Alfa
-
Posts
676 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by Alfa
-
-
I think it's a mistake to assume that a "true friendship" is necessarily platonic. Sexual attraction does not have to get in the way of friendship. You can either choose to put that aside and not act on it, become "friends with benefits" or it could also lead to a romantic relationship. Those are all viable options depending on context.
For instance, i'm attracted to my friend. She knows it, because i've told her so. Why would that be a problem? Both are cool with it, plus she's got her husband and I can always find somone else to sleep with.
If you find two people of the opposite sex that are attractive and like each other there's always going to be some sort of sexual attraction. However, there's always the option to just deal with it appropriately.
-
I can't find any other articles on the Swedish school. There is one original article, and the rest of the links are from blogs that are inclined to be biased. I don't even know if it's a good newspaper. Maybe it's Sweden's equivalent of the New York Post. So, I am skeptical that the motivation is that the chef was too good. Failing to follow dietary recommendations is more likely the motivation.
The original source seems to a local Swedish newspaper. I don't think it's got a bad reputation, or a reputation of any sort actually... What's surprising though is that I can't find the article in any other papers. Normally they would be all over something like that, wether it's true or not. While I would not be suprised if the story is true, it's smells fishy when noone else has written about it.
-
- a friend of mine suggested to me the following: imagine if your female best friend was super-ugly, would you still be friends?
Sure, why not? I have a few female friends that i'm unattracted to and don't find particularly good looking. But I do like their company. I would find it odd to choose friends based on looks.
also, imagine if she asked you out on a date, wouldn't you accept it? his conclusion is that we're not real friends and I'm just wasting my timeDo you mean if the super-ugly best friend asked me on a date? I appreciate her asking, it takes alot of guts, but no thanks - let's just be friends.
Or do you mean the attractive best friend? It depends...
My best female friend is incredibly beautiful and i'm very attracted to her. I believe the attraction is mutual as well. One of the reasons I like her so much is because she's almost everything i'm looking for in a woman. Still, I would not date her. If she was single we would probably end up in bed, sure, but not date her. And that's simpy because I don't think I could fall in love with her that way. I love her as a friend, and a very attractive friend, but I don't really have a romantic interest. Dating, to me, implies just that.
Now she just so happens to be married and I think she's very happy with that. So should she by any chance feel too tempted towards me i'd have to try and set her straight. That's a mistake she would regret and i'm her friend, so...
I guess the point is that friendship can work just fine even if there's sexual attraction involved. If it's a bad idea to act on the sexual attraction, then don't. On the other hand, if both would enjoy it, then why not. It doesn't have to get complicted.
-
Nigel, I like most of your post #30, but personally, I prefer to drop the word conquer entirely. To be conquered is to imply being defeated. But what would you even be defeating? What are you trying to be better at?
Her strength and her will to be in charge and in control. Just like the example with Dagny. Clearly a woman of great strength and someone in charge. Yet she surrenders to Rearden, Francisco and Galt. They've proven their strength. character, ability and gained her admiration and trust - it's allright to let go... to just take the passenger seat and let them drive. There's a power struggle she's fighting to win, but loses.
Her reaction is very feminine. It means giving up control and becoming sexually receptive. Obviously a woman like Dagny would not surrender that easily. In every other aspect of her life she's in control, and she fights to maintain that control.
Better to phrase it as a feeling of pride to have a romantic relationship - and hopefully that pride is based in something good. That "something good" is self-esteem, self-respect, and a whole lot more. Conquering just sounds second-handed, because it doesn't have to do with values, ideas, or egoism - it has to do with power over *another* person, or attempting to impress *another* person.Second-handed like Roark?
-
The problem with this statement is women are not an object to be conquered. A relationship in which one must be conquered is not a healthy equal relationship.
Why is anything of what I described unhealthy? And why should a relationship be equal sexually? And in what sense should it be equal? What I have described is a very masculine/feminine sexual response. It's "unequal" in the sense of being polar opposites. However, a woman surrendering and being conquered does not take anyhing away from her. It does not diminish her value or make her lesser in any way. Compare this to what Ayn Rand wrote about femininity, that it's about hero-worship and looking up to the man.
The sharing of values, the recognition by both of you that you have this deep connection should draw both of you together. This mutual understanding causes the development of a relationship to flow naturally. The conquering is not an effort ridden pursuit, the sense of conquering lies in the knowledge that your ego, self-esteem, is of high enough quality to equal the ego of the highest possible women. The satisfaction of conquering is driven by rational emotion and recognition of your own ego.This is not the description of a sexual response. While the sharing of values and the deep connection you're talking about is immensely important for love to flourish, it might as well mean friendship if the sexual part is not present.
The mind is the fundamental though. Without the sharing of values, attraction is meaningless. Yes, we find attributes attractive in the opposite sex, but a sharing of mind must be present in order for that attraction to be worth acting on.And attraction must be present in order for the relationship to be worth acting on sexually.
