|
A recent experience in romance has led me to reflect on the nature of romantic relationships and come to some conclusions that I would love to hear other viewpoints on. A basic question to ask is: can we objectively decide who is better off with who in a romantic relationship? In our society the answer is not really, we decide whoever we want to be with based on whatever criteria we invent. This means that no case can be made that, for example, if I was longing after someone in what I considered to be a poor, unhealthy relationship for them for their sake, I risk being labeled all sorts of horrible things when it seems to me that my intentions are sincere. I would argue that it IS possible to (more or less) objectively evaluate human relationships as long as we have a destination with which to orient them - marriage. I have stated openly that I am a fundamentalist Christian and believe firmly in God's plan for marriage. Without it, I believe human romantic relationships can become chaotic with no direction and clarity. My experience recent experience has taught me that the heartache involved in these things, and the reality of a world where marriage isn't a priority, is very grim and unpleasant. I believe that a happy marriage is the key to fulfillment in romance. I wrote the following essay while I was in love with someone who had a boyfriend, but was struggling to let it go: The Art of Love an Essay by CowOnCrack Dedicated to my Grandmother, 94 years young, sharp as a razor, and therefore still remembers how things are supposed to work. The Nature of Love Men and Women are fundamentally different, but complementary in a way that makes it impossible to distinguish their roles. To men, the fundamental nature of love is that men give, and women receive. By giving, men receive. By receiving, men give. To a woman, the fundamental nature of love is that women give, and men receive. By giving, women receive. By receiving, women give. From the male point of view, when a woman receives the love and affection of a man, he is happy and fulfilled. In effect, when a woman receives love from a man, she is giving happiness and fulfillment to him. True love is selfless. From the female point of view, when a man receives the love and affection of a woman, a woman is happy and fulfilled. When a man receives the love of a woman, he is giving happiness and fulfillment to her. True love is selfless. Giving and receiving are actually, in this case, two sides of the same coin. We lack better words to describe it because they are semantically equal. Giving and receiving end up being the same. This duality is mirrored in the act of intercourse itself. Love is the most powerful force of human nature, pulling two people together in order to become married, have a family, work alongside each other, grow old together, and die in each others' arms. This is what everyone wants, even if it takes a lifetime for them to never realize it. Love is a life creating force. Sex is the life creating instrument of this force. Creating life is the ultimate commitment, the ultimate responsibility, and the purpose of life itself. Without it there would be no life. Unless two people are in love (and married), they have no business creating life or making use of this instrument. Society has taken the life-giving force and stripped it of the life-giving, the commitment, and even the emotional bonding of a couple in love, leaving only the carnal act of lust and pleasure. This is an abomination, and the result of this has been an attack on love itself and the world of relationships is in chaos as a result. The amount of suffering and heartache that is taking place is a clear indication that the natural order of love is under attack. Sex should only take place in a married, full commitment, with the purpose of creating or at least accepting the chance of creating life (a family). Even if we have the means to avoid that responsibility with our clever tools, our brains and our bodies haven't forgotten what sex means. Love is the force of nature, and sex is the instrument. By separating the two, we have introduced endless pain and woe into our hearts, minds, and souls. Sex without love is an abomination. Communicating Love Love is an act of rhetoric. Rhetoric means an act of persuasion. All communication is rhetorical, in other words, all communication both verbal and nonverbal contains persuasive power. Romance is, if you want to call it a game (a pathetic, inadequate word for something so powerful and mysterious in my opinion), is a cooperative game where we are all trying to find the person we will be happiest with. Compatibility is the key, because who we are compatible with is who we will fall in love the easiest with and enjoy life with, thus creating a harmonious foundation for a family. The key to success in the world of romance is for both men and women to engage in open, honest communication about their feelings. Everything is an act of communication - how much time you spend with someone, how much you come to rely on their support (emotional, financial, logistical, or