection of love towards their child that is not romantic. And then you have the scenario where two people are romantic towards each other and not have that deep connection.

If you ever study psychology, you will learn that you cannot be in a healthy successful relationship until you resolve your identity. You need a strong sense of identity in order to have a healthy relationship, because the other pesron must not "complete" you.
This from the boy who admits to being someone's maid and finding that romantic and healthy. Yes you need to have a strong sense of identity to have any form of relationship, be it romantic or not. And yes no other person can complete you. But what you have said does not apply only to romanticism, but to one's healthy recognition of their individual life.

It should be like... an association. It's independent, and at the same time it is caring (which is the "dependent" side, which is not really dependent). In this scenerio you are free to be yourself and that is true romance.
An association? Good grief! Romance is not independent but individual. It comes with the package. It can't be defined because not every person's idea of romance will be the same. Some like the cheesy crap and others do not. One should be free to be one's self regardless of romance. Romance is only 'romance' if it is reciprocated, if it is appreciated. A woman might feel disgusted at a man who fawns over her, picks up her stuff and tries to order her life because he thinks it's romantic. Another woman may not. Romance is individual TS. It can't be defined.

Cheesy romantic, unfortunately. Do you know society thinks that "Bachelor" is romantic? I bet it does....!
I doubt society sees such shows as being romantic. Instead, anyone with any form of intelligence would view it as fantasy and drivel.

There's no "other half". It's two wholes.
Really? Imagine that! I'm shocked! Next time I'll be sure to write out husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner, instead of going the short way for easy reference.

Yeah.. I know... :/
That's why I asked whitewolf if that was really romantic....
I was being sarcastic TS.

I don't think picking up after her and sorting out her stuff as being romantic. It only makes you her glorified maid and helper. If you don't know if something is romantic and you have to ask someone else for their opinion, then it is not romantic and you don't know yourself well enough to be able to identify what is romantic and what is not.

Actually, I rethink what I said. You have no idea what romantism is. And I think it's because you miss the whole point of romantism.
At least I'm not someone's maid in the hope that I'll get laid. And TS, it is you who has no idea what is romantic or what romanticism means, let alone spell it. You're the one asking everyone to define what their views of romance is so that you can adapt it to yourself. You can't even identify it for yourself.

I don't think she is aware of the problem. Not to mention that I already told her to organize her stuff. I put everything aside and she is gonna do it. So, no. You are not right.
Is it a problem? Or is it something that YOU think is a problem? If she's doesn't care that she's disorganised, why should you? And worse still, why are you picking up after her and organising her stuff? Why are YOU putting everything aside and saying that she is 'gonna do it'? She doesn't have to. She's her own self and will do what she likes when she feels like it. You are merely her room mate trying to get laid by being her maid and friend.

Swimming is an ability. So... by you rlogic, swimming is a superpower....
You really don't get it do you? One is not 'able' to be one's self. One just is. It's not an ability.

That is not selfish. What is selfish about being yourself!?
This is like trying to communicate with a brick. When you are yourself, you are acting for yourself. You are selfish in the sense that you are looking out to satisfy your own needs. There's nothing wrong with that. To be able to act selfishly, one must know one's self and one's needs. If you don't then you aren't able to set out to achieve those goals.

But I'm clearly open-minded to new thigns, as long as you can come up with real evidence against any of my claims. Which is often not the case because I have a wide range of knowledge that I can go through to support my thesis and refute many arguments against them.
Snorts...

You cannot mock me, unless you are proud of yourself. And if you are proud of yourself, then all your arguments about Christian humility are blatant filthy lies.
TS, a cat could mock you and your ideas and so called knowledge.

How can you have a healthy relationship with someone that needs to complete you, that you are dependent upon!
You really should apply that to yourself. You're the one going on about how you think picking up after your room mate is a basis for a healthy relationship and romantic. You've failed to see that you need her to listen to your problems and she needs you to fold her underwear.

Well, i don't have the energy to read ALL these explanations, but one thing stuck out to me. You two don't talk, or you give the impression you don't. Try explaining yourself, ask her to do the same. Most chicks try to avoid being clingy, so they'll want you to ask them what's wrong, that way they know you're actually interested. It's called female insecurity.
Good luck

Star Trek isn't as far removed from reality as it might seem. We're often faced with alien situations in life (pun intended). And whatever TV shows and movies are not, they're human expression. That means some thinking have gone into them, and you can always learn from someone's thinking. More often than not, it's precisely if we can associate with their circumstances that we enjoy the shows. They might be forced and artificial, but so are some people we have to deal with in life.

Star Trek wasn't created by Klingons. If the thinking is valid and recognizable, even if the actors aren't, you can benefit by it. Or you can give up hope and have it replace your own life - hence the popularity of soap operas and reality shows. I'm not saying fantasy should be a substitute. Nothing should replace *you* in *your* life.

But yes, romance definitely exists, and so does true love. It's romanticized on TV to make it more easily recognizable and sensational, but that feeling you get when you watch Sleepless in Seattle, Notting Hill or Kate&Leopold isn't also fantasy.

Truthseeker, I'm sick of these [deleted] threads of yours where you whine about not being able to get any tail and blaming it on girls who like "jerks".
Lets just clear it up right now- they like those guys and don't like you, it has nothing to do with the behaviour of those guys, if you behaved like them, the girls would still not like you, they'd hate you a little more than they already do. Those guys can behave however they want because girls like them. They don't need to act like [deleted] to get laid, and let me remind you that the only reason you do [deleted] is because [deleted].
Don't act all righteous like you're too good for girls to like you, you're blatantly obviously not good enough or you wouldn't have needed to develop these pathetic self reassuring theories about why you can't get any.
There's a very obvious real reason you don't get any, and its because the animal you are is not favoured by human evolution, you're probably the result of [deleted]. 2 people like you settling for eachother due to a lack of options.
You can act like charlie sheen and you'll still be [deleted].
Chicks dig quality specimens of the homo sapien, not being treated like shit or being treated like a queen or anything like that. They prefer being treated like a queen obviously, and I prefer recieving rusty trombones, but only dirty desperate ugly cows will give them to me, and at the end of the day I prefer quality human beings.
You might be the master of making girls feel like a trillion bucks, they'll just use you to build there self esteem and then go fuck some quality human who treats them like shit.
Thats the way it works, [deleted], complaining about the status you were born into certainly isn't going to do anything, neither will making inaccurate commentaries on sexual selection.
Hoping girls only like jerks and that you're right and everyone is wrong won't make it so.
YOU are the reason girls don't like you, obviously, it's about time you accepted that.

So when you watch Star Trek you see that as a reflection of real life? TS, TV is fantasy. It's not a reflection of real life. Do you seriously think that reality TV is a reflection of real life? Hmmm yes, I can see it now... soooo many people gather 20 men or women in a house and then go through each one until they find their perfect match. Soooo many people live just like the people on Friends, Seinfeld, ect, do. If you are going to live your life based on what you see on TV, then I suggest you start saving now for your therapy sessions that will be sure to follow later on in your life.
I don't live life based on TV. What I'm claiming is that most people are indeuced by TV to behave in ways that they wouldn't otherwise. There IS psychological studies and statistics proving that. Study psychology, then argue about this.

Movies are fantasy. That's why people like them. We don't go and see movies because they mirror our lives. We watch them because they do not.
Oh....! So they are not based on reality!? It's all a parellel universe, isn't it! :D

And I see that you fail to recognise sarcasm. You're the one going on about how movies mirror reality because you see them as an expression of society. If that was the case, then many people would be identifying themselves in movies such as Titanic and they would be living their lives like characters on a soap opera and expecting flowers and chocolates because that's what movies and TV tells us is romantic.
And, unfortunately, that is true - people do those things....

Yes. But then you also have the case where two people can feel a deep connection and not feel any way inclined to feeling romantic towards each other. A parent will feel a deep connection of love towards their child that is not romantic. And then you have the scenario where two people are romantic towards each other and not have that deep connection.
Yeah sure. So what?