While physical attraction is certainly a necessity in a relationship. To say that it is rational for some aspects to be an absolute deal breaker is not always rational. While some attributes may be absolutes, like obesity, there is an objective basis for this. You have yet to provide an objective rational for height to be an absolute deal breaker. In fact, I will argue the contrary. The notion that height is attractive is a subjective culturally based norm. There are cultures in the world that value shorter men and taller women. For it to be rational to call a physical attribute a deal breaker, you must have rational justification. For example, it is rational to say that you would not date a smoker. This is an unhealthy habit and can be objectively justified as a deal breaker. I will not date a heavy drinker. Drinking heavily is an escape from reality. Height, while perhaps a factor in overall attractiveness, cannot be an objective deal breaker.It's not absolute in terms of: "because A and B, therefore always C". Or because of this and that being short is necessarily a negative trait. What i'm arguing is that height relates to individuals experience of their own masculinity/femininity. It then gets placed somewhere in their hierarchy of values, as an optional value. For that reason deviations from an individuals preferences can cause a big enough problem that it cannot be overlooked, and therefore becomes a dealbreaker.
For instance, I would not overlook a woman being 6'5" and more muscular than me. This is despite the fact that she could very well be in perfect health and taking good care of herself. I'm still not attracted to it. You need to come up with a darn good argument to convince me that's irrational.
THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ARGUMENT. You will accept certain attributes that you perhaps find less desirable up to a reasonable point. You recognize that if your sharing of values is justified, it is worth while to be somewhat open minded in physical characteristics. I am not saying you should date someone who you do not find physically attractive. Simply, you are willing to consider the persons physical attributes on the whole before forming your opinion, if the value connection exists.I haven't argued against that. In fact the reality of dating is that you don't go about with a blueprint of the perfect mate in mind, and disregard anyone who doesn't fit. That would be irrational. The reality is that you have to deal with all kinds of desirable and less desirable traits, and you have to judge their importance on the whole. My point has been that if some trait, like height, is important enough that deviations can become dealbreakers. And that does not have to be the least bit irrational.
Another point about reality though is that we meet alot of people every day. In the pursuit of a suitable partner we have to filter heavily according to our preferences. What that means is alot of people get sorted out based on quick judgements, without finding out if could become attracted to them once we know more about the person.
Or in practice: Would I approach a stranger that I did not find physically attractive enough? No. Is there a possibility that among all these women I just sorted out, there are some who could become very attractive once I got to know them? Absolutely.
-
That's what I originally thought you were striking at because of how you phrased your previous statements. I can't stand submissive women, especially the ones that actually start sounding like children when they talk.
Then i'm glad we got that misunderstanding out of the way.
I love when a woman challenges and tests. Not just dropping their gaze, knees all weak, the first thing they do. That's just... meh!
-
Why would you ever want to *conquer* a person? That's something animals do because they have no other means to evaluate partners other than physical traits. They only have percepts at best.
Not at all. Why would you ever want to conquer Mount Everest? Or slay the dragon to win the princess? I want it because it's the greatest celebration of my strength, and because when I feel passionately about someone I want to have her completely - without abandon. To see her defenses crumble in complete surrender. And that in turn takes a woman who can demand every last bit of strength.
It all boils down to if you accept the claim that one's mind is the only fundamental consideration one ought to make about a person, even in romantic attraction. Physical attraction flows from attraction to character attributes, but only if you mentally focus on character as a primary. Sexuality is a monkey wrench in my explanation, although I don't think it's actually a notable problem.I don't accept that. The mind is ONE fundamental aspect. In terms of romance it means you must be equals in terms of virtue, and compatible in terms of sense of life. Attraction is more specific though. It's not about just A person, but about a man or a woman. The attraction then is a response to masculinity or feminity. And even more specifically, certain attributes of that - both in looks and demeanor - which you have judged as positive examples.
I'm plenty happy to celebrate physical differences, but it doesn't follow that a physical attribute should ever be a dealbreaker or be placed on such a point in a hierarchy of values.I'm not saying it should. I'm saying it could. For rational reasons. It's as simple as some physical attributes being of such high value for the particular person, that they are crucial for a strong enough sexual attraction.
What I see in the statement "height is a dealbreaker" is actually the opposite of the celebration of differences. In effect, it is saying any differences from your height preferences are unacceptable, thus celebrating sameness.How does your conclusion follow from that premise?
Certain attributes may indicate self-esteem and self-respect -- anorexics have a real problem, as do morbidly obese people. But why go on to further limit and say "only this range of specific heights" when that height has no causal relationship with self-esteem and self-respect?Because there's more to sexual attraction than self-esteem and self-respect. I go for women who possess a certain set of traits that I find attractive for various reasons. Some of those are must-haves, others like-to-haves and some completely negiotiable.
If a woman is taller than you, celebrate the difference!Not really a problem, up to a certain point. But I do prefer the difference of me being bigger, stronger, faster and having more chest and facial hair(hey, just sayin'!). It gives a very nice contrast to masculinity/femininity, and I very much enjoy that experience.
