Quote:
Originally Posted by AmIASleaze
Only an ass/hole to you...now suck my dick! ..cause my brother is waiting for his turn as well.
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmIASleaze
Only an ass/hole to you...now suck my dick! ..cause my brother is waiting for his turn as well.
Ha, ha, OV.... you will be a delight to know in another 10 years or so once you've tempered some. What a sense of humour... LOL!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Only-virgins
Now, Am I? I think what OV is TRYING to say, in his delightfully nasty way, is that is doesn't really matter what others think. There's lots of ways to live a life. OVs got one, you've got another, mine is different yet again... Only matters if YOU think you are a slut...and whether you think "slut" is a bad thing to be.
I think we have reached a difference in definition. Agree to disagree on this one Nomas.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chlorine
Absolutely agree w/this.
Why in 10 years? whats wrong with me now? what part of he has to "temper"?Quote:
Originally Posted by indigosoul
ummm...ok...I guess...Quote:
Now, Am I? I think what OV is TRYING to say, in his delightfully nasty way, is that is doesn't really matter what others think. There's lots of ways to live a life. OVs got one, you've got another, mine is different yet again... Only matters if YOU think you are a slut...and whether you think "slut" is a bad thing to be
Well, I don't like the idea of having someone think my theory on this behavoir is manipulative because manipulation (most of the time) is negative in my eyes, but I agree that we probably won't convince each other of the other's point of view.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigosoul
Agreed, Indi.
You're confusing ideas here, tho Nomas. FWB is about sex, isn't it? All ppl are saying is that is isn't worth it JUST FOR SEX, which is (relatively) easily had (vs. finding a trusted friend).Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
What you're talking about is different tho. Friends to lovers, or in your case Great Love Of Your Life is totally worth going for. No one here would argue otherwise, I think. But this is, of course, about much more than just sex.
In a word: tough ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Well, it all depends. I manipulate my young son all the time in an attempt to stimulate his development. Much like your dance, I move, he "moves" (mentally), until he reaches the point where he is ready for "full disclosure" of a concept, so to speak. I think this is perfectly acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
You argue you are merely being "reserved", which is a good thing I think. Except that you're not. You are "perturbing the system", which is manipulation. As an engineer you understand this, I know. And that is the difference.
The problem arises when you are making this decision for another thinking adult. Who may be insulted when they figure out what you've been doing, is all.
Here's a thought for you: Why not discuss THIS topic (your balance theory) w/the person of interest. Their response on the subject should give you a good indication on how to proceed...
If it were me (for example), you'd best get more upfront about what you're thinking/feeling after that conversation. Else later (once I unravelled your thoughts) I'd actually worry that you have serious control and/or honesty/trust issues going on... IMHO, of course.
Yeah, good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigosoul
Is the only difference just the sex part? After all, isn't that the only thing that separates great friends from lovers? Just the sex, really. Other than that, you still like to spend time with one another, you think each other are cool, you talk to one another about your problems and personal stuff..
So is sex this important?? Does it fulfill a relationship so that it's "complete"? And why does is this also the cause of problems afterward?
When Harry met Sally. Up until they had sex they were awsome friends, they'd have their spats but would work it out and kiss and make up...but sex complicated matters..
Hmm...
I think that you're referring to me saying that I think manipulation is negative most of the time, but that's why I said "most of the time"..there are cases like your example where there's method to your madness..Quote:
Originally Posted by indigosoul
I don't understand how I'm perturbing the system..becuase I don't lay all cards on the table? I'm talking about being controlled in your behavior for valid reasons. Overzealousy early own leads to a turn off on the opposite end if the overzealousy is not immediately reciprocated. Which system or set of rules are being violated? Behavior is a matter of will. You behave as you want to behave, you have control over it. Here we go: behavior can be manipulated..but this is far from manipulating a person. And don't take this as meaning you're putting up a front. I'm just saying: choose to be introverted or private about some things. An introverted or private person doesn't open up as much and expose themselves for all to see, but this doesn't make them fronters. Nobody has the right to force them to open up and reveal themselves or call them fronters if they don't.Quote:
You argue you are merely being "reserved", which is a good thing I think. Except that you're not. You are "perturbing the system", which is manipulation. As an engineer you understand this, I know. And that is the difference.