otherwise), how much you talk to them (regardless of content), how you act around them and what gestures you use, as well as what you say to them, are all cues that the romantic "computer" inside our brain receives as input to decide if affection and love is being communicated. Because 93% of communication is nonverbal according to a UCLA study, that means only 7% of communication is considered 'valid' even though our romantic minds make use of the other 93%. That means the room for error is enormous in the world of relationships without openness and honesty between men and women about the other ways we communicate. For example, if there is a woman who says she likes a guy as a 'friend', but then frequently spends time with him and relies on him for emotional support, logistical support, and even financial support, her words don't match the other (up to) 93% of her rhetoric. If this is willful dishonesty on her part, this is emotional predation, also known sometimes as the "friendzone". This is a form of harassing men. There is no such thing as the 'friendzone', only men and women submitting to willful dishonesty. Concepts invented on 90's television rarely have any basis in reality. The Formula of Happiness and Fulfillment Here is the formula for happiness in a relationship: Man + Woman + Love = Marriage + Family Simple. Everything else is either a means to this end, or meaningless. Quality Quality is simply a judgment of whether or not you would want to marry this person and raise a family with them. We are all naturally quite capable of determining this. If we are trying to duck the responsibility of marriage, than we are awful human beings who are content to be like Man 2 and Woman 2. If we believe that the life-creating force is our responsibility since it brought us into existence, we strive to be like Man 1 and Woman 1. There are two kinds of men on opposite ends of the "quality" spectrum. Man 1 (marriage material): Hardworking, ethical, responsible, mature, loving, compassionate, selfless. Man 2 (waste of life): Lazy, unethical, irresponsible, immature, lusting, selfish. There are two kinds of women on opposite ends of the "quality" spectrum. Woman 1 (marriage material): Hardworking, ethical, responsible, mature, loving, compassionate, selfless. Woman 2 (waste of life): Lazy, unethical, irresponsible, immature, lusting, selfish. Possible Formulas Formula 1: Man 1 (Good) + Woman 1 (Good) Result: A happy marriage in the making. Hallelujah! Formula 2: Man 1 (Good) + Woman 2 (Bad) Result: Called "Friendzone." Woman is willfully dishonest that she prefers Man 1, even while being single, or dating or being in a relationship with Man 2, and tries to get as much as she can from him without the commitment. She may be also in denial about Man 2, and therefore preys on Man 1 to receive the things that matter in life while using Man 2 for other ends. By relying on the fact that 93% of communication is nonverbal, she can say he is a 'friend' while leading him on with the rest of her rhetoric. Anyone who willfully engages in this behavior is a predator, and an awful waste of life. Any woman who does this, even after a man tells her how she feels, still calls him a friend, and then threatens him with harassment when he spots deceit, is a monster (*ahem*, I am a man and I have recent experience, but I won't say who). Formula 2: Woman 1 (Good) + Man 2 (Bad) Result: Should also be called "Friendzone". The responsible woman wants to help Man 2 change, but he never will, because he's receiving everything he needs without ever having to commit to being like Man 1. Man 2 is leading Woman 1 on. Man 2 may use baiting tactics such as flirting, flattery, and other subversive means to prey on Woman 1's compassion and get things from her that don't belong to him. Anyone who willfully engages in this is a predator, and an awful waste of life. Formula 2: Woman 2 (Bad) + Man 2 (Bad) Result: A travesty. Conclusion The key to success in your relationships, friends, is to seek open and honest communication and remember to let your instincts trust words as only 7% of the picture. Be extremely discerning about anyone who claims they want you as their 'friend'. What is friendship you ask? Friendship is merely the respectful equilibrium between two people who are not yet romantically interested in each other. Where friendship ends and romance begins is a naturally nebulous barrier between Men and Women. There will always be difficulty until the man or the woman is happily married and in a full commitment. Where that equilibrium exists rests on the calculations of compatibility that our romantic minds make, and is always subject to change as certain people work on being better people and others let their standards for themselves slide. After all, if you are a man, would you let a lazy, irresponsible woman be the mother of your child? If you are a woman, would you let a lazy, irresponsible man be the father of your child? Thank you for reading! Obviously, this essay is a work of rhetoric that uses extremes and balanced language