-
I'll answer more when I have time later, but the idea is since you said height being relevant to you has to do with dominance, then surely the more a woman can submit, the more attractive she will be. But I sincerely doubt that the potential to submit is actually what counts for you.
Not quite. First of all, height is not just about dominance but also about experiencing the physical differences. And when it comes to dominance, what counts for me is; the strongest, most independent and "difficult" woman. I invite her to resist me and fight. And what I want is to win her, to conquer, and have her surrender body and soul. It's not a pursuit of someone meek and submissive, but of a heroine.
"Besides, speaking of limiting yourself, why would I spend time pursuing women that I think have undesirable traits?"But the question at hand is why being short might be a dealbreaker, and if the reasons are rational. If the reasons are irrational, then they should be ignored. If the reasons are a-rational (i.e. no particular reason, like a favorite color), then they should be treated as nonessential and certainly not dealbreakers.
And the reason is as i've written before, the experience/celebration of physical differences. For some that's important enough to be dealbreakers, for others it's not. I think that's something you need to place within your own personal hierarchy of values.
-
before accepting the situation, she is recalling her relationship with francisco, equating her sharing of values with him to her feeling about Gault. It is not until she recognizes Gault for who he is that she accepts the situation.
Sure, it's her response to a hero. I'm afraid i'm missing your point here.
This is similar to, and I am surprised no one has yet focused on this, the first sexual encounter between Roark and Dominique. Roark is very aggressive in this encounter, but it does not occur until after both participants understand that they share a commonality upon which they can develop feelings for one another.What commonality and how was that established? Afterwards Roark is surprised he's still thinking about Dominique.
This conversation has become a focus on actions, but I am trying to focus on the emotional, the psycho-epistemology that leads to these actions. My point is not that these actions are acceptable or unacceptable, my point is that actions must be presupposed by the sharing of values.What do you mean by that?
Look at Francisco, Gault, or Roark, all three have been with very few women in their lives, one. This is because it not always easy to find that heroine to share their values with. My point is, the rarity of that true connection upon which two people can share such values should not be further delimited by an over focusing on height.What's an over focusing on height? By what standard?
Being able to take control, in a healthy manner, within a relationship can only come as a result of forming the relationship or sharing values.I disagree. Being in control and taking the lead is a way of forming a sexual relationship.
Moreover, we must recognize that completely domineering and taking the occasional dominant role during sex are 2 completely different things.What do you mean by completely domineering as opposed to taking the occasional dominant role? I would say it's important for the man to always, well, be the man. But I don't agree with being domineering.
Basing selection of a partner on the ability to feel dominant is a psycho-epistemological error. The feeling of dominance, while perhaps enjoyable, has no bearing on whether or not the relationship will be successful and sharing of values.Of course it does. For many people that's a very important part of sex, even crucial, and an unsatisfactory sex life can break up any relationship.
Life requires one partner suggest or take responsibility for planning ways in which the relationship can be enjoyed. Planning activities and etc. This is undeniable. The question at hand is is there a rational basis for the emotional need to feel dominance or safety via your partner in a relationship.Sure. It's about experiencing yourself as fully as possible as a man and a woman.
-
Why is leading/being dominant preferable to having a partnership? Either one can setup a date/outing. There is nothing wrong with that, and it implies some self-confidence to say you would like to go skydiving or a certain place to eat. Of course, some people aren't good at finding places to eat, or aren't the best activity planners, but what would it say about a person's self-confidence if they never initiate in a romantic relationship, and if in principle the man *always* makes relationship decisions? Sounds like a kid you have to take care of as Gramlich said. You didn't specify if "taking care" just meant sexually, so I presume you mean even non-sexual circumstances of a relationship. My questions were aimed at pointing out how you could further increase the possibilities of submission, so under your justification of height as a dealbreaker, Dagny would become more attractive. Will there be a change? Why or why not? Disregard this question if you meant only sexually - but you'd be conceding to my point about partnership.
I see no dichotomy between leading and having a partnership.
Yes, either one can set up a date. However, a woman can't initiate sex the way that a man can. And trying to take over the man's role is a very undesirable position for most women. It can put them physically in danger and they don't know if the man is just looking for easy sex. That's why it falls on the man to pursue, and prove that he holds up to scrutiny. Once a relatioship has been established, I don't see a problem with the woman taking more initiative. She want's a romantic dinner on saturday night? No problem. You don't have to be on top to be on top, so to speak. But the man is still the initator, even though she can entice him.
I'm not talking about taking care of all the relationship decisions. Outside the bedroom, figuratively speaking, both need to be in control of their own lives as equals.
I'm afraid I don't understand your question about Dagny and height.