This from the boy who admits to being someone's maid and finding that romantic and healthy. Yes you need to have a strong sense of identity to have any form of relationship, be it romantic or not. And yes no other person can complete you. But what you have said does not apply only to romanticism, but to one's healthy recognition of their individual life.
Yes. And there's nothing wrong with being caring. You are just exagerating the situation.

An association? Good grief! Romance is not independent but individual. It comes with the package. It can't be defined because not every person's idea of romance will be the same. Some like the cheesy crap and others do not. One should be free to be one's self regardless of romance. Romance is only 'romance' if it is reciprocated, if it is appreciated. A woman might feel disgusted at a man who fawns over her, picks up her stuff and tries to order her life because he thinks it's romantic. Another woman may not. Romance is individual TS. It can't be defined.
You are saying it's subjective. Well, everything is subjective to a certain degree. But there is an absolute definition of it which everyone agrees. I'm not sure if we got to that here, already...

I doubt society sees such shows as being romantic. Instead, anyone with any form of intelligence would view it as fantasy and drivel.
Sadly, when Seti tried to find intelligence on earth.......

Really? Imagine that! I'm shocked! Next time I'll be sure to write out husband/wife/boyfriend/girlfriend/partner, instead of going the short way for easy reference.
There's a HUGE difference between writing "other half" and any of those other terms. It's obvious that you see love as "finding your other half"....
Btw.... "partner" is the word to be used (it's neutral in gender and it can be any of the above).

I don't think picking up after her and sorting out her stuff as being romantic.
I think it is, given the fact that she is sick and that I'm helping her keeping the place clean...! :bugeye:

It only makes you her glorified maid and helper. If you don't know if something is romantic and you have to ask someone else for their opinion, then it is not romantic and you don't know yourself well enough to be able to identify what is romantic and what is not.
I'm opening up a discussion on romantism. That doesn't mean I don't know what romantism is.

At least I'm not someone's maid in the hope that I'll get laid.
That's not what I'm "hoping" for.

And TS, it is you who has no idea what is romantic or what romanticism means, let alone spell it. You're the one asking everyone to define what their views of romance is so that you can adapt it to yourself. You can't even identify it for yourself.
I've identified it quite a few times. In fact, I've identified love in many threads lately...... :/

And no, I'm not asking sio that I can adapt myself. I'm asking because I'm curious about how bad people around here are....

Is it a problem? Or is it something that YOU think is a problem? If she's doesn't care that she's disorganised, why should you? And worse still, why are you picking up after her and organising her stuff?
Maybe it is because it's awful to live in a messy place. Not to mention that I'm helping her cause she is sick....

Why are YOU putting everything aside and saying that she is 'gonna do it'?
See above. She is getting better....

She doesn't have to. She's her own self and will do what she likes when she feels like it. You are merely her room mate trying to get laid by being her maid and friend.
I'm not trying to get laid. I'm sorry I used myself as an example. This is not about me, it's about romantism.

You really don't get it do you?
It seems you don't get it.

One is not 'able' to be one's self. One just is. It's not an ability.
... *sigh.... *nodding "no"....

This is like trying to communicate with a brick.
You sound like a brick. Goodbye... I have better things to do.


And p-l-e-a-s-e... don't get of track in the discussion again...



Well, i don't have the energy to read ALL these explanations, but one thing stuck out to me. You two don't talk, or you give the impression you don't. Try explaining yourself, ask her to do the same. Most chicks try to avoid being clingy, so they'll want you to ask them what's wrong, that way they know you're actually interested. It's called female insecurity.
Good luck
Well... thanks for the help. I will try that out. But this thread is not really about that, and I would like to get back to the real discussion...


quote deleted
Did I even said [deleted]? Read the first post again. this thread is a discussion on what is true romantism.

quote deleted]
*sigh.... ignorance is certainly not a bliss...
90% of all the stuff that I do, I do hidden - AND for people that cannot pay me back, both female AND male.

So... no. I'm not trying to "get laid"...

quote deleted
Given the fact that my dad is a lawyer, architect, economist AND speaks quite a few languages AND travels A LOT....

Yeah... you really don't know who you are talking about...
And let's leave them out of the discussion, ok?

quote deleted
"Quality" human treats them like shit? You reaaaly have issues, ya know...?

Hoping girls only like jerks and that you're right and everyone is wrong won't make it so.
I'm not hoping about that. I'm hoping I'm wrong and girls are actually more intelligent then that....


YOU are the reason girls don't like you, obviously, it's about time you accepted that.
Well... according to you, girls like garbage. So if you are right about that, you are also right about the fact that I'm the reason why they don't like me...


Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem
Argumentum ad hominem (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#hominem)

Ignorant.... :rolleyes:

Romance is dead only because gender roles are politicized.

Liberalism = death.

Truthseeker:
Given the fact that my dad is a lawyer, architect, economist AND speaks quite a few languages AND travels A LOT....

Yup, women really care about that.

"Quality" human treats them like shit? You reaaaly have issues, ya know...?

They can get away with it with the average man or woman. Generally, a strong human being doesn't abuse those they care for.
Not that niceness signifies strength, or the strong are sweet fuzzbuckets. Gentleness is the curse of the weak and the pleasure of the strong.

I'm hoping I'm wrong and girls are actually more intelligent then that.... :bugeye:

They are intelligent. They don't fuck you. That's a sign of standards right there.

Well... according to you, girls like garbage

How does "quality manflesh" become "garbage"?
Oh...besides with an Uzi.

So if you are right about that, you are also right about the fact that I'm the reason why they don't like me...

They probably like you well enough.

neoclassical:
Romance is dead only because gender roles are politicized.

Non-sequiter.

Bells:
Isn't tv a reflection of fantasy?
Isn't fantasy an integral part of 'real life'?

This from the boy who admits to being someone's maid and finding that romantic and healthy.

What are you on? That's hot as hell!

Romance = dead?

Dead in what typical sense? Dead in physical reality or in our minds? It's no contest if given reality-just look at the people on these boards-especially the younger ones that are settled permanently into angst mode-void of all emotion and complete with clinical study give or take the notorious fiend known to us as sarcasm.

so again

romance = dead?

you only wish

edit: only losers know true romance, go figure

I don't live life based on TV. What I'm claiming is that most people are indeuced by TV to behave in ways that they wouldn't otherwise. There IS psychological studies and statistics proving that. Study psychology, then argue about this.

Ah so we're induced by TV to behave differently to how we'd normally behave? I see. Interesting. So we're now induced by TV to lock up 2 dozen men or women and let someone work their way through them and with the process of elimination, find's one perfect match? Or would we feel compelled to sit in a cafe and chat with friends all day ever day, just like Friends? TS I know what you are trying to say and what I'm saying is that some people may be influenced by what they see on the TV, not most. Sure some people go into romantic flights of fancy when they watch some romantic clap-trap on TV, but most see it as nothing more than a piece of flimsy fantasy. I'd actually say that alcohol is more effective at making people behave in ways that they normally wouldn't. TV may have a slight influence on some people, but not on 'most'.

TS, you've studied psychology? Hmmmm... Considering that the word 'induced' is quite common in the field of psychology, one would expect that a self proclaimed expert such as you would at least get that right. Spell that correctly and then come and discuss psychology. Otherwise, don't waste people's time with your self proposed psycho babble.

And, unfortunately, that is true - people do those things....
And for some people that is their idea of romance. For others it is not. Not because they are not romantic, but because not everyone's notion of romance will be the same. For example, if my partner gives me a bunch of flowers, I usually just go 'umph' and shrug.. and not think of it as a romantic gesture. It's a bunch of flowers. So what? I can buy a bunch in the supermarket. It has no meaning to me because it's not personal. If he gives me a book or a plant, I find that a romantic gesture. Because he didn't just go to the market and pick up a bunch of flowers, he put thought into what I like to read or plant and he sought it out. He thought about the books that I like to read and my favourite plants. That makes it personal to me and no one else.

