Why the Lover Whispers Sweet Nothings

One:

Why the past tense, oh why the past tense?

What does it say about your love -- if it ended in such a miserable way -- she ran off?


Two:

Blessed are the blind.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I was miserable for a while, but there is nothing miserable about my love. Sometimes things start, sometimes they end. Love alone doesn't determine results. When trust is broken, love stands on broken legs.

Love is blind. But you're being cryptic - you're obviously comparing my experience with something you've experienced yourself - something I'm obviously ignorant of, and will likely remain unless you decide to qualify your assertion. I certainly don't think women have it easy - but neither have I. What's the difference?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Must I, oh must I say that horrid word -- beauty?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah, but beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all we know on Earth, and all we need to know!

 

So, if one is not beautiful, one's bad, and a liar?!

You Greek!

 

I must say, I believ that beauty is a big part of the attraction of a women if not the most important part (at least to me). I know I sound shallow and everything and if thats the definition of shallow then I am but I believe it is ingrained into guys heads that they must find their partner sexually attractive. Now your subconscious sometimes does funny things to get around this problem. A lot of guys find their partner very attractive even though none of his mates do! The guy himself will sometimes admit that it was not love at first sight but that her beauty kind of grew on him!!! I know this has happened to me in the past.

Theres a difference between being with a girl who's only mildly attractive and one who is gorgeous though. In the latter case u get that wobbly knees feeling everytime u are around her and u tend to idolise her more. God I sound like such a pussy again

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Who believes this, is a fool. Walking away from your child is one step above snapping its little neck when it's born, since you're denying yourself the experience of watching the kid's entire life. A stupid enough person can convince themself that this doesn't mean anything to them.

A stupid enough person could convince themself that cutting off their arm didn't really mean anything to them either... should we agree?

The EP-ification of love has - for some unholy reason - excused this idiotic behaviour as "normal", as if men didn't really want to have children. Trust me, men want to have children, unless they are too stupid to understand... in which case, it is best that they don't.

 

Jenyar:

This is not “love”

Rosa:

No, they don’t.

Only insofar that our female is closest to the species. Flesh and blood run through her, but its only biology. Chicken pox is biology- and there’s nothing ‘special’ in it.

I’ll have to disagree, my dear- women are the reasons for the Female Slave.
I’m with Weininger on this one- all humanity is bisexual. The female trait is the submissive, indecisive one we find kissing it’s shackles. The male trait is the dominant, aggressive one building cities.

Both are found in Man and Woman. Our subject (the initial one) just so happens to be a female male.
Lastly:

Self pity and mercy, surely.
Specifically mercy pity, the ugliest brand: its an arrogant fancy the weak use in place of the condescension only the noble are in a condition to show. Pity is what the dwarf will use on the midget for status.

Wolf:

Its no secret to anyone the mammal is known for its warmth.
Its overrated- but its been known to destroy logic by just blowing on it.

Plenty. Puh-lenty

Mephura:

If anything, the focus is to simplify by looking to the unconscious.
But not in the psychoanalytic way where one takes torturous routs and detours to trace all behavior back to a parental complex or a dick.
You ‘simplify’ something with Wes, and I'll use it. Why? To feed my point and you fed it.

For example:

Remember this, typed with your own hand. You’ve confirmed a point I’ll make- we’ll see how later.

“Sorry if you had trouble following”

Consider the mantras known to lovebirds: I’m not myself without you. I can’t live without you. You make me feel brand new.

The deflation of Self without Other means that solitudes were never respected, it means so little energy was given to Self for sake of Other, it means that Self is a cripple and Love the crutch it abuses.
The words “You” and “I” naturally fuse when in love, but only externally. It’s the things the healthy soul builds in its Solitude that remains with or without the ‘you’- intact. A majestic “I”.

Those too sick and lazy to build in their solitude are the ones we find singing these mantras of deflation and longing- so they give themselves away when there is nothing to give and that, dear sir, is a whore.

This is where your words, as I said up there, would come back to haunt you in a point I’ll make.