Also, the passage you quoted, I don't know if I'd say those feelings are healthy ones, at least, as described. You can certainly have a feeling of surrender towards sensory experience, rather than to a person, that would be a healthy response, so the passage isn't all bad. Otherwise, surrender would be like the woman just laying there and the man doing all the work. You know, like Rearden and Lillian... talk about empty and passionless, void of self-esteem. Partnership is important here again, because it shouldn't be one person doing all the work.Dagny's response is completely different from Lillian's. What Dagny feels is a very feminine response to a truly great man. In all other areas of her life she's always been in control and a woman very much in charge. She's flown straight as a rocket from point A to point B and achieved great things in her life. Now she's in the strong hands of John Galt, the greatest man she's ever met. This is a "detour" from her regular life, and i'm reffering to her emotional response here and not the fact that she arrived at Galt's Gulch. It's allright to let go here, because this is a man she can trust, someone of great strength and character. She's safe and protected and she can give in to that.
That's not the frigid indifference of Lillian. It's the most feminine and passionate response. Lillian never cared much about sex. She could never feel what Dagny felt. Dagny's response was that of hero-worship, and there was a feeling of surrender to the greatest of men. And that is a very uniquely feminine response.
Absolutely all shapes and sizes! But physical attributes don't mean much of anything, at least when they don't deal with taking care of yourself. Hair color or height doesn't indicate how well you take care of yourself. Variation is just that - variation. The causality of attraction seems to be best off as values and sense of life. A physical feature is inconsequential to this causality, and will appear attractive if you are attracted to the relevant character traits. If physical features are what determine if you want to start pursuing someone, that seems bad for your life because you are limiting yourself so much, through irrelevancies.Physical attributes certainly mean alot to me. It depends on the particular attribute, of course, and then they are placed somewhere in my hierarchy of values. But they're important. Some are related to a persons health, others perhaps to my experiences, or judgements of what I regard as beautiful. There are those that are crucial, and others I can take rather lightly. But you see, i'm not so inclined as to start eating brussel sprouts - which I hate - because that would limit the kind of food I can eat. Granted, if I was starving, but such a motivation would be very improper for pursuing a relationship.
Sure, it's important to look at what importance one places with certain attributes, how crucial they are and why. But physical attractiveness is still a value. Besides, speaking of limiting yourself, why would I spend time pursuing women that I think have undesirable traits? I'd rather spend that time and effort on those that I find attractive. To put it bluntly, when I go out it's not like i'm thinking: "well, she must have been ugly 20 years ago... but I bet she's got a wonderful personality!". I would rather think "that's my kind of gal!" och go after her instead. And maybe she turns out to be vapid and did have a wonderful personality, but somehow I got to manage my time and effort.
Hey, what part of the book did I miss? I didn't know Rearden and Galt were in a relationship at any point.
Oh darn, don't tell me you never read the Brokeback Gulch part!?
-
Note the context. Dagny hurt her leg pretty bad in a *plane accident*! Any friendly and good person would be happy to help out, especially since Galt explicitly valued and even admired Dagny. He helped her because she needed and deserved it. So no, your example doesn't sound like Galt taking care of Dagny, since it doesn't involve anyone in a situation who actually needs help. Imagine if taking care of Dagny was more extreme than that, perhaps ending up paralyzed rather than just wounded, so she'd need help indefinitely or forever. You'd have even greater ability to control her physically and all those other descriptions you used, but I doubt that in itself actually would make her any more appealing to you. Wouldn't it be ability to think or some expression of her mind that would be what is the primary and only important consideration? I know you're saying both mind and body count, but couldn't it perfectly well be the case someone is physically attractive *because* of their mind? Your explanation of why height matters to you may indeed make a woman's height an attraction-causing feature makes sense, but I don't see that as conveying any sense of egoism or independence.
The injury was just incidental. Here's how Ayn Rand described what was going through Dagny's head:
She lay still, her arms about him, her head on his shoulder, and she thought: For just a few
moments—while this lasts—it is all right to surrender completely—to forget everything and just permit
yourself to feel. . . . When had she experienced it before?—she wondered; there had been a moment
when these had been the words in her mind, but she could not remember it now. She had known it,
once—this feeling of certainty, of the final, the reached, the not-to-be-questioned. But it was new to feel
protected, and to feel that it was right to accept the protection, to surrender—right, because this peculiar
sense of safety was not protection against the future, but against the past, not the protection of being
spared from battle, but of having won it, not a protection granted to her weakness, but to her strength. . .
. Aware with abnormal intensity of the pressure of his hands against her body, of the gold and copper
threads of his hair, the shadows of his lashes on the skin of his face a few inches away from hers, she
wondered dimly: Protected, from what? . . . it's he who was the enemy . . . was he?
She thinks it's allright to let go, to surrender and feel safe and protected. It wasn't because she was injured. Had it been a lesser man she would have stayed cautious and wary. But she's acutely aware of who he is, of both his mind and his body.
Well, the mind certainly influences the way we look and how we are percieved. You can for example actively choose to stay in shape, dress and groom well. Confidence and self-esteem are projected in how you carry yourself. You can also choose to change certain attributes, like having teeth done or plastic surgery. There are lots of options available and certainly your personality shines through.
Once we take a liking to someone our perception of them tends to become more positive also.