Yes. And there's nothing wrong with being caring. You are just exagerating the situation.
Am I? You're the one giddy with excitement about the fact that you clean up after your flatmate and think that folding her underwear is romantic. Maybe to you it is. To me it makes you her maid. She depends on you to keep her organised and you depend on her to be there for you to listen to your problems because you clean up her mess. You don't do it because you care, because if you cared or were being caring, you'd accept her as she is, mess and all. Instead you are trying to make her organised to suit your needs and your wishes. You're not cleaning her stuff for her, you're doing it for yourself because you don't like to live in a place that is messy.

You are saying it's subjective. Well, everything is subjective to a certain degree. But there is an absolute definition of it which everyone agrees. I'm not sure if we got to that here, already...
Ok Mr So Called Psychologist, how can each individual's perception of what constitutes romance have an absolute definition? You're trying to ascribe a definition to something that each person defines differently.

There's a HUGE difference between writing "other half" and any of those other terms. It's obvious that you see love as "finding your other half"....
Btw.... "partner" is the word to be used (it's neutral in gender and it can be any of the above).
Do I? How do you know? Because I wrote the words 'other half'? So because of that, I see love as 'finding my other half'? You typed that you pick up after your room mate and think it's romantic. That would mean that you are classifying yourself as her maid who's in love with the one you're cleaning for.

And TS, if I choose to say 'other half' for easy reference, it's my choice to do so, just as it's your choice to be a maid in the hope that it will result in a romp in the sack. As to my live in lover/defacto/partner, he's not my other half, he's my equal. Something you will never be for any woman with even a pea for a brain.

I think it is, given the fact that she is sick and that I'm helping her keeping the place clean...!
Oh, so now she's sick and you're just helping her keep the place clean? Quite a change from your earlier statements....

From page one of this thread:
And she doesn't care about the fact that I've been organizing her entire stuff because our place is a real mess. She is messy and disorganized, and for some reason she doesn't see it.
Quite a change indeed! Doesn't change the fact that you're still her maid.

I'm opening up a discussion on romantism. That doesn't mean I don't know what romantism is.
Then tell us what your definition of romanticism is.

That's not what I'm "hoping" for
Mmmm hmmm... Sure it's not.

And no, I'm not asking sio that I can adapt myself. I'm asking because I'm curious about how bad people around here are....
What makes you think you're so much better? What you keep failing to recognise, even with your vast knowledge of psychology, which at the moment appears to have been learnt from the back of a cereal pack, is that not everyone's definition of romance will be the same or suit you. You won't agree with everyone's notion of what constitutes a romantic, just as most won't agree with your version of what is a romantic.

Maybe it is because it's awful to live in a messy place. Not to mention that I'm helping her cause she is sick....
If it's so messy and awful, why continue to live with her?

You sound like a brick. Goodbye... I have better things to do.
A brick makes a noise? And of course you have better things to do, you probably have her lacy knickers to go and fold. Don't forget the moisturiser. You don't want to chafe.

And p-l-e-a-s-e... don't get of track in the discussion again...
How have I gotten off the track of this discussion? We were discussing romance and what constitutes a romantic and whether romance was dead. You pointed out that folding your room mate's knickers and cleaning her filth was romantic, I responded. In short TS, I was responding to your posts and what you've been saying.

90% of all the stuff that I do, I do hidden - AND for people that cannot pay me back, both female AND male.
This is too precious for words... So you [deleted], hidden in a cupboard while you manhandle your room mate's underwear?

And why do you hide 90% of what you do? Is that so people will see how gormless you really are when you stuff up the 90% of all that you do?

LMAO! Lou says this:
quote deleted
And you reply with this?..
Given the fact that my dad is a lawyer, architect, economist AND speaks quite a few languages AND travels A LOT....
The 'my daddy's better than your daddy' argument? LOL! Hilarious...

And it doesn't matter what or who your dad is. As Lou said, [deleted]. Your dad could be a thousand things. That doesn't mean that you're not [deleted]. If your dad is in fact all those things that you claim he is, it's sadly obvious that genetics played a cruel trick on you and most importantly on your parents.

I do lean on my understanding since that's the only way I can communicate! :eek:

But I'm clearly open-minded to new thigns, as long as you can come up with real evidence against any of my claims. Which is often not the case because I have a wide range of knowledge that I can go through to support my thesis and refute many arguments against them.

If you can come up with any evidence against my claims, go ahead. But I don't think that will ever happen - at least not in your case. Because you don't often come up with any evidence at all.


You cannot mock me, unless you are proud of yourself. And if you are proud of yourself, then all your arguments about Christian humility are blatant filthy lies. ;)


Who said I'm suffering!?! I'm much enjoying my time, here! :cool:

If I was proud of myself it would be justified Truthseeker. Who does not take pride in the work of their own hands?
Why do you lean to your own understanding? Your own undestanding is so terribly misled - who could justify you?
If I was to mock you I would be right to do so because it is you that stand so proud in nothing at all. I do not like to set my face against you but you wallow in your self pity for all to see. You do not see it however!
A rebuke for you - grow up! You who talk about being mature in Christ - Grow up!

peace

c20

Truthseeker - you are always seeking 'evidence'. You cannot please God without 'faith'! If you cannot accept that then far from being mature in Christ, you are still dead in your sins rejecting Him who says 'My grace is sufficient for thee'!

As for me, I will continue to suck on that spiritual teat until I am ready for solid food!
Gimme milk, gimme milk, gimme milk! Scream cry wahaaa!

Yup, women really care about that.
I don't even know or care anymore....

They can get away with it with the average man or woman.
"Quality" people implies that they treat each other like shit?

Generally, a strong human being doesn't abuse those they care for.
I guess it depends on what you mean by "strong". But I think I agree with what you say...

Not that niceness signifies strength, or the strong are sweet fuzzbuckets.
Well... I guess a balance is important....

Gentleness is the curse of the weak and the pleasure of the strong.
I agree with that...

They are intelligent. They don't fuck you. That's a sign of standards right there.
I don't think that's a good definition for intelligence.
Who cares they don't "fuck" me. If I had sex everyday it would cease to be a novelty. I don't want that. As long as it takes for it to happen as better. It makes the whole game more interesting and exciting. :D

How does "quality manflesh" become "garbage"?
Exactly....

Oh...besides with an Uzi.
You and yor fantasies, Xev....... :p
What's your real name? ;)

They probably like you well enough.
Are you saying girls like me and that I'm not aware of that?

Romance = dead?

Dead in what typical sense? Dead in physical reality or in our minds? It's no contest if given reality-just look at the people on these boards-especially the younger ones that are settled permanently into angst mode-void of all emotion and complete with clinical study give or take the notorious fiend known to us as sarcasm.
Yes....

so again

romance = dead?

you only wish
Hopefully it isn't completely dead.

edit: only losers know true romance, go figure
According to people around..... yes. :eek:

Welcome to sciforums! :)
(No! That wasn't sarcasm! :D )

TS I know what you are trying to say and what I'm saying is that some people may be influenced by what they see on the TV, not most. Sure some people go into romantic flights of fancy when they watch some romantic clap-trap on TV, but most see it as nothing more than a piece of flimsy fantasy.
Statistically, the TV HAS to show what people want to see. You CANNOT create a product that is not going to sell. You would go bankrupt! So you do research and discover what people want - in this case, what people want to SEE on TV. This is called market research. It's a fact. You cannot argue against a fact. This is a whole bunch of statistics that show that people want to see crap on TV. So they show the crap on TV. And the crap makes people even crappier. Now we go into psychology - that is how the media affects society.

My point is that statistically, they can only show what people want to see. If they showed a bunch of intelligent programs, people would likely turn of their TVs, not sign up for cable TVs anymore and all companies would go bankrupt.

I'd actually say that alcohol is more effective at making people behave in ways that they normally wouldn't. TV may have a slight influence on some people, but not on 'most'.
Alcohol is more direct, while TV is a process.