You call it guessing blindly, but you’d also agree to the difficulty of talking about any of these subtypes and types without hinting at the others.
Do you know why?
Could it not be that despite the very subjective experience of every fucking human on this planet presumably making them different where ‘love’ goes, the feelings and behaviors and consequences are only marginally different?.
So small is this difference that its technically…same.

Turn your radio on right now and listen to their agonies:
“I’m all out of love, I’m so lost without you”
“When I need you”
“Darling if you want me to be closer to you, get closer to me”
“Good riddance”
“Fade Into you”
“Nothing Compares to You”

..all singing, and saying, and dreaming, and mourning, and thinking the same things.
When the girl gets her period, to her the world has changed.
When the prole is in love he imagines its different from any other love in the village and no noble can ever taste what he has tasted because, to him, nobility is too highly strung for such tender delicacies of the humble.
Yet the noble sings of his loved one and writes her his poetries just the same-far more eloquently than our prole but saying the same things for same reasons.

This is why its so difficult to speak of one type without hinting of the other. They are all the same thing: Civilized aggression.

Yes, real funny.
Look back and you’ll find yourself saying that I’m stating these lovewords are NOT meant as opiates. Which is smegma.

I’ve referred to Cyrrano de Bergerac, have I not? I dare anyone to accuse me of highrowed namedropping- we all know this character as the long nosed Romantic who used Christian, an idiot, as his mouthpiece to Roxeanne who did not like his long nose.
When Cyrrano lay dying, his last request to the lady was what? He wanted her to read the letter to him that she thinks Christian wrote when its really he that wrote it. He wanted to hear his own words. Why? Opiates.

And here’s another one that may be new to you: when in doubt and in love, the human is likely to soften the rough edges with love thoughts.
Maybe now you’ll see why the ‘tricking’ of self may apply.

All emotions share the common denominator of unbroken experience, no?
It is, as you say, human abstracts that divorce variables (fight or flight) from reality.
“Love” I see, as Freud did, as the channeling of natural aggression towards something like a cultural glue to bind men together into a stable politic he calls Civilization.

Remove this mechanism, this exaggeration, remove this Super Ego that man imposes on himself that is the source of the guilt that keeps him quiet....and you remove the crowd control.

If that is the case, then leprosy and herpes illustrate the simplicity of your statement.
Lepers and whores suffer.

All those behaviours are selfish where Other never comes into play.
Point to a parakeet and someone here will tell you that monogamy, even in the bonobo being the closest to our behaviour in the animal world, is both a selfish ritual and *our* anthroporphic wishful thinking when it comes to the animal kingdom.

First you say Gendanken is probing the “subconscious reasons” and here you are calling it “counscious”. Make up your mind will you?

Now- a gold mine. You’ve brought up transference and Freud just so happens to be the very field (other than Jung’s archetypes) that our Lover falls into.
The obsessive.
The Job.
The human we find poetically mourning.

Differentiate first between conscious vs. unconscious:
“. For one thing, there are clarifying distinctions being made between coping processes and defense mechanisms. Coping processes are conscious, intentional, learned, and associated with normal adjustment. Defense mechanisms are unconscious, unintentional, self-protective instincts or dispositions, and associated with pathology (Cramer, 1998).

Now you see how a lover can trick himself *consciously* and defend himself *unconsciously.*
In the latter we find what this thread is about (the sickling), and we find Freud was right despite being a ninny. Man deals with his pains with deflections, distractions, substitutions and intoxications all of which our hopeless Romeo rests his dreams on.
Also to consider are reaction formations, where feelings are reversed and projected as false.
Meaning, hate becomes love or love becomes hate and the expression of it reversed is exaggerated. As when a woman is scorned she’ll destroy what she loves, or a closet homosexual will inflate the image of macho by getting the biggest car or telling the crudest jokes all the while fighting that thing inside.

In the same way this Lover, who hates his condition, will aggrandize those love words and images because inside he’s really a eunuch.

 

BBH,

Are we talking about how things *are* or about how they *should* be?

