gendanken: Amusing. You're not any different from those proclaiming their allegience to "luv". You're simply refining your allegience to a specific type of "luv" And that leads to this: Bells: Then you are no different from a Hallmark card. You are simply a Hallmark card with a different message on it. Do you actually think your message is so subversive, so radical? It's common. You're all common. In you, the fascination with love simply becomes a fascination with sneering at love, or saying it should be constructed in some personal way. "Love is overrated!" I hear "it's just chemicals" Well no, duh? If the subject is truely as common as you say - admitting that it is - you are equally as common for your insatiable need to denounce or rectify it. Historically, the love of love is often connected with an ecstatic love of death, of warfare and progeny. I dare any one of you lily-livered pussys to say that's not fucking interesting. You'll make of love something "healthy", and you think you're going against the trend? Far from! You're the heirs of the 19th century's medicalization of emotion, the modern emphasis on being well-adjusted and healthy. Bah. Humbug.
Xev Then, if anything, what does love mean to you? How do you incoporate it in your life? Do you accept your points of view on love to be also common?
Gendy: I don't see that you necessarily need to wrest it back. It depends on who you are and what you value.
Actually, that is exactly what I mean. I looked for love in High School, to be a half. I searched for someone to validate me, and show off to my friends. I no longer wanted to be alone, and I wanted someone to fawn all over me. I found it, several times. But, when you are "looking" for love, there is obviously something missing, or you do not feel complete without another person to share it with you. When you fall in love, without looking and without needing to be in love... that's the part that is the key. You are no longer settling for the best love you can get, just because you have to have it from somewhere. You can respect yourself, and be self-sufficent enough not to need to be loved. When you are loved, it's a blessing... but it's not needed to make you a person. A want is a fleeting feeling, but not a need. You can want your entire life to travel the world, but it doesn't mean that your life is not complete if you never make the trip. So want, and need are two different things. Moreso when it comes to love, because love is not needed to be happy, or productive, or live a full life. Well, I disagree. If you need someone to complete you, then there is something missing in the first place. It is indeed a matter of self-esteem and self-worth. If you have neither, it's very easy to need someone to love you to boost your own ego. In fact, it may be the sole reason for dysfunctional people to form dysfunctional relationships. It can also be a reason the divorce rate is too high. Everyone expects too much from love, and from each other. They talk about it, see counselors, shared it with the women at the hair salon and their buddies at the bar, and it's all about how disappointed they are. When the people they should be disappointed with is themselves for being half of a whole.
Xev: Actually, another commoner beat you to it just as commonly: "You have really turned cynicism into an art (gendanken) - just as the great lotharios of the World have done with love (or least sex). I would say you "love" your denial of love, gaining satisfaction from it. Call me a soppy, cliche'd romantic, but it's a great shame if you have never felt love for anyone else. "- Starthane What's hilarious is that post up there coming from you. Peasant. Take that up with Wesmorris. He's the chemical chick. Bells: No! All lovebirds are lepers. Seriously- a man actually worth his 'luv' would never give it to a cripple. Corny, but tell me. Only curious- why do you call him 'partner'? Thought that was homosexual speak. None of you see it, huh?
"Take that up with Wesmorris. He's the chemical chick." chick? Okay then, uhm... doesn't any abstract component of mind have some sort of chemical component, propping it up there into it's abstractness?
That's a great point. Which makes me wonder.... how people usually keep themselves not attached to each other, while still being frequently intimate?
I sort of agree with you, but I think it is actually both. There's nothing wrong with taking care of each other sometimes. Like when you get sick and your partner do chiken soup for ya. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is when people become dependent that it is bad. But it is possible to be independent and at the same time helpful. That's something called interdependence Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Even because nobody in the whole world is completely independent! I mean.... who produces the food that you consume? Who transport it? Who sells it? Who drives you to work/school (assuming you don't have a car)? Who built your computer? Who sold it? Who designed it? Who created it? There's a lot of people that have done a lot for you (well... actually for money). But we usually forget that. We usually want to be proud of being ourselves so we think that we are completely independent, which is obviously not true. So interdependence is better then independence, because it improves standards of living. It is just like trade. It puts you being the possible national production output. That's very true. But in order to do that, you need to have a well developed identity. Erikson, a psychologist, theorized that we go through many stages of development throughout our lives. They all have a point of crises. They are: Trust vs. Mistrust Autonomy vs. Shame, Doubt Inititative vs. Guilt Industry vs. Inferiority Identity vs. Role Confusion (ages 13-19) Intimacy vs. Isolation Generativity vs. Stagnation Integrity vs.Despair In order to be succesful in a relationship, you have top go through all the first 5 stages and resolve their crisis successfully. The culmination of the main crises for relationship is the "Identity vs. Role Confusion" stage. Without a solid sense of identity, if you go into an intimate relationship, you tend to absorb the personality of your partner, since you don't have a complete personality yet. That's why teenagers tend to have dependent relationships. Once you have your personality well developed, you can move on to the "Intimacy vs. Isolation" without experiencing dependant relationships. Here's a source for Erikson's stages. PS: Everyone has their own pace of development. Only because most people go through "Identity vs. Role Confusion" throughout their whole teenager years, that doesn't mean that everyone will do that. Some people can develop earlier, and others later.