TS, you've studied psychology? Hmmmm... Considering that the word 'induced' is quite common in the field of psychology, one would expect that a self proclaimed expert such as you would at least get that right. Spell that correctly and then come and discuss psychology. Otherwise, don't waste people's time with your self proposed psycho babble.
1) I never said I'm an expert
2) Spelling a word incorrectly is not an argument proving that I don't know about the subject.

And for some people that is their idea of romance. For others it is not. Not because they are not romantic, but because not everyone's notion of romance will be the same.
Of course. But unfortunately most people don't have a very nice notion of romantism.

For example, if my partner gives me a bunch of flowers, I usually just go 'umph' and shrug.. and not think of it as a romantic gesture. It's a bunch of flowers. So what? I can buy a bunch in the supermarket. It has no meaning to me because it's not personal. If he gives me a book or a plant, I find that a romantic gesture. Because he didn't just go to the market and pick up a bunch of flowers, he put thought into what I like to read or plant and he sought it out. He thought about the books that I like to read and my favourite plants. That makes it personal to me and no one else.
Sure. And that means that you don't think the same way everyone else does, right?

Am I? You're the one giddy with excitement about the fact that you clean up after your flatmate and think that folding her underwear is romantic.
When she is sick.... yes. And I could make her some hot chocolate or soup to make her feel better. That is romantic for me. You just said that it varies for people. Can't you respect my notion of romantism?

Maybe to you it is. To me it makes you her maid. She depends on you to keep her organised and you depend on her to be there for you to listen to your problems because you clean up her mess.
I don't think she depends on me. In fact, I always try to encourage her to be organized. But right now, she is sick and I'm taking care of her.

You don't do it because you care, because if you cared or were being caring, you'd accept her as she is, mess and all.
I accept her as she is. However, I wish her to improve herself. So I try to encourage her to do that so that she can be happier. If that makes her happier, then yes, I hope she changes herself.

Instead you are trying to make her organised to suit your needs and your wishes.
No I don't. read above.

You're not cleaning her stuff for her, you're doing it for yourself because you don't like to live in a place that is messy.
She doesn't like it either.

Ok Mr So Called Psychologist, how can each individual's perception of what constitutes romance have an absolute definition? You're trying to ascribe a definition to something that each person defines differently.
That's not psychology anymore. That's now philosophy.... :p
It has to do with epistemology.... do you really want to go there?

Sure everyone sees it differently. However, there's something about romantism that must be absolute, otherwise we would be speaking about two completely different things. It wouldn't even be a word! For instance, the word ugly. There is an absolute definition of ugliness, that everyone agrees upon. That definition is absolute. But the idea of uglines differ from perosn to person. I might say that a flower is not ugly and you might say that it is. The idea of what is ugly is relative but the concept of ugliness is absolute.

Do I? How do you know? Because I wrote the words 'other half'?
Psychologically... yes. That was almost a freudian slip....

So because of that, I see love as 'finding my other half'?
Probably.

You typed that you pick up after your room mate and think it's romantic. That would mean that you are classifying yourself as her maid who's in love with the one you're cleaning for.
Oh man..... so according to you, everyone that does housework are maids. Do you have a husband? What would you do if he called you a "maid" just because you do housework (if you do, because certainly someone MUST do).... :rolleyes:

And TS, if I choose to say 'other half' for easy reference, it's my choice to do so, just as it's your choice to be a maid in the hope that it will result in a romp in the sack.
Those two things are completely unrelated. On one side you are talking about references and on the other you are talking about concepts...

As to my live in lover/defacto/partner, he's not my other half, he's my equal.
Yeah.... I see by what you are saying.... :rolleyes:

Something you will never be for any woman with even a pea for a brain.
Your opinion has no foundations....

Oh, so now she's sick and you're just helping her keep the place clean? Quite a change from your earlier statements....
Not at all. It's all happening at the same time. She is disorganized. And she is sick. It's those two things together that are the bases of my behaviour.

Then tell us what your definition of romanticism is.
Christ.... do I have to say it again......

From all the other threads about love:"Well... I see love as a freedom of self-expression. When I love someone, I want to be totally free to express myself, so that I can be my real self. That's what I think love is, the total and undivided expression of oneself. Like an extension of yourself. As if you weren't just here, but also there. Have you guys ever heard of things such as "you will always live in my heart"? Well... that's what I'm talking about. It is not just sexual, not even emotional. It is limitless in width and depth. A limitless expression of oneself. Of course sex should be the greatest and wholest expression of oneself. But without sex, it is still love. "

What makes you think you're so much better?
I don't. I don't care how good others how. I want to know what people think about romantism.

What you keep failing to recognise, even with your vast knowledge of psychology, which at the moment appears to have been learnt from the back of a cereal pack, is that not everyone's definition of romance will be the same or suit you. You won't agree with everyone's notion of what constitutes a romantic, just as most won't agree with your version of what is a romantic.
Duuuuuuuhhhhhh. Reeeeeeally!? :rolleyes:

If it's so messy and awful, why continue to live with her?
That's exactly what I've been debating.

A brick makes a noise? And of course you have better things to do, you probably have her lacy knickers to go and fold. Don't forget the moisturiser. You don't want to chafe.
Aside from all the other nonsense... yes, you DO make some noise...

How have I gotten off the track of this discussion? We were discussing romance and what constitutes a romantic and whether romance was dead. You pointed out that folding your room mate's knickers and cleaning her filth was romantic, I responded. In short TS, I was responding to your posts and what you've been saying.
Yeah.... but the discussion shouldn't be personal. And if it keeps being personal and if you keep trying desperately to insult me, I'm going to report you.

This is too precious for words... So you [deleted], hidden in a cupboard while you manhandle your room mate's underwear?
See what I'm saying? You are extremely hypocrite. I said:
90% of all the stuff that I do, I do hidden - AND for people that cannot pay me back, both female AND male.
And you take it completely out of context to try desperately to insult me!

...

I was mentioning the fact that I feed homeless people and that I'm in the midst of a project to help homeless people to learn to write and read. I REALLY didn't need to mention it. Now that you are being a jerk, I have to mention it. :bugeye:

And why do you hide 90% of what you do? Is that so people will see how gormless you really are when you stuff up the 90% of all that you do?
No. It's because I'm not [deleted]. :bugeye:

The 'my daddy's better than your daddy' argument? LOL! Hilarious...
Again. Completely out of context. You are so desperate to insult me and feel proud of yourself that you try anything you can.

He said that my parents are pityful. I replied saying that they aren't. [deleted]

And it doesn't matter what or who your dad is. As Lou said, [deleted]
See? That proves [deleted]. :bugeye:

And if you don't stop trying to insult me, I will finish this discussion right here. :bugeye:

If I was proud of myself it would be justified Truthseeker.
It is way too obvious that you ARE proud. You think you ARE a begotten son of God. This is obvious. It's so arrogant that arrogance is not enough to define it. :bugeye:

Who does not take pride in the work of their own hands?
There's an extreme difference between pride and self-confidence. Unfortunately, you are too arrogant to understand that.

Why do you lean to your own understanding?
If I did, i wouldn't be asking other's opinions, would I. You keep contradicting yourself.

Your own undestanding is so terribly misled - who could justify you?
Prove it to be mislead.

If I was to mock you I would be right to do so because it is you that stand so proud in nothing at all.
I'm not proud. If I was proud, I would have said all things that I have accomplished. But, no, I hide them. So you say that I have self pity. And then when I say what I've done you say that I'm arrogant. You are so filled with filthy hypocrasy that you really don't deserve to be called a Christian. You are ten times closer to the devil then to God. It's because of people like you that Christianity is so twisted in the minds of so many people. :bugeye:

I do not like to set my face against you but you wallow in your self pity for all to see.
Yeah, right. So much hypocrasy...

A rebuke for you - grow up!
YOU should grow up....

You who talk about being mature in Christ - Grow up!
You have a loooooooong way to go...


peace
Yeah right.... It's like saying "rebuke! or go to helll!!! and then "peace be with you my brother". Like... can't you see the arrogance and hypocrasy in your words!?!? Quite franckly... that's REALLY sad....