This is a valid point. But I think it varies from person to person. I think it can be a problem if someone likes to know EVERYTHING about exactly what's going on in another individual's mind at all times, in which case they very well may be insulted that you witheld information or concealed feelings early on.Quote:
The problem arises when you are making this decision for another thinking adult. Who may be insulted when they figure out what you've been doing, is all.
Sorry, no such person of interest exists at the moment. This is purely hypothetical discussion in my part.Quote:
Here's a thought for you: Why not discuss THIS topic (your balance theory) w/the person of interest. Their response on the subject should give you a good indication on how to proceed...
Maybe there's a huge difference in the level of importance we each give these thoughts. If it were me, for example, I'd have no qualms if years later you'd tell me.."hey, remember when we first met...I was really into you and would do anything for you, but I knew you didn't feel the same for me so I never gave you any clue that I felt that way". I'd say "I assumed as much.." (because I'm so damn intuitive..) no, but seriously, given the extremely rare instance that I didn't suspect this..I'd say "Oh, really? Wow..interesting...I never would have guessed..." Or something along those lines..no big deal...just food for conversation in my book. I wouldn't think that this person was dishonest or untrustworthy, because, really, what is it she doesn't trust? Me to feel the same way? Obviously, if I'm sending the message that I'm not into her, then why should she trust me to feel the same way?Quote:
If it were me (for example), you'd best get more upfront about what you're thinking/feeling after that conversation. Else later (once I unravelled your thoughts) I'd actually worry that you have serious control and/or honesty/trust issues going on... IMHO, of course.
Sorry for you, BTW. But perhaps one day you'll get to put theory to practice...Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
The thing you seem to miss w/your idea is that you might miss the boat entirely if your "friend" is poised on the edge... someone else may come along, who is more forthright, and you'll lose out. Simply b/c you were not upfront enough. Perhaps.
I'm not sure what you mean by "poised on the edge"..can you elaborate, please.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigosoul
As far as the second part, I see what you mean, but maybe you have the wrong idea of my theory. I'm not saying "don't show any interest" in an individual..simply don't tip the balance. If someone's not being very enthusiastic with your company, don't you go showing that you want to spend every second of your existence near this person..that would most likely turn the less interested person off. However, if you play it cool and you don't tip the balance and you see more of each other..via more exposure you may, I hate to say it, "grow on a person" and they'll see values in you they like and as their interest in you increases you may, accordingly, increase your show of affection.
I'm just stating that showing too much when the other shows not much at all is definite doom of a relationship, whether romantic or friendship
Simply, that they might be interested in "more than friends" but are undecided, for any number of reasons only they know. One possibly being that they don't know enough about what YOU'RE thinking... then someone else comes along who is more open/shows more interest and they think "well, why not? XXX doesn't seem to care...". Poof! goes YOUR happy ending.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
OK, I get this. You are starting to repeat yourself. I agree this can work. However, we were discussing FWB. I would argue your method is most suitable for someone who doesn't really know you all that well. FWB (of the scenario we were discussing) already knows you & likes you, hopefully for who you are. All that is missing is the disclosure of more romantic feelings. What's the point of doing this piecemeal?Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Depends on why the other person isn't showing. Figure THAT out, and your problem is solved. Hypothetically. Again, reasons will be different for "friends" vs. "acquaintance".Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Again, I don't know if anything has failed. I'm putting my place in other people's shoes right now, so I really don't know if anything has been lost or found.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Take amIasleaze for example. She's getting to give someone the benefit of oral sex without herself receiving any. When she loses this relationship, or wants to stop it, the guy will probably think that there's no further point in pursuing anything else because he's got getting "any" anymore. She will lose both the friendship and the sex.
And is she getting anything greater with the younger brother? Has she loved?