If you look at modern society, men *do* act this way: "After mating, the man can simply walk away."



Gendanken,

Hah! One thing I have always found rather disturbing is that if you go to a cd shop, you see that about 2/3 (rough estimate) of all music there is written, composed, performed -- and sold for these same agonizing reasons!
Apparently, the sickly lover thing pays off extremely well!

Yes, they do. A man can act cowardly -- and this is then regarded as "proper behaviour". A man can say that he's with a woman "only something for the summer" -- and he will be praised for this attitude. If a woman does the same, she's called a slut.

I'll support this with a passage from Thomas Mann, from the novella "Der Bajazzo" (it's my translation, I tried to get the meaning across as good as I could, the original is a syntactic nightmare -- German ...):

But have I really loved this girl?
Was this love not a monster, born of my long irritated and ill vanity? And this vanity was, as I first looked upon this unreachable preciousness, this girl, this vanity was embarrassingly desired, and caused feelings of jealousy, hate and self-loathing to arise. Wasn't the love I felt for this girl only a pretext, a way out and a salvation from these feelings of jealousy, hate and self-loathing?

And from the same novella:

One does not die of an unhappy love or a broken heart. An unhappy love is an attitude that is not so bad. When in an unhappy love, one likes oneself. But I will go down because I have completely and hopelessly lost all my self-love!

***
Here are the originals for those who speak German -- feel free to correct my translations:

Liebte ich dieses Mädchen?
War diese Liebe nicht eine Ausgeburt meiner längst schon gereizten und kranken Eitelkeit, die beim ersten Anblick dieser unerreichbaren Kostbarkeit peinigend aufbegehrt war und Gefühle von Neid, Hass und Selbstverachtung hervorgebracht hatte, für die dann die Liebe bloss Vorwand, Ausweg und Rettung war?


Man geht an keiner unglücklichen Liebe zugrunde. eine unglückliche Liebe ist eine Attitüde, die nicht übel ist. In einer unglücklichen Liebe gefällt man sich. ich aber gehe daran zugrunde, dass es mit allem Gefallen an mir selbst so ohne Hoffnung zu Ende ist!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Gendanken takes you down to her place near the river
You can hear the boats go by
You can spend the night beside her
And you know that she's half crazy
But that's why you want to be there
And she feeds you tea and oranges
That come all the way from China
And just when you mean to tell her
That you have no love to give her
Then she gets you on her wavelength
And she lets the river answer
That you've always been her lover
And you want to travel with her
And you want to travel blind
And you know that she will trust you
For you've touched her perfect body with your mind. (cohen)
​

*sigh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

Nor did I say it was - it was just something that love enabled. Love enables many kinds of experience, and still more kinds of understanding.

Tell that to Keats. But I'm sure that wasn't what he implied. Beauty doesn't include lies, and obviously neither does truth. From that we can deduce that beauty is not dependent on the appearance of a person, but on his honesty - his heart. And show me that women have a more sturdy heart than men. Or that all men are shallow bastards. I've had the opposite experience - but I don't blame women, I blame those who say one thing and did another. I have seen the damage a lie can do to love - even forgiving love. It poisons it. And it's a poison that doesn't discriminate between men and women.

Good translation, by the way. What did you think of "Sons and Lovers"?

 

Cowardice is certainly not reserved for one sex only, this much is true.


P.S.
I haven't read "Sons and Lovers" yet.

BTW,
You must mean Keats, not Yeats -- with that beauty/truth thing?
EDIT: I just posted my reply now, seeing that you corrected that old one ...

 

Bells:

Can't you see?
She (Hathor) is taking my thesis and proving it with her mockery.
If not, there's a poodle behind those flowers I'd love to run over.

You scifers must desist from thinking the human still thinks in evolutionary terms.
What Man and Woman both see is nice tits and a big dick- and that's all they see. Genetics is a field the human forgets as soon as it graduates high school.