Can someone P-L-E-A-S-E close this thread. People are just making everything personal and attacking me. What's the point? Nobody is discussing romantism in any way. I mean... even I am decaying into their ways!




*sigh
Calm down...... moving on.....

Bells. Sorry about calling you a bitch. You were just really irritating me.

c20H25N3o. Sorry about calling you arrogant and hypocrite. You were also really irritating me...

A romantic poem to get this thread back on track

I can tell she is thinking
about what I may be thinking
I feel that between us
As we lay in the dark
Will I turn to her
Or will she turn to me
Our wills test eachothers
I know that I will break
The tension sweet frustration
She knows that I will break
I know that she smiles knowingly
As I kiss her nose

This thread RULES!

Truthseeker, 3:32pm to-day:
See? That proves you ARE a filthy bitch.

Truthseeker, 3:33pm to-day:
And if you don't stop trying to insult me, I will finish this discussion right here

Stop trying to insult me, you dirty slut!

Stupid Christian sez:
You love your enemy because it is like heaping red hot coals of shame upon their heads.

Well now THAT makes sense. I know for a fact that when I love someone, I really really want to hurt and disgrace them.

Damn, this thread is good, I would never have thought that these are the grapes of romance. :D

Truthseeker

Of course. But unfortunately most people don't have a very nice notion of romantism.
Why? Because it doesn't fit into your little box of what romanticism should actually be? What's nice for you won't be nice for others and vice versa. From your original post in this thread:

Guys are not romantic, and I don't think girls like romantism at all anyways. They seem to prefer the macho guys that treat them like objects and spit on the ground. That's what we see on the TV. All this "bachelor" and stuff. If it is there, it sells. You cannot argue about that cause that's how marketing works. And if it sells, it's because the majority thinks and acts that way. So there ya go - we are not romantic.
You appear to have based this whole argument on the premise of TV shows you watch. Guys on TV cheat on their girlfriends, so of course ALL men cheat on their girlfriends. Don't you think that's a bit of an overstatement? Have you asked all the women in the world whether they prefer 'macho guys who treat them like objects and spit on the ground'? Do you seriously think that the majority of women in the world would accept that their partner/boyfriend/husband go out with a dozen or so other women at the same time as they are involved with them? One of the biggest factors in break-ups is infidelity. That would show that women don't accept it when guys treat them like shit, TV or not.

Now this amuses me no less. First you say this:

When she is sick.... yes. And I could make her some hot chocolate or soup to make her feel better. That is romantic for me. You just said that it varies for people. Can't you respect my notion of romantism?

I don't think she depends on me. In fact, I always try to encourage her to be organized. But right now, she is sick and I'm taking care of her.
Fine. She's sick and you want to keep the place clean. But we start to see a glimmer of your true motives.

I accept her as she is. However, I wish her to improve herself. So I try to encourage her to do that so that she can be happier. If that makes her happier, then yes, I hope she changes herself.
If you accepted her as she was, you would not try to 'wish her to improve herself' because you would accept her as she is now, mess and all. If she's messy, then she's messy. You're trying to change her. By trying to encourage her to be something that she's not (more organised), you're in fact trying to change who she is. If she's messy and disorganised, let her be messy and disorganised. If she's not happy with her mess, let her change it when she's ready. You trying to force change on her and calling it wishing for her self improvement only shows that you're trying to make her something she's not and not yet prepared to be.

Sure everyone sees it differently. However, there's something about romantism that must be absolute, otherwise we would be speaking about two completely different things.
Why must it be absolute? What about it must be absolute? And we all speak about completely different things when we discuss what constitutes romance. Because not all people see it the same way. Not everyone's motives behind a romantic act will be the same.

Psychologically... yes. That was almost a freudian slip....
It either is a freudian slip or it's not. There's no almost. I type it for easy reference. If you wish to see that I do see him as my other half, knock yourself out. After all, I still see you as a maid with ulterior motives, so why should I berate you for your opinion of me?

Oh man..... so according to you, everyone that does housework are maids. Do you have a husband? What would you do if he called you a "maid" just because you do housework (if you do, because certainly someone MUST do)....
I don't have a husband. I have a lover who I love very much. And I call him my slave. TS, there's cleaning and doing housework and then there's organising my stuff. There's a line there. You've stated quite clearly that you 'organise her stuff'. So by your argument, that would mean that you actually organise her stuff. If my partner ever tried to organise my stuff there'd be an uproar... because it's my stuff. We clean the house and wash the dishes, etc, but we don't organise each other's stuff. There's a big difference. He's disorganised as hell and that's fine with me. It's his stuff and he's happy the way he is.

Not at all. It's all happening at the same time. She is disorganized. And she is sick. It's those two things together that are the bases of my behaviour.
Refer to above.

"Well... I see love as a freedom of self-expression. When I love someone, I want to be totally free to express myself, so that I can be my real self. That's what I think love is, the total and undivided expression of oneself. Like an extension of yourself. As if you weren't just here, but also there. Have you guys ever heard of things such as "you will always live in my heart"? Well... that's what I'm talking about. It is not just sexual, not even emotional. It is limitless in width and depth. A limitless expression of oneself. Of course sex should be the greatest and wholest expression of oneself. But without sex, it is still love. "
So you see romanticism as love? Hmmm interesting...

I don't. I don't care how good others how. I want to know what people think about romantism.
You don't? Shall we visit some of your earlier statements? If you didn't care about how good others are, why would you say this?..

From page 1:
Cheesy romantic, unfortunately. Do you know society thinks that "Bachelor" is romantic? I bet it does....!
Page 2 when you replied to a post about flowers and chocolates like people do in movies:
And, unfortunately, that is true - people do those things....
I'm asking because I'm curious about how bad people around here are....
Hmmm... You don't care about how good others are, only about how bad people around here are. You are quite happy to criticise others for their notion of what constitutes romance, but balk when the same is done to you. If people want to give flowers and chocolates, then it's their choice to do so. If you want to clean her stuff, then clean it. Don't come on here and tell us and then ask if we think it's romantic and then throw a sissy fit when others disagree with you. What you constitute as being romantic is no better or worse than any other person's concept of romance. If you didn't care about what other people are, you wouldn't ask.

Yeah.... but the discussion shouldn't be personal. And if it keeps being personal and if you keep trying desperately to insult me, I'm going to report you.
I've merely been commenting on what you've been saying in here. You made it personal when you recited your story of organising her stuff. I wasn't trying to insult you. It came without effort actually. If you wish to report me then do so.

I was mentioning the fact that I feed homeless people and that I'm in the midst of a project to help homeless people to learn to write and read. I REALLY didn't need to mention it. Now that you are being a jerk, I have to mention it.
Then good for you. I applaud you. But so what? Why mention it at all?

No. It's because I'm not a filthy arrogant bitch like so many people here in these forums.

See? That proves you ARE a filthy bitch.
If you're going to report me for insulting you, it'd be best if you delete these two little lines so that you don't come off as such a two faced twit. Oops, I've just insulted you again. My bad...

And if you don't stop trying to insult me, I will finish this discussion right here.
Is that a promise or a threat? And TS, there is no try. There is only do.

If I did, i wouldn't be asking other's opinions, would I. You keep contradicting yourself.
You said you lean on your own understanding. I quote you from page 1:
I do lean on my understanding since that's the only way I can communicate!
Me thinks it is you who keeps contradicting himself.

And you're asking for the opinion of others now? Why? You said you know what your belief in 'romantism' is, so why do you need the opinions of others? For verification perhaps? See if you're on the right track? And when you come out with replies like this, and I quote you from page 1;

Do you mean I'm romantic because I do or she is romantic because she doesn't care?
it shows that you are seeking verification on whether your actions were romantic or not. Therefore you should not become upset when the replies disagree with you or if you are insulted that I think you are a maid. You asked for an opinion and I merely replied in kind. In short, you asked for it and you're getting it.

Damn, this thread is good, I would never have thought that these are the grapes of romance. :D
Sour aren't they? ;)

Stupid Christian sez:


Well now THAT makes sense. I know for a fact that when I love someone, I really really want to hurt and disgrace them.