When you take a chance at something greater, you live life without wondering what may have been. If you don't take the chance, you live life wondering what may have been. BUT, if you do take the chance, you also wonder what may have been if you've never taken it in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Like, I took a chance with something, as you know. And every single day, I wonder what would have happened if I never took that chance.
But I know that if I hadn't taken that chance, I would have also wondered what would happen if I did.
I agree with this one, not only for the love aspect of it, but also for any relationship.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Imagine meeting a guy at a random party, turns out he saw you on the bus and recognized you. Imagine that! He recognized you from the bus from two days ago. Normally, one would say that's so cool and move on to talk with the regular group.
But, you take a bigger step. You talk with this person. Turns out, he works for the same company you do. In fact, he's in the building right behind yours. That's cool, huh?
But he's on the way out. You could easily let him go and think, that's pretty neat to meet someone who recognized you from a bus, who happened to have mutual friends, and who work in the same company.
But you decided to ask him for his contact information. Some people might get it and just leave it at that. But you pursued it. Sent him an email. And the following week, you went out for lunch! See, made a new friend.
And of course, for discovering REAL "love" type of relationship. I don't know if you're referring to taking a huge step in the first place, or taking the risk again after knowing what happened the first time.
For me, I'll say for both. In the second aspect, I just consider it working hard at something to make it work because that's what relationships are about. You work hard at it. It's not something that exists on its own.
I guess it's because I believe risk walk hand in hand with dedication. Sometimes, you have to take risk to show that you are dedicated to something.
Quite a bit of people connect sex with a higher level of intimacy and believe that that level of intimacy ought to be exclusive. I think that's what creates the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Well, are you or are you not conducting an experiment?Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
1. A stimulus (also called perturbation) is applied: your controlled amount of shown interest.
2. A result is observed: the level of interest your OOI (object of interest) shows
If high, then act one way, if low, act another.
Your next action will be determined by their response, towards a particular goal (getting them to show/feel more interest). If you weren't manipulating the system, your next stimulus would be random (b/c you're just collecting unbiased data, right?). Sorry but this is manipulation (as I define it). You are carefully arranging your actions to produce a DESIRED, and decidedly unbiased response from them.
Of course not. I never said this. But some might argue you are not being honest by calling yourself "friend" when you are really maneuvering for more...Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Whoa!
"...Is the only difference just the sex part? After all, isn't that the only thing that separates great friends from lovers?"
Nomas: Repeat that aloud to yourself a few times VERY slowly and think about what it actually means. Surely, you don't mean that, do you?
I think it is not a male/female issue but rather an individual issue and speaking for myself I married my best friend (2nd marriage) great marriage, but my first marriage we were never friends we did everything so fast the kissing the sex etc.... that marriage lasted all of 1 year. I now have been married for 10 years to my best friend. We have a solid relationship that continues to grow and grow.
This response is to both you, Nomas, and W. (who asked you this)Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
In my opinion ONLY, NO, the sex is not that important. But not in the way you might think.
I think that sex (i.e. the physical act) is only one of many indications of a great relationship b/t great friends WHO ARE ALSO lovers. It the combination that is rare, I think. Sex b/t two different ppl is defined as lovers, and is relatively common, I think. But this doesn't say anything about how they care/understand/accept each other as individuals.
Likewise you can have a good friend, who you don't have sex with, and you get along with really well. But I would argue there is always some level of reserve, or holding back that is always present. Even with good friends, they probably don't really understand YOU at any fundamental level. Or they understand you, but only so far and within a certain context.
Now, let's say you have a FRIEND (i.e. no sex), who loves you, understands you, and accepts you FOR WHO YOU REALLY ARE, and you feel the same for them. I would argue that physical sex is almost moot in this rare case. I would further suggest that there is probably some external barrier preventing sex b/t such a couple (and they are, make no mistake), it being such a natural expression of such emotions. The reason is that there is already SEX OF THE MIND, which is sooo much more powerful. If you find this, you'd best not screw it up w/insecure manipulation games, is all I'm saying.
