Page 346 of 418 FirstFirst ... 246296336344345346347348356396 ... LastLast
Results 3,451 to 3,460 of 4172

Thread: The OT thread V1

  1. #3451
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Sigh, you're making stuff up as you go along. Read this: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psy...intimate%3famp

    Intimacy, in itself is a complex construct. So yes, I believe your relationship failed in one area or more.

    Your anecdote was stupid. It was a relationship that violated multiple rules from the beginning. Just idiotic. Putting those aside, it still doesn't suggest that concent means anything by itself. It suggests that there are criteria by which we evaluate the relationship and a composite of those data points drives consent. So, without evaluation criteria there's no question to answer. Nothing to concent to.

    You're losing at every single point because there is a massive body of knowledge at odds with your basic assertions. You seem to struggle with the dictionary, so I shouldn't be surprised everything else would go over your head.
    funny, you've just insulted me and lectured me about things you actually know nothing about all thread, and been wonderful at demonstrating you know nothing about them, and think you've won? or that i've lost?

    yikes.

    there is so much to unpack here.



    but at least we can agree on something, a relationship that failed, failed in one area or more. im glad we could find that common ground.

    yikes. reminds me to keep on not taking advice from married guys who think they know it all.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 09:13 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  2. #3452
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Wrong again, Gordon. I was a psychology major and took several semesters of courses on similar topics, I helped my wife with her child development courses (she's a teacher) and have been reading texts in the domain for over a decade. So yeah, I'm a married white guy who knows more than you. You trying to mock my normal, monogamous relationship to hide your insecurities about whatever you have doesn't hurt my feelings either. Even Esther Perel's, whom you linked earlier, works are at odds with much of your basic premise. If you're happy, then I'm sincerely glad for you. I just don't believe you've offered anything compelling that suggests it's better in any way. At either rate, I think we also agree that it's an impasse so there nothing else to say.

  3. #3453
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Wrong again, Gordon. I was a psychology major and took several semesters of courses on similar topics, I helped my wife with her child development courses (she's a teacher) and have been reading texts in the domain for over a decade. So yeah, I'm a married white guy who knows more than you. You trying to mock my normal, monogamous relationship to hide your insecurities about whatever you have doesn't hurt my feelings either. Even Esther Perel's, whom you linked earlier, works are at odds with much of your basic premise. If you're happy, then I'm sincerely glad for you. I just don't believe you've offered anything compelling that suggests it's better in any way. At either rate, I think we also agree that it's an impasse so there nothing else to say.
    i never mocked your relationship in any way. you on the other hand literally said my relationship was worthless, pointless and without meaning. nothing you cited by esther perel conflicts with polyamory. either you dont understand esther perel, or you don't understand polyamory or both. based on this, i can only conclude that you don't actually know more than me, because nothing ive read or seen of esther perel conflicts with polyamory as i know and practice it. not that it was ever an intellectual dick measuring contest anyway, because its actually a matter of you spouting off making proclamations on subjects and people and relationships you don't know the slightest clue about. and the audacity of someone actually thinking they can be found to have merit in doing that.

    its interesting you think im trying to propose "a better" way. as if there was a single, better way for humans to have relationships. that concept as well, is just mindblowingly insane. we are human beings, there is no one "better way" to relate to one another. there are ways that individual humans work better with individual other humans. this is exactly the point that started the conversation: that individuals should find relationship models that work best for them, and live them. they should not take some canned set of relationship expectations and assume that it will work for everyone, or that if it doesnt work for you, something is wrong with you. there is no one way that this will work for everyone. and don't let social norms or societies scorn or old married dudes who took a few psych classes stop you from finding out how best you should structure your own life and the relationships in it.

    every human being should find out how best they structure there relationships to make them happy. there is no one way. there is no one structure. there is no one model.

    you are the only one here claiming there is, or that you know what it is. i have not said anything on the subject. i have merely said, like the pod cast that started this conversation, that we should be looking for ways to improve the structure and communication of our relationships to fulfill the participants of those relationship better. i also think we can do better than a 50% outright failure rate, with a large minority sticking together cause the costs to break up are too great. we can find out ways to have more fulfilling relationships than that. really, its a low bar.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-23-2018 at 09:56 PM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  4. #3454
    So this is what it looks like when someone is talking to the wall of Gordo...