However, that does not mean there aren't certain things that could be dealbreakers. As I mentioned earlier, I would not be attracted to a hill giant - not even if she was the greatest mind i've ever met. Hopefully we could be friends, but that is not what i'm looking for in a romantic partner. The mind is not the ONLY important consideration.
I agree if the emotions aren't there, nothing is ever going to happen, but similar to a phobia of spiders, what led to the development of that emotion might be hardly beneficial to your life. And if your reasons for having that emotion are wanting to feel dominant, that seems anything but beneficial because that's not even a good aspect for an equal relationship! No one has to lead a relationship. Partnership, you know?Equality is important in terms of character, but in a heterosexual relationship there's rather a celebration of differences. There's a male/female polarity. And someone needs to initiate that sexual aspect of the relationship. That's usually the mans job, since he by nature has a more dominant role(a woman would find it very hard to take a man).
Ayn Rand illustrates that very well in her heroe's relationships; Dagny and Francisco, Rearden and Galt, and Roark and Dominique.
It might actually be the case your preference isn't based on any reason and all, and you're only putting forth an ad-hoc rationalization because it sounds right. People may say phobias of spiders is a response to the danger of spiders taken to an extreme, and explain phobia that way, but it's not true at all - spiders easily die when squished, and many aren't dangerous to humans. The more plausible reason is that they move quickly and randomly, which induces a reaction in the perceptual system, which is then exaggerated through cognition. Your beliefs have a strong impact on how you react to physical features. So, yes, you can think yourself into being attracted to someone. Unless you want to argue that attraction is unrelated to cognition, and we'll explore the murky realm of evolutionary psychology...It could also be the case that i'm introspecting and coming up with accurate answers.
Sure, with enough brainwashing I could perhaps even be able to feel attraction towards other men. It would be difficult and most likely to fail, but I can't rule out the possibility. Even with less extreme preferences such a process would take time, and that's what I mean by not being able to think yourself into being attracted to someone. The emotional response is automatic and based on my subconcious. In order to change that I would have to identify any contradictions and live accordingly.
There's not really a rational reason to change anything though. I mean, I pursue women who are beautiful in both mind and body; who have an admirable character and a matching sense of life. Those are rational values. On top of that there are a number of particular perferences to choose from. The ideal woman is not some abstract creature living in a realm of fantasy. In reality they come in all shapes and sizes. My judgement of such attributes and what they mean to me personally will of course determine who I pursue.
-
Don't forget about Dagny's (mostly sexual) relationship with Rearden, where she was definitely not in a submissive role. I would say they were on pretty equal footing during the entire relationship.
Oh, she certainly was submissive - sexually. Remember the part when Rearden first took her? I also recall a building up to that part, but I think that scene alone supports my point.
I can't tell if you're talking about actual relationships, or only of sexual acts. If the former, can you clarify what you mean by 'being dominant' and 'asserting control' in regards to all the non-sexual parts of a relationship? The way I see it, asserting control can mean anything from ordering for a date at dinner to throwing out clothes that you don't want your girlfriend to be seen in, or monitoring her text messages.I don't think it's proper in the non-sexual parts of a relationship. I think that would mean something like taking control over all the decisions, put her in the kitchen and set up cufews.
I also like to differentiate between being dominant as opposed to domineering, and being in control as opposed to being controlling. Someone who monitors his girlfriends text messages is clearly NOT in control, but he is controlling. A guy who tries to rule his girls life is domineering.
Taking control in terms of romance means being the initiator and leader. It can be simple, like setting up a date: "Hey, make sure you're free on saturday - we're going skydiving! It's going to be awesome! I'll pick you up at 6 PM". Or toss her over your shoulder and throw her in bed... I think the analogy to dancing is very good here. It's something based on consent and mutual benefit. The particulars may vary if you like a slow waltz or going to a rave(uhm... I wonder how that would look...).
-
Yea, that sounds like I'm taking care of a kid.
Or John Galt taking care of Dagny.
-
But, are these desired emotional feelings a resultant of one's sense of self and self-esteem?
Perhaps. I can only speak for myself here. What I delight in is the highest sense of self. Now, that is not exactly tied to any particulars. It's the pleasure of winning a strong and feminine woman; the gaining of that beauty which I worship, by the strength of my own being. In that experience there are masculine and feminine polarities. They are both mental and physical differences. For instance, I also take pleasure in leading and asserting myself; being in control of the situation. But since i'm also a physical being I take pleasure in the physical differences as well. So it's not necessarily about any particular concretes, like height. I've enjoyed myself with taller women. Though I prefer shorter ones and being too tall is a dealbreaker.
Can one pass judgement on another's level of self-esteem, on either a man or woman, for expressing the need to seek safety or demonstrate masculinity with another person?With a good understanding of that persons psychology, sure. Why?
Please note that i'm not necessarily talking about a "need to seek safety". What i'm rather suggesting is that the feeling of safety and protection(which is alot more than just something physical, btw) better allows her to let go of control, which is how women experience sexual pleasure.
Is this a contradiction of man being an end within himself? Does this contradict the principle of sex being a selfish act?Why would it?
If man is seeking a strong minded women, a heroine, does the desire to choose a physically smaller women for the sake of feeling as a dominant protector contradict this?Why would it?
Or, is that once a man finds this heroine, after recognizing each others values, only then the roles of dominance and submission may occur as a means of further enjoyment?I'm not sure what you're suggesting here, but if I understand you correctly that's not how attraction works. It's rather a dynamic and ongoing thing from the first moment you meet. Something like... man and woman notice each other, (ideally) man makes the first move, the dance of romance starts and during this process there's alot of pushing and pulling and testing each other in a sort of power struggle.
If the latter is true, my premise is that this role of dominance and submission only serves to enhance enjoyment, and is not a primary means of enjoyment in and of itself.Dominance/submission in a VERY broad sense is a necessity. Both can't lead. However, the exact particulars of how you enjoy each other is not a primary. It's not like sex only works if you have a very dominant alpha male and a small submissive woman. Some people seem to enjoy whips and chains while others prefer a more soft and romantic approach. So when i'm talking about physical differences they're certainly something that can enchance enjoyment, for those of us who are so inclined. They can also be so important that some regard them as a necessity. But, this should not be confused with the fundamental prerequisite of sex; that nothing happens if no one takes the lead.
The formation of the relationship, the sharing of values, and the development of love presupposes the dominance/submission enjoyment. Thus, again, I conjecture that seeking a mate based on height solely--or as a major determinate--is irrational since height can only serve to enhance enjoyment after a relationship has formed.Height can surely be something you enjoy while forming a relationship. I'm sure most people notice the difference from the get go. And if you know from the get go that height is going to be an issue, it's not irrational to not pursue a romantic relationship with that person.
Moreover, the sharing of values is still the ultimate determinant and there are many other ways to increase the enjoyment received from being in a romantic relationship.Sure, there's more to a romantic relationship than just enjoying physical differences. However, it's important to note that it does not take away the value of physical attributes and it does not make it irrational to reject someone based on that.
-
Still, that is different than saying certain physical attributes are dealbreakers. Yeah, physical attributes are what make a person physically attractive, but that doesn't mean there is a limited range of attributes for labeling someone as attractive. People have looked attractive to me premised on the fact I like them a lot as an individual. I have preferences, to be sure, but none are dealbreakers and none are essential. I wouldn't care if someone lacked those preferences, and someone with those preferences doesn't mean I like them more than otherwise.
Actually no, it's not different. It's basically stating that physical attributes can be of value, and as such there are attributes that are positive or negative. Some attributes may, for a particular person, be so negative that they become dealbreakers. It is of course fine if you don't want to label certain things as essential or potential dealbreakers, but some of us do. I can personally thing of alot of things that could be dealbreakers, height being one of them. I don't accept that as being irrational.
"I delight in all those things, and I know alot of women do too. They like to feel safe, protected, and small(physically); and they enjoy feeling his strength and feel reassurance when he takes control." This sounds beyond unappealing. I don't like the sound of ever controlling someone physically as a relationship dynamic. It is not perfectly rational to see value in physical attributes when the value of those attributes is based on control/submission, especially given that the mind is the most important aspect of any person. Preferences don't really have justifications anyway, given they are more like emotion-based judgments, so if preferences are total dealbreakers, you'd be letting emotion make the final choice to pursue someone.Dominance and submission are a fundamental part in a sexual relationship. Just like a couple dancing, both can't lead. However, what I said was that the value I see is based on the experience of (my own) masculinity and (her) femininity. Asserting control is part of that.
Preferences are optional values, and of course emotions make both the first and final choice. For example... I chose to start dating the girl i'm seeing now because I liked certain features and it was fun talking to her the first time we met. I liked her strong but feminine facial features, dark hair and dark smiling eyes. Upon further contact I noticed that she was fun and interesting to talk to, and the enjoyment I derived from that suggest we share a similar sense of life. I like looking at her when I see her and I think she looks particularly beautiful when she does her hair. When she yields in my arms and we kiss I take great pleasure in her femininity and how I experience my own masculinity.
Now, along the way it's important to look at the source of these emotions. There's the judgement of her beauty, appreciation of our differences(both physical and mental) and sense of life. All fine and dandy, so no reason not to proceed. Digging deeper i've found she's brave, honest, ambitious and so on and so forth. Had I found her character to be unappealing that would have been the end of it. However, now... getting to the point i'm trying to make....without those other things there would only be potential for friendship. Certainly a person can grow on me once I get to know her, but at the end - if the emotions aren't there it's never going to happen. There may be reason to investigate why the emotional response is such, but you don't think yourself into being attracted to someone. And if the answer I come up with is she's nice but looks like a hill giant, well... it frankly does not make me an irrational emotionalist for pursuing other women.
-
Anyways, it wasn't until I was about 25 that actually realized that people really did think height matters, and I finally realized that I was short.
Haha, it was the same for me. It wasn't until some girl told I was "too short to be handsome".
What? Me? I've always felt like 7 feet tall and I like to meet people with a level gaze. Of course i've always known i'm not remarkably tall(i'm 5'10" so I guess it's only here, where the avarage height for young men is 6'1", that some would consider me short). It's just that my own perception has never been 'short' or anything like that.
It still isn't.
I think it's a sign of high self-esteem.
So I am still trying to understand this, and I am thinking back over my whole lack of realization that people actually care about this. Frankly, if I find a female attractive, I find her attractive for the sum of her attributes, no single thing sticks out as an absolute deal breaker and height has never been an attribute that I have given any attention to. To me, I just can't get my head around how such a characteristic is rationally elevated to such importance. Other, than being short, I am very masculine. I am just confused.Physical attributes are part of what makes a person attractive. When it comes to men and women it's also common to want to celebrate physical differences. For example, my own preference is towards petite women. I love how my strength is contrasted against her, or when she looks strong and brave but fragile when she challenges me, or submits to feeling safe in my arms. I like when a womans slender hand dissapears in my strong grip, or when I lift her light as a feather, or otherwise control her physically.
I delight in all those things, and I know alot of women do too. They like to feel safe, protected, and small(physically); and they enjoy feeling his strength and feel reassurance when he takes control.
It's perfectly rational and a source of great pleasure for both men and women.
Now did I just completely miss something here? How is height, in any way, a measure of a man? Dammit, we are not giraffes trying to reach the leaves at the top of tree, we are smart enough to build a ladder to climb the tree. This is why our mind is our greatest asset. I mean humans surely aren't overly strong, fast, or tough compared the rest of the animal kingdom. Can some one explain how any of this might be construed as rational?You don't need to be short of stature because you have a short stature. It's not a measure of morality, or you as a man. However, people are both mind and body, and both of them are important when we look for a partner.
-
If addiction is simply "physically and mentally dependent on something with adverse eclffects when giving it up," then I don't see the problem with addiction as such if there are no measurement requirements. Sometimes I forget to have my cup of coffee and the worst that happens is a short headache. Sometimes there is no effect. Some people get to sleep just fine only an hour or two after drinking coffee, etc. Long term, there is no evidence of negative effects from consuming coffee.
It seems people different here as well. I remember when I was younger and my dad came home from work, and he always complained about headaches if he didn't get his coffee. He's always had a couple of cups per day. Others say the can't get any sleep if they have coffee late in the evening. Me, I drink ALOT of coffee. Strong coffee. I've never suffered any withdrawal symptoms and I sleep like a baby.
From what i've read research seems to show that moderate amounts of coffee are actually healthy. Moderate in this case a believe is something like 1-5 cups per day, but i'm sure you can find more accurate information if you google it.
-
<p>
I use Propecia and it really works extremely well. I see no side effects. Also combine it with Nizoral shampoo twice a week.
The Wikipedia article on Finasteride is quite interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finasteride
Out of curiosity, how much does it cost you per month using that treatment? I've thought about trying it myself, but i'm not sure the cost is worth it(my hairline is receeding at the temples, where Finasteride is less effective, plus I look good with a shaved head... so...).
-
Possibly my favorite song, and this rendition is beautiful to both eyes and ears.
-
While this is not a way to stop male pattern baldness, I do have a few tips that could atleast help a little. Stop using shampoo. Don't wash your hair too often, and when you do put some oil in the hair before washing it and only use conditioner. There are some claims that castor oil can stop hair loss and support hair growth, but I don't know if there's any actual research to back it up. If this issue is very important to you I think you also should consult an expert on hair loss treatments.
Other than that I think you've recieved some excellent advice here. If the hair loss is inevitable there's nothing else to do than just "deal with it". Getting your body in shape and devolping a personal style that works for you can also do wonders for feeling more attractive(and healthy, and strong and... so on). And I can also confirm that alot of women love a shaved head(i've tried that just to see how it would look, once the battle is lost and i'll develop my fathers hairline).
-
Most guys who "don't know what they're doing" will err in the opposite direction, outlined by aequalsa in his last post. Telling a woman you value her, and even telling her why, before mutual value has been established through actions and conversation that doesn't consist of compliments (or "meta" comments of any kind), is the fastest way to make her disinterested as far as romance goes.
One idea is that people are aware of the human capacity to "romanticize" things, and people. A guy who overtly compliments a woman on her virtues, is statistically less likely to be a man of value who values her. He is MORE likely to be a man who is somewhat needy or desperate, and clings to the first woman he finds who displays value. Therefore he takes all her positive qualities and ignores the bad ones--or doesn't give himself time to discover them. Women know this, so when a guy starts complimenting them, they figure it's just another desperate lonely guy who "doesn't have a clue".
I disagree with this. If you notice something you value and want to say it, then say it. It doesn't matter if mutual value has been established or not. You could as well compliment them the first thing you do: "Hi, i'm musenji. Nice to meet you. Love that dress!", or "Love your smile. Thank you!". As a man, i'm assuming, who loves women, why not respond to the value that you see? Not because you want to take something from them and expect something in return, but only because it's a natural response to your values.
The real problem lies in what you write below:
Let alone the fact that there are guys who think that complimenting a woman is a valid tactic for getting her to like them more. It's not expressly thought in these guys' minds, but this is in lieu of demonstrating virtue or value on his part. It's basically like saying "I have nothing to offer you, except the fact that I like you." Even an Objectivist woman would reject a man in this situation.This is the way of complimenting women expecting something in return. Essentialy wanting them to like you and secretly hoping that if you're nice to them they'll have sex with you. It's not genuine and the compliment comes with strings attached, which is why almost any woman would reject a man for that.
On the other hand, a genuine compliment with no strings attached could very well bring a smile to her face for the rest of the day. Even if she's beautiful and used to compliments.
Of course perhaps he does have something to offer her, but usually it comes along with a kind of lonely neediness. So women are very quick to dismiss complimenters. Women of value (particularly good-looking ones) get thousands of compliments, so another point is this: complimenting a woman does nothing to set you apart from all the other guys complimenting her, even if you ARE a person of value...she'll think you're not.If you ARE a person of value that will naturally set you apart from all the other guys. It shows in more ways than wether you compliment her or not. However, compliments must be disregarded as tools or tactics to get women to like you, or a way to create attraction.
[edit] I just read the article. I do think that power games of the specific kind that she mentioned in the last paragraph are pretty sick. But on the other hand, it is true what she said:"Gentlemen, if you put it out there too fast, too soon, and too uncomplicatedly we will basically figure you for a good-for-nothing loser, with obsessive stalker tendencies and nothing else going on in your life. And will dump you quicker than you can say used tampon."
This is pretty unfortunate, but it is certainly what I've experienced.
The problem with that is the same as with compliments. Often it comes from a weak position, where the guy is practically throwing himself at ther feet begging her to like him. But that's not really an issue of how many days to wait before you call her or being open with how you feel. A man coming from a strong position does not need to worry about that. A strong position would be: "This is me and here's what I want. Take it or leave it." However, something could also be said for maintaining tension and challenging her(after all, even if you do happen to fall quickly for her, why not really let her prove herself and work for it?).
-
This option is equally as immature as slapping back. Better to leave the situation entirely, and find people who actually act mature and respectful, even through disagreement. Retaliating is a necessity regarding self-defense, not for teaching someone a lesson.
I disagree. Someone who hits me once may do it twice, and i'm not inclined to taking that without standing up for myself.
-
In practical terms, there is no reason to do this unless you really needed to defend yourself. Otherwise your just opening yourself up to a no win situation. Either you are either the guy that got beat up by a girl or you’re the bastard who hit a girl. Generally speaking walking away is the better road.
I'd gladly be the bastard who hit a girl before walking away. I can easily live with the reputation of not taking that kind of crap - I don't accept anyone getting violent with me.
On the other hand, there is a big difference in context between getting hit by a man and getting hit by a woman. Getting hit by most men is a serious threat. There's usually enough power to make it potentially lethal, even if by accident(there are enough cases of people getting knocked out and suffering severe head trauma from the fall). Getting hit by most women is much less serious.
Retaliating against a woman could have very serious consequences. A much stronger man retaliating in anger will likely find it very hard to control the force and there's a big risk of things going really ugly. And afterwards you can't really go: "Well, she slapped me!".
Personally i'd cut a woman a lot of slack and rather control her than hit her. But it should be made very clear that such behavior is unacceptable.
-
Masterfull work!
Leading the Way in Romance
in Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
Posted
There's no dichotomy between independence and momentarily taking the passenger seat. Nicky's example illustrates that perfectly. You make the choice to get on that buss, and you choose when to get off.
What Kevin describes is a feminine sexual response. Women respond by letting go, which is very difficult to relate to for men because it's the opposite for us.
I would follow Kevin's advice because it's great when you get to fully experience male and female sexuality.
I would say it's attractive because it suggests that the woman is in touch with her own sexuality, which is healthy.
I would also warn against the opposite, letting the woman "drive".
There are some women who try to do that because they hate men and have no respect for them. They like to rule men and feel empowered when they do so. One would be wise to stay far away from such women.
Then there are more benevolent women who unconciously drift towards controlling and manipulative tendencies. Women test men to see what they're made of. It often happens subconciously. They want to see if you're strong, honest, trustworthy and all that. In order to do so they test you.
When a man fails a womans tests she looses attraction for him. Sometimes it's like bursting a hole in a bubble and it's game over right away. It can also happen over longer periods of time. In those relationships the woman starts to get more and more control, while often times the man invests more thinking it will make her happy. Over time such relationships tend to get abusive and nasty.
Failing her tests means she'll start losing respect for you. Women don't like that and often start to push harder, hoping you will step up, take charge and push back. If you don't, the relationship will be in serious trouble.