If they are my enemy Xev, then they are my enemy for no good reason since I would have given them the benefit of the doubt before they 'chose' to become my enemy. In fact you can bet I would have encouraged them to be my friend by showing them friendship initially.
If I continue to demonstrate love to them even though they persist in their 'actions' as my enemy then I do well to 'shame' them in the hope that they will be humbled by my continuing friendship and 'turn around' and become my friend as I would have had for them initially.



If that is stupid then I guess yep - I am dead stupid :)

If that is stupid then I guess yep - I am dead stupid

It's not stupid - it's clever.
It's vile.

If I love someone, I want their best interests for them. It is my enemies I wish to disgrace and humiliate, to defeat. Not my friends.
To say that one would wish disgrace and defeat upon someone one loves is a symptom of a very low, very slavish mind.

It's not stupid - it's clever.
It's vile.

If I love someone, I want their best interests for them. It is my enemies I wish to disgrace and humiliate, to defeat. Not my friends.
To say that one would wish disgrace and defeat upon someone one loves is a symptom of a very low, very slavish mind.

I didnt say that I thought it was good to shame a friend did I? I said it was good to shame your enemies so that they may feel disgrace for what they have done to you and repent and come back to be a friend in humility!

To disgrace a friend .. well I agree with you, that would be very low and well I dont know if 'slavish' would be the right term but low would certainly suffice.

guess romance IS dead, at least in this forum. c'mon people, where's the magic? romance isn't just love, it's a unification of spirit and a separation from reality. walk along the beach at night, under the stars? "Dreamy" you could say, but if you have the will to sacrifice everything to move to mexico with your sweetheart to do that, god bless ya in my book, that's the stuff of romance. too bad few are willing to fight for this rush

another poem then ...

Being alone is a subdued state
A state I am in as I look to the sky
I see a bird flying south
Making its way alone to be where others are
I think of you
There in your office
Another continent in another time
I wish I could fly to you my love
To be with you where you are
That we may be together
The bird flys out of sight
Now you my love are in my heart
And I wait for you to return
I wait for the meal we will share together
When you are home
Until then my love
I wait

peace

c20

Why? Because it doesn't fit into your little box of what romanticism should actually be? What's nice for you won't be nice for others and vice versa.
There's an absolute concept for niceness and also for romantism. The concept of romantism at this moment in time is completely twisted. It has nothing to do with the absolute concept.

You appear to have based this whole argument on the premise of TV shows you watch.
I don't watch them. I only watch the advertising, while I'm waiting for something that is actually good...

Guys on TV cheat on their girlfriends, so of course ALL men cheat on their girlfriends.
Likely

Don't you think that's a bit of an overstatement?
Not at all. I've heard many real stories like that.

Have you asked all the women in the world whether they prefer 'macho guys who treat them like objects and spit on the ground'?
No. But that does seem to be the rule according to research...

Do you seriously think that the majority of women in the world would accept that their partner/boyfriend/husband go out with a dozen or so other women at the same time as they are involved with them?
Definetely not. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Altough I think you are exagerating...

One of the biggest factors in break-ups is infidelity.
That's what I'm saying....... :rolleyes:

That would show that women don't accept it when guys treat them like shit, TV or not.
Do you know any statistics of how many women are abused and keep themselves on an abusive relationship because they prefer to be with an idiot then all by themselves?

Fine. She's sick and you want to keep the place clean. But we start to see a glimmer of your true motives.
Yeah right.... :rolleyes:

If you accepted her as she was, you would not try to 'wish her to improve herself' because you would accept her as she is now, mess and all.
*sigh.... oh Lord.... this is the day I'm going nuts.......
No, sweetie. Pay attention to what you are saying. If I love her, I want her well, I don't want her to get hurt. If her behaviour hurts her, wouldn't I obviously try to encourage her to change her behaviour so that she doesn't get hurt anymore? Yes, sure I love her and care about her and accept who she is. But if she can be happier, wouldn't it be the caring thing to help her being happy? Note that I'm not telling her to change or I'm going away. I suggest that she might reconsider the way she acts, so that she can improve herself and have a better life, being happier. If that's what she wants, then that is what she is going to get. Otherwise, I would sitll stay on her side and let her be who she is.

If she's messy, then she's messy. You're trying to change her.
No, I'm not. Even because only her can change herself. You see... there's a clear difference between encouraging change and demanding change. I'm encouraging change because I accept who she is. I still don't need her personality to change. All that I suggest to her is that she might be better off if she gets organized. It might help her. If I didn't care about her, I would just leave her disorganized and she would suffer with that.

By trying to encourage her to be something that she's not (more organised), you're in fact trying to change who she is.
No, even because she is the only one that can change herself.

If she's messy and disorganised, let her be messy and disorganised. If she's not happy with her mess, let her change it when she's ready.
Certainly. But what I'm saying is that I'm supporting that change.

You trying to force change on her and calling it wishing for her self improvement only shows that you're trying to make her something she's not and not yet prepared to be.
I'm not forcing anything. So much that I've even didn't tell her my feelings about this yet.

Why must it be absolute? What about it must be absolute? And we all speak about completely different things when we discuss what constitutes romance. Because not all people see it the same way. Not everyone's motives behind a romantic act will be the same.
You didn't get it. Go to a dictionary. When it's written "romance" there, do you see the explanation for a "cat"? :bugeye:

It either is a freudian slip or it's not. There's no almost. I type it for easy reference. If you wish to see that I do see him as my other half, knock yourself out. After all, I still see you as a maid with ulterior motives, so why should I berate you for your opinion of me?
Whatever. If you keep yourself in denial, that's your problem.

I don't have a husband. I have a lover who I love very much. And I call him my slave.
Aha. Yep. Humm... Interesting.... *notes down*
Keep going. No. Don't feel ashamed. I understand...

TS, there's cleaning and doing housework and then there's organising my stuff. There's a line there. You've stated quite clearly that you 'organise her stuff'. So by your argument, that would mean that you actually organise her stuff. If my partner ever tried to organise my stuff there'd be an uproar... because it's my stuff.
Well, in our case, she doesn't mind. And I don't think there's a line between housework and organizing stuff. Have you ever tried to sweep the floor with a whole bunch of papers on it?

We clean the house and wash the dishes, etc, but we don't organise each other's stuff. There's a big difference. He's disorganised as hell and that's fine with me. It's his stuff and he's happy the way he is.
If he's hppy, then there's no problem. But with my mate, she is not quite happy with being disorganized, and I do want to encourage her and support her on a change, so that she can be happier.

So you see romanticism as love? Hmmm interesting...
Not exactly. They are similar, but not the same...

You don't? Shall we visit some of your earlier statements? If you didn't care about how good others are, why would you say this?..
Yeah, ok. I do care to a certain degree. Even because I want the world to be a better place for my children.

Hmmm... You don't care about how good others are, only about how bad people around here are.
Not really. Altough sciforums is a case for insanity... :D

You are quite happy to criticise others for their notion of what constitutes romance, but balk when the same is done to you.
Because I'm talking about absolute romantism while you are talking about a relative personal concept.

If people want to give flowers and chocolates, then it's their choice to do so.
Which is fine. The intention is important too, you know?

If you want to clean her stuff, then clean it. Don't come on here and tell us and then ask if we think it's romantic and then throw a sissy fit when others disagree with you.
I didn't ask if it was romantic. I used it as an example to answer whitewolf's question and then you completely projected it to the central idea of the thread, which happens to completely different. I was trying to discuss an absolute concept and you got me trapped into a meaningless and futile conversation about a relative personal concept which, obviously, changes from person to person and by no mena s have any ground for agreement since it is personal. I repeat: it is personal. I don't give a damn for the personal context nor for my personal situation. The purpose of the thread is to define wheter romance is dead or not by its absolute meaning and not the relative ones.

What you constitute as being romantic is no better or worse than any other person's concept of romance. If you didn't care about what other people are, you wouldn't ask.
Yikes.... read above...