    Rules, consent. Every relationship has them. They are fixed as they are interchangeable. That is how you define a relationship. You also have to have the give and take. It is impossible to find a single person that meets all of your concepts, and definitions. You have to change for your partner, if not then you are going to be lonely. It can be as simple as always putting the toilet seat down or as complex as having a specific wakeup ritual.

    I actually feel sorry for you Gordon. So rigid, so ineffectual. Talking on the phone is so below you? Do you want to hear your partner's voice? Maybe she wanted more from you. You have to see that from their perspective...

  5. #3455
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
    So this is what it looks like when someone is talking to the wall of Gordo...

    Rules, consent. Every relationship has them. They are fixed as they are interchangeable. That is how you define a relationship. You also have to have the give and take. It is impossible to find a single person that meets all of your concepts, and definitions. You have to change for your partner, if not then you are going to be lonely. It can be as simple as always putting the toilet seat down or as complex as having a specific wakeup ritual.

    I actually feel sorry for you Gordon. So rigid, so ineffectual. Talking on the phone is so below you? Do you want to hear your partner's voice? Maybe she wanted more from you. You have to see that from their perspective...
    ironic that the person arguing that we need to re-examine relationships and how they function for the humans involved and think of new concepts about how they could do that better .... is accused of being rigid, inflexible, and a wall. and the person claiming that there is only one way for relationships to work, and claiming to know exactly why a relationship didn't work out, despite not knowing anything at all about the humans involved or there relationship, isn't.



    it would be funny if it wasn't so fucking stupid.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-24-2018 at 01:18 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  6. #3456
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    ironic that the person arguing that we need to re-examine relationships and how they function for the humans involved and think of new concepts about how they could do that better .... is accused of being rigid, inflexible, and a wall. and the person claiming that there is only one way for relationships to work, and claiming to know exactly why a relationship didn't work out, despite not knowing anything at all about the humans involved or there relationship, isn't.



    it would be funny if it wasn't so fucking stupid.
    Yup, if you weren't so narcissistic it would be pitiful.

    You bring up things that you start, but when people, not just me(hell, i came in on this way after it started), question why or give their own experiences that are not conducive to how you think, you get all messed up with your own rhetoric that you just end up talking out your ass.

    The funny thing is, i understand you more than you realize. I know where you are coming from. I was there. I found someone(finally) and she makes me a better person. Not because she does everything right, but because i want to change and be better for her. We have fights and our own problems, but i do not lay them out for all to see. You do and you come off as the only one to ever tackle them, or be in this position, or the world should conform to what you think is the best.

    When you air your laundry for all to see, don't get all bent out of shape when people don't see the world through your rose coloured glasses. That is narcissism. You think you are correct in everything, yet someone questions you, you won't believe them, you can't. Hell, how many forums have banned you? How many people have you turned away, regardless of whether you are right on a subject but because you have no concept of shutting up for once. Christ, i actually feel pity for you.

    Here is something i learned in the 10 years i have been with my girl. Relationships take work. Relationships are a living breathing entity all to themselves. If you want to make one work, you have to compromise on everything. From what temperature to keep the thermostat on to your life goals and where you want to go. And what works for you does not & will not work for everyone else, from poly-whatever to being with 1 person your entire life. Yet, you think you discovered the holy grail of life. Learn some tact. Try not to "hashtag" or meme everything. Try listening/reading what the other person is actually saying.

    And no, i don't know the exact details, but from what you state, its pretty evident on what you did. And maybe, just maybe, you did do something wrong. I don't know, all i am trying to do is maybe help you, show you the error of your ways. But what do i know? I don't have a meme to spell it out, or a *gif to be cutesy. I have experience, i have had to make some of the hardest decisions you have never had to make, and i hope you never do.

    Now i have nothing but pity for you

  7. #3457
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    You read the dictionary and still don't get it. The 2 are not exclusive, but rather complimentary terms.

    Consent = agree to something
    Rule = the something you agree to
    Oh my gosh wall of posts.