So, no, the sex isn't that importan, Nomas. Because its already there. I hope this makes sense, its hard to put into words...
(Thanks W, btw, for helping clarify my thoughts on all this recently)
Hi OV, Sorry, I had missed this. Actually, I don't think there's anything wrong w/you. I totally enjoy your sense of humour. I meant "temper" as in metalwork. (steel is tempered iron, strong & flexible) But some ppl might find your bluntness offensive. Unless you want to go live off in the bush somewhere (& nothing wrong w/that either), you'll find you'll have to adopt a certain level of interface to get along w/the rest of society, is all. Not a lot of ppl want and/or are able to hear your version of "truth", is all. And "screw them, then" wont get you very far unfortunately.Quote:
Originally Posted by Only-virgins
From someone who's been there. :)
Nope, not conducting an experiment. Everything I've said is the logic behind my behavioral rules I place upon myself..as I've seen and experienced and as they make sense to me. The explanation makes it sound scientific, and this may be why you think I'm conducting an experiment.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigosoul
Take what may be your behavior for instance:
If you're walking down the street, do you make constant comments to random strangers? is this a typical indi walk down the street:
"Ooh, you're quite fat."..."Hey, your ears are very big"..."Your eyes are too close together"...
Let us assume that you don't do this. I don't view this as an experiment..it' simply your set of rules to your behavior..but you can also explain it as like:
1. A stimulus (also called perturbation) is applied: the appearance of the oncoming stranger
2. A result is observed: he's too fat, her ears too big, his eyes too close together
IF deemed abnormal, make a comment, ELSE return to 1.
Sounds pretty scientific, doesn't it? But all it is is an explanation to behavior, much in the way of computer programming.
I'm not conducting experiments here..I'm making observations and it decides how I behaver.
If you lean on a hot stove you get burned. You decide your behavior from now on will bet not to lean on a hot stove. That can be explained with your same stimulus, result, response model too, but it's still no experiment to me, it's explanation of behavior.
Are you manipulating the fat guy by not telling him he's fat? You want him not to feel bad about himself so you say nothing. Is this manipulation? You're basing your own response or lack thereof not at random, but based on your want.Quote:
Your next action will be determined by their response, towards a particular goal (getting them to show/feel more interest). If you weren't manipulating the system, your next stimulus would be random (b/c you're just collecting unbiased data, right?). Sorry but this is manipulation (as I define it). You are carefully arranging your actions to produce a DESIRED, and decidedly unbiased response from them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
I wasn't accusing you of it. I was just making a point. I'll follow up on yours on my next post where I'll quote another one of yours that I think is relevant to this..Quote:
Originally Posted by indi
BTW, Hayward..yeah, I re-read it..it still makes sense to me. Granted I didn't define the words "lovers" and the word "great friends" 100%..I didn't put all the thought in the world into it, but just right off the bat..what's your definition of each and how they differ and are the same??
Yeah, that was pretty much my conclusion too, indi. Sex is not that important, hence, not that big a deal, hence, not an issue to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigosoul
BUT...to most people it is. Whether it's just been beaten into our brains now because it's how we were taught and now we're used to viewing it and the reasoning behind it is what we choose to champion, though there are competing theories just as valid and just as unprovable (matters of opinion).
So there are those who say "Sex is something you want to share exclusively with your "lover". Blah, blah, blah...
To me what's important is that conection you described in one of the cases..where you like each other for who you really are and you could care less about anything else. Sex is irrelevant..even if you don't have it with one another. But I can see the opposing argument where it's that much bigger if you do it with this person you love in this way. But so is anything else, for that matter: Kissing, hugging, hell, having a conversation. But sex being so pleasurable and requiring another body to do it..well, we can distort things or assign levels of importance as we se fit.