I've merely been commenting on what you've been saying in here. You made it personal when you recited your story of organising her stuff.
Yes I did, which I meant to be a simple example and not the central subject of the conversation! Why do you keep insisting on discussing this relative concept?

I wasn't trying to insult you. It came without effort actually. If you wish to report me then do so.
Doesn't seem so. But whatever.

Then good for you. I applaud you. But so what? Why mention it at all?
Because you change the meaning into a distorted offensive sexual meaning.

If you're going to report me for insulting you, it'd be best if you delete these two little lines so that you don't come off as such a two faced twit. Oops, I've just insulted you again. My bad...
Duuh, really. Funny the fact that I've apologized despite the fact that you don't really deserve such an apology, even because you haven't apologized at all, yet.

Is that a promise or a threat? And TS, there is no try. There is only do.
Yes there's "try", because you didn't insult me at first.

Me thinks it is you who keeps contradicting himself.
No, I'm not. It is obvious that I have to lean on my own understanding otherwise I wouldn't be able to communicate at all. You do that too, you know?

And you're asking for the opinion of others now?
About the absolute concept, not my own personal situation!
God! Stop for a while and think!

Why? You said you know what your belief in 'romantism' is, so why do you need the opinions of others?
Because I want to discuss it. Because there's an absolute romantism that people don't know about.

For verification perhaps?
What would I verify? Why would I verify? Sounds like wasting time...

See if you're on the right track? And when you come out with replies like this, and I quote you from page 1;

it shows that you are seeking verification on whether your actions were romantic or not.
Oh, geeeeezz.... :rolleyes:
Look at the conversation:

And she doesn't care about the fact that I've been organizing her entire stuff because our place is a real mess. ”
See, that's romantic. And it's not dead. Romance is in small things; the key is to be in love. It takes love to appreciate the green goo your partner calls "omlet" and offers for lunch in the kitchen.
Do you mean I'm romantic because I do or she is romantic because she doesn't care?

See? She said that it IS romantic the fact that I organize her stuff. So I ask her wheter that's what she meant, because what she said was dubious, it had double meaning. It could also mean that the fact that she doesn't care is romantic (which I doubted). All this, so that we could find a common ground on what romantism is, so that we could find what is the absolute definition of romantic. It has nothing to do with my personal experience. My personal experience is just a simple example of what romantism might be.

Grow up.

Therefore you should not become upset when the replies disagree with you or if you are insulted that I think you are a maid. You asked for an opinion and I merely replied in kind. In short, you asked for it and you're getting it.
For the last freaking time. I asked for the absolute definition, not a relative personal one. *sigh..... why do I even try to discuss epistemology here..... :rolleyes:

Foodle Doodle....

c2h:
I didnt say that I thought it was good to shame a friend did I? I said it was good to shame your enemies so that they may feel disgrace for what they have done to you and repent and come back to be a friend in humility!

You said to love your enemies.

You love your enemy because it is like heaping red hot coals of shame upon their heads.

You love them to shame them.
Who do you love? You love a friend. Do you love a friend to shame them?

If you dishonor your enemy with your love, you dishonor anyone else you love. But can you love?

You love your enemy because you are not strong enough to oppose him.

invert nexus:
Actually, I agree with Truthseeker. If you love your enemy, he ceases to be your enemy.
The Christians didn't love the Turks.

I grant that you can hate someone you love, but to love someone you hate? That would mean wanting what is in his best interests, while trying to harm him. It is possible, but slavish -- you are too weak to harm or benefit him, so you can support both emotions.

c2h:


You said to love your enemies.


I grant that you can hate someone you love, but to love someone you hate? That would mean wanting what is in his best interests, while trying to harm him. It is possible, but slavish -- you are too weak to harm or benefit him, so you can support both emotions.

When my child puts a small toy in his mouth and refuses to spit it out what should I say? He has become my enemy because my duty is to protect him and he is making that job very difficult. He is running around and refusing to even open his mouth. Inside I am panicking. I do not want my child to swallow the toy. I say "Come here right now and give me that thing you have in your mouth", He shakes his head defiantly, keeping his mouth firmly shut. He runs off. I say again "Come here right now, I want that thing in your mouth before you choke on it"
He stares at me with real defiance. Not game play but real defiance. My own son is acting like he is my enemy when all I am trying to do is protect him.
I turn to my wife and say loud enough for my son to hear... "Its Ok, that birthday present we bought him will have to go back to the shops if he is going to carry on like this!"
My wife who is 'in on it' tricky lady that she is, says "Yes no problem I've still got all the packaging, I'll run it back tomorrow"
We are 'loving our enemy' right here!
Our son then wonders whether his refusal to do as I say is really worth losing his birthday present over. Then he realises that it is us who look after him, who love him and protect him. Even he realises of course that his lovely mum and dad wouldnt really take any present away cos he knows us and has faith in us. Cos he has faith in us he decides to stop seeking his own way and spit out the toy as his daddy has asked him too. He says sorry and we restore him and tell him why it is dangerous to run around with stuff in his mouth. We dont even need to mention that his birthday present is safe. He already knows that because he has said sorry and spat the thing out.
He wont learn from this just yet. He will do this again and again probably until he grows out of it. But he will grow out of it.
The whole subject of friends and enemies is a vast one and can be placed inside of many contexts. 'Love' cannot also easily be generalised when discussing this subject either because love in an active form can be many different things.

I would not describe my child as an enemy, at least not in such a situation, mainly because an enemy is someone who hates you and tries to harm you. At least that is the common definition of an enemy, and it does not entail childish behavior.

Furthermore, the hate of an enemy will not go away because you love him, he will use the fact that you love him for his own means...

He has become my enemy because my duty is to protect him and he is making that job very difficult

Your child is your enemy when his disobedience inconvienences you?
What sort of sick control freak regards his own child as an enemy for simple childhood pettishness? Poor kid!

Enemy \En"e*my\, n.; pl. Enemies. [OF. enemi, F. ennemi, from
L. inimicus; in- (negative) + amicus friend. See Amicable.]
One hostile to another; one who hates, and desires or
attempts the injury of, another; a foe; an adversary; as, an
enemy of or to a person; an enemy to truth, or to falsehood.

Webster's.

Xev,

Actually, I agree with Truthseeker. If you love your enemy, he ceases to be your enemy.
The Christians didn't love the Turks.

I doubt if many actually love their enemies. They just pay lip service to the idea.

And my question still stands. What happens if you love your enemy but they don't love you? Are they not your enemy because you 'love' them? They'll still come to your town and rape your children just the same whether you love them or not.

This claim of loving your enemy is just a means of seeking the moral high ground. If you really love them and they hate you then you would kill yourself or allow yourself to be conquered by them because of your love for them. How many submit to such things?

Would you, Truthseeker?


I'll admit that the christians didn't love the Turks. But, you can bet that many lay claim to it. After all, the good book says...

I grant that you can hate someone you love, but to love someone you hate? That would mean wanting what is in his best interests, while trying to harm him. It is possible, but slavish -- you are too weak to harm or benefit him, so you can support both emotions.

Interesting. I've never thought about it like that. It's easy to love and hate when you're not capable of acting on your feelings. In this way you're saying that you didn't destroy your enemy because you didn't even want to.

But, I don't see what it has to do with my point. Although it does sort of echo my "There is no safe course. Except for perhaps "loving" your enemy. The question is, which is the more honest course of action?"

Truthseeker

There's an absolute concept for niceness and also for romantism. The concept of romantism at this moment in time is completely twisted. It has nothing to do with the absolute concept.
Eh? Re-read that and then tell me whether that makes sense. Anywho, to try to answer what I think you are trying to say, for you maybe it is twisted. Based on the media and advertising, it appears twisted. But for each individual, it is not twisted.

Likely
How do you know? How is it likely that 'ALL men cheat on their girlfriends'? Do you cheat on your girlfriend? All men do not cheat on their partners, just as all women do not cheat on their partners. You are merely assuming that it is likely that all cheat to suit your own purposes.