to make a point. It reflects my point of view in that time and space when and where I had a bit of an axe to grind. The main point of the essay is that 'friendzone' is a bunk concept - someone who spends a lot of time with you, whether or not they have a boyfriend, is clearly communicating affection and a desire to be near you. This is a perfectly legitimate grounds to believe a romantic relationship is possible and there is nothing wrong with seeking that as long as you are respectful and prepared to deal with the consequences of being rejected. I also believe that a boyfriend is not something I can respect too much - I believe in courting, and eventually marriage, which gives me legitimate grounds for doing what I did. I did eventually let this person go, although of course there was some drama, and of course I have some sour feelings that I have to process, but it was kept to a minimum by us both and in time I am confident we can forgive each other (in big part because we are both Christian). I think the world of relationships without marriage to orient us is a naturally chaotic and unfulfilled place. Obviously, there are trade offs, pros, and cons, and I don't imagine anyone could follow this essay as some kind of Platonic ideal. We are living in a society in the West that is becoming post-marriage and people are adapting. Everyone and their backgrounds and situations are different, and could apply the concepts in this essay to their lives or not at all. What do you all think of these ideas? P.S. I spent last night in the emergency waiting room for food poisoning, so I'm a little wonky. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
Look, CoC, I don't think this thread was such a good idea. Or maybe it would be better in the E/N forum. Like, it sucks to get broken up with I'm sure, but you'll get over it and things will get better I promise. If you want serious answers, lots of people are very happy being not married, and lots of people are happy being married, and lots of people are unhappy being either unmarried or married. Hope this helps. Mr. Wiggles fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Hey, might not want to post your real name on your essay there, champ  I'd edit that poo poo out ASAP. VVVVVVVV Uh, and your grandma's name probably. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Mr. Wiggles posted:Look, Byron, I don't think this thread was such a good idea. Or maybe it would be better in the E/N forum. It's interesting you say 'to get broken up with', when according to this person, I was never more than a friend. In the Brother's Karamazov, Dostoyevsky discussed how infidelity can be purely a psychological concept. In other words, the friendzone is a form of emotionally cheating on your boyfriend with someone else. If the moderators want to move this thread to E/N, that's fine with me VitalSigns posted:Hey, might not want to post your real name on your essay there, champ Done. Mr. Wiggles posted:If you want serious answers, lots of people are very happy being not married, and lots of people are happy being married, and lots of people are unhappy being either unmarried or married. Hope this helps. That's true, but if the point of a relationship is to have children some day and foster a healthy family life, then we can decide which relationships are healthy and productive and which aren't. If there is no point, then we can't make any determination and people are free to accept or reject others on arbitrary criteria which can lead to hurt. The question is whether there is an ideal relationship or not. I believe a blueprint for marriage looks something like in Paul's letter to the Ephesians: 22 Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: 23 Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the church, and delivered himself up for it: 26 That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life: 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy, and without blemish. 28 So also ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. 29 For no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ doth the church: 30 Because we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they shall be two in one flesh. 32 This is a great sacrament; but I speak in Christ and in the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular love his wife as himself: and let the wife fear her husband. Very controversial in today's world, clearly. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Sweet, lets get this poo poo show of chauvinistic pity poetry on the road.CowOnCrack posted:Very controversial in today's world, clearly. No, its not. Plenty of people getting married still, and plenty of hetero relationships still going down. You don't need this religious dogma oriented idea of romanticism to have a healthy relationship. Don't forget the gays!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Marriage is for gays in 2014. Everyone else just prefers to gently caress like rabbits now with each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:15
|
|
Oh boy.  