Jenyar:

Oohh. Understanding.
Yes, one is led to understand the many kinds of experiences that rob one blind when one's loins are one fire.
One is led to understand the brutality of this selfish phenomena the poet misplaces in his vocabulary as "cherish" and "goodness"
We quiet ones sit back and look down onto the battlefields to examine this pretense the way science looks down from its microscope- "One comes to feel genuine amazement", wrote Freidrich, " that this wild avarice and injuststice of sexual love has been glorified and deified so much in all ages- indeed that this has furnished the concept of love as the opposite of egoism while it actually may be the most ingenious expression *of* egoism"


No.Fucking.Shit.

Rosa:

Muhahahah.....see?
Every last one of them are believing their love to be different, that the words they whisper rise higher than their neighbor's.
Each and every one of them agonizing at night the same pains and horrors and raptures swearing with their imbecility that no one understands or has ever felt the things boiling inside of them.

Molecule to moleculue, we all lust the same fucking way. And lie about it the same fucking way. How then can one argue for subjectivity?

No.

Two sexes, one balance. Where the man has it easier in his conquests, the woman compliments him by being allowed the leisure of being desired and fought for.

*Nice passage. Read Mathew Lewis' "The Monk" and then Joseph's "The Naked Neuron" to see what love really is. The first for the art of it, the second for the science of it (brain chemistry)

 

Gendanken,

As long as people claim to have something as an I, those songs are arguing for subjectivity.
But I can see your point: it is the ever so elusive evaluation of Self without Other.
I think it is quite twisted to claim to have an I, and have its value and content depend on others. However, humans are a social species, and therefore this seems immanent. People are like dogs, not like cats, to go for the stereotypes.
What you are suggesting with the "majestic I" is to be like a cat, while being a dog -- which is against our nature ...

Unless you somehow manage to surpass this duality.

I still disagree, on a personal level though. I will therefore drop this.



P.S.
Why do I keep thinking that that line from Hamlet actually goes "I have not Art to reckon my groins", instead of groans ... Heh.

 

Rosamagika:

Nature is one thing, but allowing it to come along and smash every last bone in one's legs so that one is handicapped for a lifetime without it is the mistake people make with this......loveshit.

We can claim immunity to warmth, but the claim is shallow. We're mammals.

Translation: Gendanken, you won.

*funeral grin*

Or Prospero to Miranda, incestually delicious:
"The hour's now come;
The very minute bids thee ope thine cherry"

 

Gendanken,

Just because you have the last word doesn't mean that you are right or that you won.

 

Yes it does. Especially if a whine real loud and hold my breath to spite you.

 

There is one consideration that I find most important when it comes to romantic relationships:

As Bells said, unless you enjoy the partner's personality, his/her merely being attractive won't make for a fulfilling and meaningful relationship.

Primarily, to make a good relationship, the "beauty of the soul" is needed, and needs to be recognized. This usually takes time. Once you consider someone to have a beautiful and appealing personality, their looks are completely secondary -- and the person is simply beautiful to you.
The "original equation" is thus:
beautiful personality => beautiful looks.


But nowadays, people want to have it fast. There is no time (or we refuse to take the time) to see what the person's personality is (and our own).
We are still thinking in the terms of the "original equation" (as only that equation can assure a meaningful relationship), only that the equation is turned around:
beautiful looks => beautiful personality.

We try to impress eachother with our good looks and good sex. Trying to impress the other person with your knowledge, your wits and humor is secondary.

We are tricked, and it is to our harm.


***
This is where internet relationships become so interesting: here, we do try to impress eachother with our knowledge and our wits -- for we usually cannot show off with our looks.
Indicating that the "beauty of the soul" is the important thing that makes a meaningful relationship.

 

I know!

Thats a bit harsh on beautiful women isn't it?

Let me tell u something. I really hate when people say this. The one who is giggling like a schoolgirl and is ignorant and dumb is actually slightly more likely to be ugly as well. I hate when people say that all gorgeous girls are stupid etc. Life is not fair. Life does not bestow intellect on those girls who are too fu*king ugly to even look at. Most nice looking girls I know are of a suitable intellect for me and Im happy with that.