Not at all. I've heard many real stories like that.
So based on the few stories you've heard, you've then proposed that all are the same? If all are the same TS, you'd have to account for yourself as well. Until you've asked every single adult in the world whether they cheat on their partners, you cannot make such an assumption based on a few stories.

No. But that does seem to be the rule according to research...
I see. Then please produce the 'research' whereby all women on this planet have been asked if they prefer macho guys who treat them like shit.

Definetely not. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Altough I think you are exagerating...
How so? Of course it happens, but it is you who is operating on the premise that all women like guys who treat them like shit. In short, it is you who exaggerates.

Do you know any statistics of how many women are abused and keep themselves on an abusive relationship because they prefer to be with an idiot then all by themselves?
I happen to have worked with abusive women TS and while there are women who prefer to stay, there are also many other women who want to leave but cannot for other reasons.

If I love her, I want her well, I don't want her to get hurt. If her behaviour hurts her, wouldn't I obviously try to encourage her to change her behaviour so that she doesn't get hurt anymore? Yes, sure I love her and care about her and accept who she is. But if she can be happier, wouldn't it be the caring thing to help her being happy? Note that I'm not telling her to change or I'm going away. I suggest that she might reconsider the way she acts, so that she can improve herself and have a better life, being happier. If that's what she wants, then that is what she is going to get. Otherwise, I would sitll stay on her side and let her be who she is.
Don't you think she's mature enough to change on her own, when she chooses to? It is not your place to 'suggest that she reconsider the way she acts'.

You see... there's a clear difference between encouraging change and demanding change. I'm encouraging change because I accept who she is. I still don't need her personality to change. All that I suggest to her is that she might be better off if she gets organized. It might help her. If I didn't care about her, I would just leave her disorganized and she would suffer with that.
And she might be better off for herself if she's disorganised. She's come this far in her life by being the way she is, why should you be 'encouraging' her to change. If you accept who she is, you would not be encouraging change.

Aha. Yep. Humm... Interesting.... *notes down*
Keep going. No. Don't feel ashamed. I understand...
Feel ashamed about what? I'm quite happy where I am and how I am. So why should I feel ashamed TS?

Well, in our case, she doesn't mind. And I don't think there's a line between housework and organizing stuff. Have you ever tried to sweep the floor with a whole bunch of papers on it?
If it's my papers, I move it. If it's his papers, he moves it. If I move his papers for cleaning purposes, I put them back the way they were when I'm finished and he does the same.

Because I'm talking about absolute romantism while you are talking about a relative personal concept.
Then give me a definition of what YOU think it is or should be.

Duuh, really. Funny the fact that I've apologized despite the fact that you don't really deserve such an apology, even because you haven't apologized at all, yet.
If I didn't deserve the apology, why did you give it? Hmmm? Don't be a hypocrite. If you don't think someone deserves an apology, don't give it.

Because I want to discuss it.
No. You want to see how bad people in here are so that you can then tell yourself that you are better. You want to criticise others for what they believe to be romantic and when the same is done to you, you become upset.

Because there's an absolute romantism that people don't know about.
Then what is it? If we don't know, tell us what it is.

I doubt if many actually love their enemies. They just pay lip service to the idea.
That's the whole point of the teaching...
He clearly states that people should change their views on enemies. Read the verses right before "love your enemies"!!

And my question still stands. What happens if you love your enemy but they don't love you?
Nothing. Just that. Altough it will encourage them to change and to actually love you back.

Are they not your enemy because you 'love' them?
They might still consider you an enemy, but you don't consider them an enemy anymore.

They'll still come to your town and rape your children just the same whether you love them or not.
They are more likely to change if you love them then if you hate them.

This claim of loving your enemy is just a means of seeking the moral high ground. If you really love them and they hate you then you would kill yourself or allow yourself to be conquered by them because of your love for them.
Not necessarily. Love has the power to unite people. That's the whle point. They to ponder about this scripture:

Colossians 3:14
"14 Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity."

This is one of the most significant verses in the Bible, together with "let all that you do be done in love".

How many submit to such things?
None. That's why we are imperfect and we need to rely on God to define perfection....

Would you, Truthseeker?
Not yet. But I'm getting there. I'm still far away, but I'm certainly closer then many people around here. Or at least, that's what they claim.

I'll admit that the christians didn't love the Turks. But, you can bet that many lay claim to it. After all, the good book says...
They could claim that and manipulate scriptures for their own selfish purposes. In fact, that's what they have done.

But, I don't see what it has to do with my point. Although it does sort of echo my "There is no safe course. Except for perhaps "loving" your enemy. The question is, which is the more honest course of action?"
If you do love your enemy, loving is the more honest one. But the question is not that. The question is: do you care? I mean... do you want to achieve excellence or you don't care about it?



Eh? Re-read that and then tell me whether that makes sense.
Of course it does! It means that your relative concept is not equal to the absolute concept of romantism? Is that hard to understand?

Anywho, to try to answer what I think you are trying to say, for you maybe it is twisted. Based on the media and advertising, it appears twisted. But for each individual, it is not twisted.
The absolute concept is thought to be something that is actually relative. That's why it is twisted.

How do you know? How is it likely that 'ALL men cheat on their girlfriends'?
Because that's a widely advertised fact and it is also studied in psychology....

Do you cheat on your girlfriend?
I don't have one. Maybe that's why girls don't like me, cause I would never cheat on them.... :rolleyes:

All men do not cheat on their partners, just as all women do not cheat on their partners.
That's true. Doesn't mean most doesn't. Of course, you have to be careful not to make a generalization. But according to research and by logical psychological facts....

You are merely assuming that it is likely that all cheat to suit your own purposes.
1) They don't all cheat.
2) What the heck are you talking about?

So based on the few stories you've heard, you've then proposed that all are the same? If all are the same TS, you'd have to account for yourself as well. Until you've asked every single adult in the world whether they cheat on their partners, you cannot make such an assumption based on a few stories.
In one word: statistics. And once again I say, it is NOT true to all.

I see. Then please produce the 'research' whereby all women on this planet have been asked if they prefer macho guys who treat them like shit.
Once again, you don't need the entire population. You can have a sample and still get a fairly accurate result.

How so? Of course it happens, but it is you who is operating on the premise that all women like guys who treat them like shit. In short, it is you who exaggerates.
Once again, you are generalizing what I said. I said that there's a large group of women that like to be treated that way. Hence the brand name: "Bad Boy"....

I happen to have worked with abusive women TS and while there are women who prefer to stay, there are also many other women who want to leave but cannot for other reasons.
Yes, I know that. Each case is a case...

Don't you think she's mature enough to change on her own, when she chooses to? It is not your place to 'suggest that she reconsider the way she acts'.
Why not? If I care, I can tell her "I support you if you want to change". Wouldn't you support your partenr if that's what he wanted?

And she might be better off for herself if she's disorganised. She's come this far in her life by being the way she is, why should you be 'encouraging' her to change. If you accept who she is, you would not be encouraging change.
This is not part of who she is. Besides, how encouraging a good change can be bad for her?

Feel ashamed about what? I'm quite happy where I am and how I am. So why should I feel ashamed TS?
Oh... I was just fooling around... :D

If it's my papers, I move it. If it's his papers, he moves it. If I move his papers for cleaning purposes, I put them back the way they were when I'm finished and he does the same.
Sounds like organized disorganization...... :D

Then give me a definition of what YOU think it is or should be.
I just said it like a post ago!

If I didn't deserve the apology, why did you give it? Hmmm? Don't be a hypocrite. If you don't think someone deserves an apology, don't give it.
I deserved it.

No. You want to see how bad people in here are so that you can then tell yourself that you are better. You want to criticise others for what they believe to be romantic and when the same is done to you, you become upset.
Sounds like you have problems following logical arguments...

Then what is it? If we don't know, tell us what it is.
*sigh.... here it goes... again...

"Well... I see love as a freedom of self-expression. When I love someone, I want to be totally free to express myself, so that I can be my real self. That's what I think love is, the total and undivided expression of oneself. Like an extension of yourself. As if you weren't just here, but also