But back to the friends thing I promised I'd talk about: Maybe here I am being the "traditional man", but if I see any girl I find attractive, my imagination is off to the races. If I'm in constant contact with an attractive female, I will probably day-dream some romantic scenarios with her a few times a day. If I pass her down the hall with her short skirt and sexy legs, I'll probably think to myself "Boy, I'd like to hit that". Do I act on it? Do I try to sleep with every girl I would sleep with because they fit the bill as far as physical attraction?
No.
Maybe girls see it differently. Maybe they see a man they find attractive and never have the slightest daydream about romance with the man. I wouldn't know.
That being said, I don't think that I couldn't have a friendship with a woman I find attractive. Say I got a girl and my best friend has a good looking girl. Good looking to me, anyway. Do you think I can't be friends with this girl? Of course I can be friends with her. Does this mean I won't have the slightest slip of the mind and picture her naked? Hell no. You bet I'll think stuff up IN MY HEAD. I wouldn't act on it.
It's Harry met Sally again. You can have a friendship as long as you control your actions. I don't think it's misleading to where you're faking a frienship and really wanthing to **** her. No. Again, I don't know if it's a man thing but you can have a great frienship quite independantly of wanting to sleep with a girl who'll roll with the boys.
I can be anybody's friend, and if I happen to find you attractive, it won't affect my frienship with you in the least bit.
If my romantic feelings toward you grow and I'd like you to feel the same way, yeah, I may have to play the game a little bit to get a clue as to what you feel. If I see no reciprocation, I continue the frienship and seek romance elsewhere.
That last paragraph was to give you some material to challenge my views, indi...Tag, you're it.
And Gypsy..yeah, my theory was one for relationships in general, not just boy/girl relationships.
Uh huh.
__________________
Oh, gad. One of those long, quotes-in-text ones. Wait a minute, nomas. I gotta get up to speed here.
Alright. First, I'm taking exception in technical grounds. You say sex is the "only thing" that "separates" good friends from lovers. Sometimes, your good friend is also your lover and there's no separating the two. As far as sex being the only thing distinguishes your lover from your good friend, I have to ask: What about the emotional connections you have with your lover? You cannot mean that they're identical to those you have with your friend. So sex is NOT the "only thing" which makes a distinction. (Unless you really believe what you said and YOU do have identical emotional bonds with BOTH your friends and lovers....which would make for some pretty confusing appointment books, I'd think...and DIS-appointnments). Example in point: so-called FWBs.
Then I take exception on grounds of implication. To say that sex is the only thing that distingushes a friend from a lover is to imply that ****ing is all that elevates a person to the status of lover. That is patently false.
IMO
No, I still disagree w/you. The above counterexample is more like how a Naturalist would behave. YOUR original example is more like Experimental science. You ARE conducting an experiment. No different from the guy who adds something to the petri dish to watch the cells wriggle... for the following reason:Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
The distinction b/w observational science (like a naturalist), is that conclusions are made from observations WITHOUT perturbing the system (e.g. fat guy) and Experimental science, where a stimulus is applied and a result observed (e.g. your example). This is by definition manipulation, and is what you have been describing. You are NOT an impartial observer, you are CONTROLLING the amount of interest YOU show & observing the result… the stimulus COMES FROM YOU. AND what you do next is a function of the result you get. Unlike the “fat guy” case, where you are more like a Naturalist; you haven’t added anything to the system and the status quo is preserved. Unless you then CHOOSE to say something... in which case you then make the system experimental.
So I still see it as manipulation. Now, whether this is okay in the case of our "friends" is a different question. You seem to be saying it is, especially considering the consequences, and maybe you're right and I'm just a control freak. But I would still want it acknowledged... tho maybe later would be okay once the relationship was more equal. Hmmm. Seem to be backpedaling here... It just SEEMS so insulting to me... :sad2:
I hear you. The key here is "I'd LIKE YOU to feel the same way". Manipulation to acheive the desired outcome. Or... oh, okay, maybe you say the game isn't to produce new feelings, but to tease out (what might be?) existing ones...? "to get a clue what you feel", in your example. Well, still manipulation in my book, but puts a different flavour to it. Tho I suppose you could argue you're not manipulating anything, simply uncovering what's already there. I guess since I seem to be using a lot of science analogies, the equivalent would be "dissection" to uncover what's underneath. Are we finding a common language yet?Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Damn, it would still be easier if everyone was just upfront about what they are thinking/feeling, huh Nomas? This example is a special case, anyway; I still think your behavioural method is best used on ppl who don't really know each other that well.
And, finally, they get to the real rub. Espistemology. How do you know what you know? Am I uncovering hidden knowledge? Or am I creating new knowledge? Is it knowledge at all? Or just data?
Most often expressed in love relationships by such phrases as, "You're not saying what you really feel"; "That's what you say, but that's not what you really mean"; "I though I knew you; I guess I don't." And other various and sundry.
Hence the TREMENDOUS need for mutual trust.
NEXT!
Ha! Ya, right again W. But so what does one do when one KNOWS (and I mean this absolutely) that the partner really ISN'T saying exactly what they feel... or worse you know they are lying to themselves... how does one help them?!Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
"You can lead a horse to water..."
Well and so. And you can try shocking them w/the cattle prod, I suppose.Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
You say that mutual trust is very important. Agreed. But what's the criteria for that trust?! Honesty, right? So how does one establish/maintain trust w/o honesty from one or both of the partners... And don't ppl have different criteria for honesty? Personally, I'm highly verbal/communicative. I tend to say what I mean. But some ppl are more action-based (strong, silent, "always there for you" types), right? And isn't this a big difference (generally) b/t male & female communication styles? Has anyone ever attempted to explain HOW to bridge that gap?! I'm asking for myself, but also as relates to my issue of the "manipulation" involved in Nomas' question. Distasteful way of running and/or beginning a relationship IMO...
Lots of potential topic offshoots in this one...
I have to stop at your first premise. Honesty is not required for trust. An absence of harm is. How many times have you trusted someone who's been dishonest with you simply because they never did anything you knew of to harm you? What you're talking about is disclosure, which more involves forgiving. Not trust.
"Lots of potential topic offshoots in this one..."
What? You a frustrated orchestrator?
Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
Wait, this is important, and i don't think i quite get this... Are you saying that you think that someone who is unfaithful to their spouse is trustworthy if they don't tell?! Because it doesn't hurt the other partner b/c they don't know (what they don't know can't hurt them?!).
This would satisfy your "absence of harm" but NOT my "honesty" criteria, but, ooooh this does NOT agree w/me, no sir!
Ha, ha... i think (?!)Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
Yup, you're correct. I consented that I oversimplified my definition and called you out to write this for me. I agree with you. What I did was make some assumptions: In the traditional sense of the term, a couple who shares intimacy is the definition of lovers. A couple who hangs out but doesn't share intimacy are NOT lovers..they're friends. But obviously if you're friends with someone and at night you put on a ski mask and rape this person this doesn't make you lovers, despite fulfilling my previous definition's requirements of friends plus the sex.Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
[QUOTE=indigosoul]No, I still disagree w/you. The above counterexample is more like how a Naturalist would behave. YOUR original example is more like Experimental science. You ARE conducting an experiment. No different from the guy who adds something to the petri dish to watch the cells wriggle... for the following reason:[quote]
I still disagree with you too. I don't see how my counterexample was different with yours. I had a parallel with every element. You claim:
You claim that in my example, my lack of expressing, even articulating everything that's on my mind is a stimulus, while your lack of articulating what's on your mind is not changing the status quo. I say either could be either. Scientifically they're a comparable scenario.Quote:
The distinction b/w observational science (like a naturalist), is that conclusions are made from observations WITHOUT perturbing the system (e.g. fat guy) and Experimental science, where a stimulus is applied and a result observed (e.g. your example). This is by definition manipulation, and is what you have been describing. You are NOT an impartial observer, you are CONTROLLING the amount of interest YOU show & observing the result… the stimulus COMES FROM YOU. AND what you do next is a function of the result you get. Unlike the “fat guy” case, where you are more like a Naturalist; you haven’t added anything to the system and the status quo is preserved. Unless you then CHOOSE to say something... in which case you then make the system experimental.
I still see it as choice of behavior and disclosure...and don't be insulted..that's not my objective, we're just having a very civil discussion, I believe. And to tackle this other post:Quote:
So I still see it as manipulation. Now, whether this is okay in the case of our "friends" is a different question. You seem to be saying it is, especially considering the consequences, and maybe you're right and I'm just a control freak. But I would still want it acknowledged... tho maybe later would be okay once the relationship was more equal. Hmmm. Seem to be backpedaling here... It just SEEMS so insulting to me... :sad2:
Allow me to rephrase: How about "I'd like it if you felt the same way"...Quote:
I hear you. The key here is "I'd LIKE YOU to feel the same way". Manipulation to acheive the desired outcome.
That changes things, right? That helps my case because I can argue much in the same way as my previous example that our behavior is always based on what we want. WE CHOOSE to behave in the way we behave. W e know the consequences and we know what happens when we behave a certain way and we choose to behave accordingly.
Example: I want my mom to be proud of me. She values hard work. Result, I make an effort toward being a hard worker. Other scenario..it's too hard for me to be a hard worker..so even though I'd like to make my moms proud, I just don't have the will to do it. I either make me happy in making my mom happy or I make me happy in being lazy. Either way, it's always about me. You cannot escape it.
Well, it's about getting a clue as to what the other is feeling, I guess, is the closest you got there. Since, unfortunately, most people aren't as blunt as you and I would like them to be...more below..Quote:
Or... oh, okay, maybe you say the game isn't to produce new feelings, but to tease out (what might be?) existing ones...? "to get a clue what you feel", in your example. Well, still manipulation in my book, but puts a different flavour to it. Tho I suppose you could argue you're not manipulating anything, simply uncovering what's already there. I guess since I seem to be using a lot of science analogies, the equivalent would be "dissection" to uncover what's underneath.
I think we've shared a common language all along...whenever I don't understand something I ask you..but I do believe that the limits of verbal language don't help our cause in discussions sometimes.Quote:
Are we finding a common language yet?
...continuing on this "being up front". Yup, you're right. Nothing would be better if you could just walk up to someone and say, excuse me, so I was wondering what your level of interest was in me in the categories of: Friendship, Romance, Admiration, and Economic Interests. I accept responses in the following formats: Fractions, Percentages, Pie Charts, and Bar Graphs. Thank you.Quote:
Damn, it would still be easier if everyone was just upfront about what they are thinking/feeling, huh Nomas? This example is a special case, anyway; I still think your behavioural method is best used on ppl who don't really know each other that well.
Yeah, we'll be hard pressed to find people like that.
Oh, well, maybe we're imperfect for a reason..
We'd have nothing to talk about if we were all as perfect as the systems I can design. We woud reject such perfection. Like the matrix..
?? you lost me there.Quote:
Originally Posted by whaywardj
Let me say is to myself a few times.
How many times have I trusted someone who's been dishonest with me simply because they never did anything I knew of to harm me?
When people are dishonest with you, they tend to lose a piece of your trust, even if there' no harm done. Maybe there is harm there.
That's my point. Honesty is NOT a critereon for trust. In fact, honesty can destroy trust, as you point out. We all have trusted dishonest people at one time or another. So, if honesty isn't necessary for there to be trust, what is necessary?
Indigo is equating trust with trustworthy. Those are totally different things.
Think we'll stalemate on this Nomas. I can't seem to explain well enough the difference, tho has to do w/one action being PASSIVE (fat guy) and the other ACTIVE (your example). Tho you claim there is no difference, I disagree.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
No, no. Not insulted by YOU, just saying I would be put out if I discovered someone was trying to pysch my feelings the way you describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
Ah, excellent!! Ha, ha!! Put it on business cards, even. Hang on, didn't I read something like this in some story somewhere.... ???Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas
I love that movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by nomas