What I see here is just a confusing of the special and the general. Pretty much no matter whose love we would try to describe, it would always come out as something common; and it would only seem less common if we were really good at making novel metaphors. The point is that as long as we are using language, it all comes out common, because language is common, thank you very much. But this does not mean that the individual application of the common language will also be "common": it can not be; as soon as it is applied on the individual level, it becomes special. ***** We obviously have a completely different background, so I cannot comment on that. I see where you are coming from, but I find it odd. Then you either didn't want to do it that badly anyway, or what you are suggesting is the self-fulfilling sabotage pattern of "how to beat silly ideas out of your head". Sure they are. But I think there is also a need for wanting, like I said before. If wants would be eventually irrelevant and not something one would or should act on, then we'd not do much, or the most of what we do would have to be classiffied as "following our whims". I categorically disagree. Only robots can be "happy, productive and have a full life" without love. Like I said, I am familiar with this concept of thinking of some "love"-relationships as a try to complete one's incomplete self, but I find this concept, as well as your solution to it, misleading. I would conceptualize this as "people don't demand enough from oneself". I can understand this -- but do tell: How are they, who, according to you, are half of a whole, to become whole?
By being independant. Regardless of whether or not they are in a relationship. By not needing someone else to fill their life.
sargentlard: Simply put, I don't care. The post-debate spin in the background is more important. RosaMagica: Language is indeed common, but it may be used in novel ways. I'm not sure how this relates to my criticism. Arditezza: And you are wholly self-sufficiant, you could go the rest of your life without another human's contact? gendanken: I'm sure that you and Fenris are having lots of scintillating conversations via private message about how much you hate people who go to forums to socialize...but that's no reason to adopt his style. Be creative. And I agree with the first point. You, Bells, etc seem to love talking about how much you despise love. A morbid curiousity, love and sex, for someone so self-proclaimed cold and despising the human touch. Quit trying to be something you're not, bunny.
See that little thingy under my username? Gendanken, the beautiful ice-cold woman, spends a good thirtyfive-forty percent of her time here exchanging private messages. Because she's very aloof and above socializing on the 'net, like some bored housewife. The point has been made, ought not to be belabored as I'm tired, but the internet is primarily a communications network. It started for that purpose and has flourished for it. Therefore anyone upon the internet, is a social creature like the rest, and no amount of "but I despise love!" will exipiate for them. It is especially amusing to watch some dumb wifemother like Arditezza explain how decidedly self-relient she is. Anyone discussing love so frequently (mea culpa) cannot atone by disparaging it.
Aye. What has that got to do with watching the posting habits of forum members? Or how often they pm? ... with a notebook in hand and a pocket calculater, noting times and frequency. Someone influencing you? Did you ever read "Why The Lovers Whisper Sweet nothings"? Perhaps more attention should be paid to the type of love said to be despised. I thought it was quite clear. There are three threads going on about this at the moment (not an unusual occurence), and all three of them are quite specific in showing the differences between beliefs. We see the same sort of thing in the religion forums - atheistic types are drawn to them as well, not from a secret desire to be religious, but from a fascination with the mechanics of it. Interesting to see who shows up in these things though... me, you, Gendanken... all we need is wanderer, Lucysnow and the spookz vaudeville show and it would be just like old times. Heh.
yeah, love and stuff, deep. More importantly- what a matchup we have here, Xev vs Gendanken, this is hot. Who can honestly say they haven't been hoping for this day? Xev's already hit hard by calling Gend out on her PMing antics. I can't see that wound closing up fast, I predict it will inhibit future counters from the gend. What can she say? Really? At the end of the day she'll still be the one who routinely PMs invert nexus and fenris wolf. You can't maintain the "too cool" image with that little tidbit hanging from your forehead like a used condom. "Peasant" aahh yeah you cyber socialise with invert nexus... - you see my point, she's starting on the back foot. Then again, the very same harem of he-bitches xev calls attention to might burst in flailing their unsheathed claws in defense of queen G. Who knows? This is all very exciting.
... co-starring Dr Lou. Who has, as usual, completely missed the point (and claims one of his own which has already been made). If he'd only brought up the animal kingdom again my day would have been almost complete. Not to mention revealing himself as yet another voyeur. My, aren't we inundated with those. I suppose finding that so many here log on for the seeming purpose of watching who pm's who (and how often) shouldn't come as too great a surprise. So much for intellectual stimulation. Not only watching pm's, but you would have to... sit there, and watch the "who's online" to see who replies. You would have to sit and watch it for quite a while in order to see a conversation unfold that you are not a part of. Fascinating. There are books and things out there, people. *edit - Oh, and one last thing. I don't know if Xev "routinely pm's" anyone. She's invisible. I suppose it makes it easier to be a voyeur if no one knows you're doing it.
Yowch, this one's feisty. I heard gendanken puts them in hessian bags and beats them to make them ferocious.
It wouldn't be so bad, if only she'd not use the same bag she does for her cats. Lou, I get the distinct impression that even if it were the case, you'd be jealous of that too. Wouldn't you?
You're right, I'd love a harem of he-bitches. All I would have needed to do was call myself "Louise natic" and you'd be digging your nose into my crotch too.