    But this is the way I view it as well. I think the argument that the concept of "rules are bad because some rules can be made to be bad" is too extreme for me.

    And I know we've sidestepped a lot, but my impression back at the beginning of this thread is that poly specifically was a path to avoid negative outcomes. When I think the correct way to mitigate problems in relationships is communication, concession, and investment. I also believe that distributing resources among multiple people reduces the possibility to invest as much in any given person. Another downside for me to mull over.

  8. #3458
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by Nobody View Post
    Here is something i learned in the 10 years i have been with my girl. Relationships take work. Relationships are a living breathing entity all to themselves. If you want to make one work, you have to compromise on everything. From what temperature to keep the thermostat on to your life goals and where you want to go. And what works for you does not & will not work for everyone else, from poly-whatever to being with 1 person your entire life. Yet, you think you discovered the holy grail of life. Learn some tact. Try not to "hashtag" or meme everything. Try listening/reading what the other person is actually saying.
    The idea that poly people have a better path because of the openness of not just their relationship but also their communication leads to a common refrain of "We're better than you plebes are." That ability to sit up on high and mock the masses for not understanding what has been carefully intuited is a feature of the system.

    But I also think it would be scary to find something that really works for you, and then look around to discover that most people don't choose and don't want the system that works for you. So I think a lot of the outspokenness about it being better comes as a reaction to the choice to put oneself in a minority out-group.

  9. #3459
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,581
    Gordon, you clearly don't understand how psychology as a field even works. The stats hours are why I transferred from to IE from psychology, but "normal" is defined by distribution. You don't want kids. Already you're a deviant. Saying "what's normal for one isn't normal for all" is just rubbish. The reason rules are so important is because you do enter into relationships for predictable reasons, but it requires normalizing the population. The dating apps work because normal relationships are not some free and undefined thing... the apps work because there are a specific set of parameters that can predict compatability. Poly is NOT normal. Gender doesn't operate on a spectrum either. It's binary. Those who see themselves as something they are not, have disorder called body dysmorphia. Moving on from psychology, there is a heavy biological component to (partner) relationships. Sex exists primarily for procreation. Sure, humans do it for fun, but it's roots are in reproduction. Normal partnering also follows a predictable set of biological rules that have evolved to preserve our specie. But sure, there are deviants but they don't fit within the normal distribution. There 100% are rules in every relationship whether you want to accept it or not and there are entire fields of science devoted to understanding the rules that govern the distribution.

    Aside from psychology and biology that define "normal" in a relationship, there is a socioeconomic component to all this. You mention me being a married white male. I think you also called me old when I'm probably younger or close to the same age as you. Well, there are a host of socioeconomic categorizations that can be used to predict divorce rate. Us middle-class white guys may actually be the most qualified to lecture you on marriage because the divorce rate isn't 50%... it's closer to 20%. Well below average.

    So yes, your "relationship" is worthless. Mankind does not care if you're happy. Your relationship with your partner is doing absolutely nothing that benefits anyone other than yourselves (and long-term there's no proof it's doing that.) That's just biology speaking. Psychology hasn't really provided a lot of information about poly because, well... it's not normal. You're within a small sub-set of deviance.

    I'm sure you'll try to find some way of saving face, but you have absolutely no clue how any of this works. You listened to a podcast and found a cute label for your friend with benefits. That means... *ding *ding *ding... the rules of your poly relationship are, in fact, the same as any other poly relationship. At it's core, all polyarmory does is it explicity leaves the definition for "fidelity" open for discussion (which is actually true in healthy monagamy as well and is a key to intimacy.) There's a pretty strict overarching set of criteria & rules you attach when you label yourself as poly.

    You lost the "rules" discussion from the time you attached the poly label to yourself, because yes, even poly has rules. It's categorized in psychology, biology and sociology. To call someone poly they must meet what criteria? Their relationship is governed by consent. Ok, next rule...
    Last edited by ironyusa; 08-24-2018 at 09:58 AM.