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:For example, if there is a woman who says she likes a guy as a 'friend', but then frequently spends time with him and relies on him for emotional support, logistical support, and even financial support, her words don't match the other (up to) 93% of her rhetoric. If this is willful dishonesty on her part, this is emotional predation, also known sometimes as the "friendzone". This is a form of harassing men. So I can't be friends with a married woman, or my friends' wives or girlfriends? I can't even have single friends with vaginas? Either I* want to gently caress them, I want nothing to do with them, or I'm a liar? Can my sister and I be friends even, or is a lack of incest in our awesome bro-sis relationship proof of our wilful dishonesty? *I like women sometimes, shut the gently caress up everyone. But also since I am queer, do I have to gently caress all my guy friends too? VVVVVVVV Post a pic, OP. I'll post one of me if you will. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Hey, might not want to post your real name on your essay there, champ I'm really mad at you for pointing this out. I wanted to see what this weirdo looks like 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
Can men and women be friends on the internet, OP? Or is that leading them on? How does one distinguish 'being a friend' from 'being in the friend zone'?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:if the point of a relationship is to have children some day and foster a healthy family life Your primary problem is that you begin all of your assumptions from here. Stop doing that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Mods please move this to Let's Play and turn it into a CYOA >go north
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:20
|
|
Adar posted:Mods please move this to Let's Play and turn it into a CYOA >Treat WOMAN like HUMAN BEING ERROR: RESOURCE "SOCIABILITY.DAT" NOT FOUND
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
>blame women for your own creepy behavior
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
CoC, have you ever actually been in a relationship? Maybe you should save your theories for after you've been in one. I mean from the previous thread it sounds like you had a crush on this girl for like 3 years, during which you never mentioned your feelings to her, then you proposed marriage at the first sign she was having trouble with her boyfriend. Then when she understandably freaked out you distributed your weird creepy essay throughout your school and emailed her about how women should behave to avoid hurting your feelings. Like do you think this is how things normally work? Here's a tip. Men and women are exactly the same except for their junk. That is to say, everyone is an individual and has different needs, desires, etc. A relationship is two people who decide they make each other happy. That's it. There's no "formula" or "blueprint." Blisster fucked around with this message at 23:27 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:24
|
|
not to doxx the dude but based on his name he posted in the OP and his linkedin public profile, it's been at least six years since he last had any contact with that music major colleague/classmate he keeps ranting about in the other thread 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
TheSpookyDanger posted:>blame women for your own creepy behavior You do not see any "women" here. (You may want to take a LOOK around) >
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
is anyone else seeing this or has his av changed back and forth like 4 times in the past few minutes
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
>interpret NON-VERBAL COMMUNICATION Borrowing your pencil can only mean she understands and appreciates your diligent manly preparedness! Quickly now, propose MARRIAGE! >propose MARRIAGE Propose marriage on WHAT? >propose MARRIAGE on M'LADY She moves quickly away. Pencil-digging whore! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So I can't be friends with a married woman, or my friends' wives or girlfriends? I can't even have single friends with vaginas? Either I* want to gently caress them, I want nothing to do with them, or I'm a liar? You can, but until someone is married, there is a potential for error. Marriage is: "We are off the market! We love each other so much we are spending the rest of our lives together!" Just one more important function of marriage in society is that its a clear, universal demarcation line. At least that was true when it was a wider cultural norm. I have no issues being friends with married women at my church for example. People who are in insecure relationships have this problem. Nessus posted:Can men and women be friends on the internet, OP? Or is that leading them on? How does one distinguish 'being a friend' from 'being in the friend zone'? If that UCLA study has a point, it's that the internet is 93% bullshit made up to fill the gaps missing from a face-to-face interaction and it's best to handle personal relationship matters in person. You could only be leading them on with your text and words, and as long as those stick to friendly then there would be no issue. If this person was constantly talking to you though, consistently leaning on you for emotional support, then it would fall on the "how much they talk to you" criteria potentially, although the case for romantic interest would be very weak and not worth acting on. Mr. Wiggles posted:Your primary problem is that you begin all of your assumptions from here. Stop doing that. Biologically we are living beings built to reproduce and create life. Marriage becoming unpopular is a recent development. It's hardly wild assumption. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Biologically we are living beings built to reproduce and create life. Marriage becoming unpopular is a recent development. It's hardly wild assumption. Yes, we are. Marriage is not needed for that to happen. You are trying to project your religious feelings about marriage over our evolutionary and biological needs. Lest we forget WHY you bring this up: You tried to 'rescue' a girl you had a crush on from a relationship by outright mentioning marrying her off hand. Stop projecting your issues into the larger issues you are presenting overall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Yes, we are. Marriage is not needed for that to happen. You are trying to project your religious feelings about marriage over our evolutionary and biological needs. You need a prolonged committed relationship in order to earn a living and raise/rear the child. Whatever you call it, it's going to look like what was traditionally called marriage. Marriage is the 'old word' for what is a biological necessity. Not having a universal societal agreement on what that is (we could call it a domestic partnership if you want) can be an issue in relationships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:You need a prolonged committed relationship in order to earn a living and raise/rear the child. Whatever you call it, it's going to look like what was traditionally called marriage. Not really. Plenty of single parents make it, plenty of good kids come out of single parent homes, or even homes without a married couple. Projecting again. Is being a single parent preferable? No, but it does happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:29
|
|
 it keeps disappearing and reappearing, if a mod is putting this on him and he's rebuying his av every 5 minutes then lmbo
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:You can, but until someone is married, there is a potential for error. Marriage is: "We are off the market! We love each other so much we are spending the rest of our lives together!" Just one more important function of marriage in society is that its a clear, universal demarcation line when it was a wider cultural norm. I have no issues being friends with married women at my church for example. People who are in insecure relationships have this problem. A marriage is a huge commitment, what if I want to get to know this person before taking such a step? Clearly she can't just bring up "my boyfriend" every other sentence to remind VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not really. Plenty of single parents make it, plenty of good kids come out of single parent homes, or even homes without a married couple. Projecting again. I am not arguing other arrangements are invalid. I am merely stating that there is an optimal or an ideal. VitalSigns posted:A marriage is a huge commitment, what if I want to get to know this person before taking such a step? She was having problems in her relationship and became closer to me as a result. It was very obvious. It's just she doesn't feel she has to take responsibility for that because she can just call me 'friend' all day and night and blame me for having legitimately grounded feelings for her. This greatly hurt me and her. We were good friends for nearly two years and she at this point can't take a shred of responsibility except doing what she needs to do in order to defend her reputation while I do the same. I am ready to forgive this person whether or not they apologize but I think it's a bit silly to blame everything on me given the enormous context of what was our 'friendship'. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:You need a prolonged committed relationship in order to earn a living and raise/rear the child. Whatever you call it, it's going to look like what was traditionally called marriage. Not really. Plenty of single parents make it, plenty of good kids come out of single parent homes, or even homes without a married couple. Projecting again. Is being a single parent preferable? No, but it does happen. CowOnCrack posted:Marriage is the 'old word' for what is a biological necessity. Not having a universal societal agreement on what that is (we could call it a domestic partnership if you want) can be an issue in relationships. Marriage is the old word for a PROPERTY arrangement. It was always a legal term before it was 'endeared' by religion. It was a way to establish lines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Biologically we are living beings built to reproduce and create life. Marriage becoming unpopular is a recent development. It's hardly wild assumption. Biologically you wouldn't be posting on the internet. Also probably would have been mauled by a bear or died of smallpox or something. Who gives a poo poo what we are biologically? Is someone who chooses not to have kids somehow missing the meaning of life or something? Also please answer my question about being in any other relationships.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Blisster posted:Biologically you wouldn't be posting on the internet. Also probably would have been mauled by a bear or died of smallpox or something. Who gives a poo poo what we are biologically? Is someone who chooses not to have kids somehow missing the meaning of life or something? But, you see, the penis and vagina are biologically compatible 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:I am not arguing other arrangements are invalid. I am merely stating that there is an optimal or an ideal. An ideal by whose standards, and why should everyone else have to live under those standards?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:I am not arguing other arrangements are invalid. I am merely stating that there is an optimal or an ideal. Ideal for you. For YOU. You, the guy who proposed marriage to a woman in a relationship and got jilted. Ideally, A 'Good' single parent is going to be far more optimal than an abusive or sub optimal couple Horking Delight posted:An ideal by whose standards, and why should everyone else have to live under those standards? Notice he quoted the Bible and is bringing the word 'traditional' into the marriage discussion...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
an ideal relationship of any sort does not involve this guy in any way whatsoever
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:But, you see, the penis and vagina are biologically compatible
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Horking Delight posted:An ideal by whose standards, and why should everyone else have to live under those standards? God's standards. And everyone should not HAVE to live under those standards, because everyone's background and circumstances are different. But by being made aware of the ideal, perhaps they can have a more fulfilling romantic life. Pursue marriage and you will find greater happiness, I argue. Pursue it defensively (be careful of 'friends') and pursue it offensively (want it, have confidence, and go for the woman of your dreams). The lesson for me may be to stick to single women and not get into protracted entanglements (friendships) with immature, insecure women who don't seem to believe in marriage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
If there's one thing I've learned in my time on earth, it's that everyone is exactly the same and wants the exact same things out of life.CowOnCrack posted:God's standards. And everyone should not HAVE to live under those standards, but by being aware of it perhaps they can have a more fulfilling romantic life. Pursue marriage and you will find greater happiness, I argue. Yeah, how's that working out for you? You seem super happy and totally not hung up on a girl you never even dated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:God's standards. Congrats, your whole argument point is now null. Whose god? Which religion? Whose holy books? "Well, my god says...." 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Congrats, your whole argument point is now null. Whose god? Which religion? Whose holy books? Then leave out the word God, and judge what I'm saying on sociological or scientific merits. For example, I come from a family where both parents are working professionals. Not having at least one parent closely involved in the children's lives had negative consequences. Basically I needed discipline and parenting and instead I was turned over to the system and I've spent my whole life suffering the consequences of that decision on my parents who were too busy to handle me. Clearly these problems have translated into my friendships and romantic life. I would argue my parents made a mistake by both being working professionals. Does that mean I hate my parents? No, they were great parents in their own way, and things happened the way they did. There were clear benefits to our family arrangement such as total financial security. But it wasn't optimal. I was a kid that probably needed to play sports and needed a closer father figure because I needed an outlet. Instead I went on a path of ADHD to Ritalin to video games to clinical depression and eventually bipolar disorder. CowOnCrack fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
Adar posted:You do not see any "women" here. (You may want to take a LOOK around) >Look >You are in a dim basement lit only by the glow of an old CRT monitor. The basement is messy and damp. By your side is a 6 inch tall plastic crucifix. In no particular order, the rest of the cheap Ikea desk the monitor is on contains a spork left over from your last meal, an open letter (from the looks of it, it's quite old), a picture of your grandmother and several discarded candy wrappers. The rest of the basement contains a couch, a small single bed with an unmade pillow and blanket and a closet. >
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
CowOnCrack posted:Then leave out the word God, and judge what I'm saying on sociological or scientific merits. By those merits, we should focus on the end results and not the initial terms. Its why gays can raise a child just as well as a hetero couple. You are trying to create this scheme where only your defined marriage variables are valid, while missing the overall purpose of a relationship and how a specific couple might actually react to child rearing. This brings us back to why your issue with the girl who jilted you is childish for you to be so hung up on, and downright mentally unhealthy, especially your expressed views towards women in general. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
>Examine CRT Monitor
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 23:38
|
|