  10. #3460
    Quote Originally Posted by ironyusa View Post
    Gordon, you clearly don't understand how psychology as a field even works. The stats hours are why I transferred from to IE from psychology, but "normal" is defined by distribution. You don't want kids. Already you're a deviant. Saying "what's normal for one isn't normal for all" is just rubbish. The reason rules are so important is because you do enter into relationships for predictable reasons, but it requires normalizing the population. The dating apps work because normal relationships are not some free and undefined thing... the apps work because there are a specific set of parameters that can predict compatability. Poly is NOT normal. Gender doesn't operate on a spectrum either. It's binary. Those who see themselves as something they are not, have disorder called body dysmorphia. Moving on from psychology, there is a heavy biological component to (partner) relationships. Sex exists primarily for procreation. Sure, humans do it for fun, but it's roots are in reproduction. Normal partnering also follows a predictable set of biological rules that have evolved to preserve our specie. But sure, there are deviants but they don't fit within the normal distribution. There 100% are rules in every relationship whether you want to accept it or not and there are entire fields of science devoted to understanding the rules that govern the distribution.

    Aside from psychology and biology that define "normal" in a relationship, there is a socioeconomic component to all this. You mention me being a married white male. I think you also called me old when I'm probably younger or close to the same age as you. Well, there are a host of socioeconomic categorizations that can be used to predict divorce rate. Us middle-class white guys may actually be the most qualified to lecture you on marriage because the divorce rate isn't 50%... it's closer to 20%. Well below average.

    So yes, your "relationship" is worthless. Mankind does not care if you're happy. Your relationship with your partner is doing absolutely nothing that benefits anyone other than yourselves (and long-term there's no proof it's doing that.) That's just biology speaking. Psychology hasn't really provided a lot of information about poly because, well... it's not normal. You're within a small sub-set of deviance.

    I'm sure you'll try to find some way of saving face, but you have absolutely no clue how any of this works. You listened to a podcast and found a cute label for your friend with benefits. That means... *ding *ding *ding... the rules of your poly relationship are, in fact, the same as any other poly relationship. At it's core, all polyarmory does is it explicity leaves the definition for "fidelity" open for discussion (which is actually true in healthy monagamy as well and is a key to intimacy.) There's a pretty strict overarching set of criteria & rules you attach when you label yourself as poly.

    You lost the "rules" discussion from the time you attached the poly label to yourself, because yes, even poly has rules. It's categorized in psychology, biology and sociology. To call someone poly they must meet what criteria? Their relationship is governed by consent. Ok, next rule...
    wow, i don't need to save face after you just embarrassed yourself so badly. yikes. so many bombshells that need unpacking here, wow.

    i really hope you are happy. i really do. i really hope your relationship satisfies you and i really hope you can someday understand that other people may want and value other things than you do, and that that is ok too.





    and im going to continue to not take advice from married guys who think they know it all. lesson learned, its not politics, its the purpose of human life level stuff that we disagree on.

    EDIT: i've spent a considerable amount of time figuring out why there are very few married older men i truly understand. its a common thread in my life ive tried to tackle a few times. and this really hits home that its actually a fundamental difference in how we see the purpose of human life. in my 20s, how i live my life was expected, and cheered on by these guys. i was roudy, fast cars and faster womening my life, and it was great, and it was expected. but it always came with a "these days are short lived, your gonna end up married with a couple of nuggets in no time, enjoy it while you can." i saw the twinkle in there eye, remember there long lost days of youth, fondly. and i planned to enjoy those years, and i did, and i plan to enjoy the rest of my life too. there is no inevitability to this life. you can choose how you want to live it, at any point, in any way. i have person hood, if i don't want to marry someone, i don't. i know i don't want to have kids, so i wont. these are totally 100% in my control. if i do get married, which i'd like too, it will to who I'm excited about marrying, with no second thoughts, no doubts, it will be exactly what i want. and i can choose that. i have the power to choose that. this all seems to disagree on this fundamental level with what many married men i talk to seem to think about how life goes. and that is why, at its core, i don't understand the motivations of these humans. and they can't seem to grasp mine. there is a disconnect, about the purpose of life, a disconnect about the meaning of life, and a disconnect about agency, desire, and the actions of living life.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 08-24-2018 at 11:12 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •