posted April 27, 2010 05:11 PM         

quote:

---

However, I admit, I was, and am still, somewhat confused as to what is the partner's business -- BEFORE any discussion has taken place.

---

I don't know who takes offense at someone sleeping around or whatever when they're not in a relationship with that person. I think most people kind of leave the subject alone, don't they? I guess if a person is well-known as a "**** " or a "womanizer," or something then people might talk about them both behind their backs and to their faces, but I suppose that would depend on what crowd you run with or interact with.

I will point out that if a person is asking another about their love life, then they are -in effect- having a discussion, though that's a bit of a technicality.

quote:

---

So, that is how I approach and define these things -- by first seeing where they fall short of the ideal and how we attempt to justify their imperfections.

---

Wouldn't a notion of what's ideal be decided upon by the individual, and really, wouldn't it evolve over time?

I look at this process of finding freedom within the relationship as a matter of growing maturity. A lot of couples that have been together decades are able to communicate honestly about the important stuff. Circumstances conspire to make couple acknowledge their own truths, and I think people want to live in less fear of being judged by their loved ones. I think this is all a natural process, and doesn't really require any special spiritual consideration. That's not to put down spiritual inclinations. It's just to say that this desire for a certain latitude is present in most people, and the smarter ones sort it out one way or another.

quote:

---

As I see it, romantic love is an inferior and limitted manifestation of Divine Love.

---

posted April 27, 2010 05:24 PM         

quote:

---

I don't know who takes offense at someone sleeping around or whatever when they're not in a relationship with that person.

---

Relationship is not equal to exclusive partnership or whatever. Early on in the "relationship" between two people there is usually no discussion. There is attraction, dating, possibly sex. A relationship has become a very loose term in my vocabulary.
So you have a relationship with anybody you talk to, anybody that changes your day in any way. We live IN relationships all the time.

Just wanted to clarify that is how I understood Valus' post.

quote:

---

In simple terms, I think it's dangerous to try to use Divine Love as an excuse to get out of romantic love, which kind of was the implication early on in this talk.

---

I think that aligning Personal Love with Divine Love is the only way to love. It's not an excuse. It's a reason to love at all.

posted April 27, 2010 06:10 PM         

That just about covers
what I would have said.

So I'll say some other things
that I might not have gotten to.

Some people define "relationship"
as a closed and discussed entity.

But, often,
what is discussed or not
bears little relation to
the reality of what is felt.

A person may agree to something
which they have no intention of
allowing to happen gracefully.

If you have their verbal consent,
you may say a discussion has occured,
and you are free to do as you wish,
but, in reality, they are conflicted,
and you can't act without hurting them.

If you're sensitive to this,
then you're not free, even after
you receive the verbal permission.

There's so many angles I see this from,
it is really confusing to me at times.

A person does not need permission
to break-up with their partner, right?

I mean, that's obvious.

A discussion, or many discussions,
may take place, but, ultimately,
in most cases, it is not mutual;
one person makes the choice to leave
and the other person gets a broken heart.

Before that break occurs,
everything is agreed upon,
or, at least, tolerated.

In order to prevent that break,
some will try to bend, for good reason,
but it doesnt mean they are flexible.
They may break, just the same.

The thing that really interests me is,
you can look around and see relationships
bending in all sorts of ways, and these
compromises are often the results of
open, if not entirely honest, discussion.

It seems that, in most relationships,
one of the partners exercises more power
or more control over the decisions.

The other person agrees and bends,
and bends, and bends, -- why?
Because they are more mutable?
Because they are more feminine?
Because they have more love?
Because they want or need
the relationship more?
Or feel that they do?

Maybe some of those reasons,
or maybe other reasons entirely.
There is so much going on.

Couples discuss things all the time
without really discussing them.

For the first time in my life,
I'm experiencing a kind of honesty
and mutual feeling in my partnership
that alerts me to how imbalanced and
subtly dishonest many relationships are.

I'm very sensitive to unspoken things,
and so much of the discussions we have
involve ferreting out things that we
would otherwise leave unsaid.

I think communication
and discussion are key here,
but, at the same time,
it helps to be sensitive
to what someone is not saying,
or is unable to say; but which,
nonetheless, figures prominently
in their decision-making process.

We make compromises
when we feel we have to.
And, in order to hang on to
something more dear to us
than life itself,
we will make many choices
that we'd rather not make.

We kill ourselves,
not because we want to die,
but, because we don't want to
live under certain conditions.

In the same way,
we comprimise with partners,
not because we want to bend, but,
because we don't want to break.

These considerations are subtle,
but they seem significant to me.

I'm not yet sure how it all
fits together around the topic,
but it's definitely a loaded area.

Thanks for listening and
sharing your thoughts, AG

posted April 27, 2010 06:20 PM         

you've been in a relationship
with me since 2004, and I
didn't even know it.

oh man,
don't get me started.

How far down the rabbit hole
do you want to go?

How about the scorpion hole?

posted April 27, 2010 07:32 PM         

Nothing you have said is inflammatory, and I'm not sure why you think so, or why you're so tentative, apprehensive, and ginger, in your approach to getting involved in the discussion/debate. You have a lot of good things to say, and you say them well. I wish you'd say more.

LTT,

posted April 27, 2010 08:21 PM         

quote:

---

For instance, you seem to imply that, if a guy is "only" interested in you for sex, he is not a good guy. I don't see the logic there. Are you judging him because he is (only) sexually interested? Would you still judge him if he were upfront about that, or is it the ambiguity that upsets you? If a guy pretends to be interested in you for something else, in order to have sex with you, I'd agree, that's sketchy. But, then, what would you say to the guy who approached you and just said, "I think you're incredibly sexy and, if you're open to something with no strings attached, I'd love to have sex with you." Would you say anything, or just throw your drink in his face? Be honest. Is it any wonder so many men feign a different kind of interest before they make their intentions clear? So many women punish and judge them for being honest and direct. It kills the mood. What mood? The mood where she pretends he cares about her, so she can get aroused, right? If he's not interested in "more" than sex, a little pretense is just considered proper flirting etiquette, isn't it? And why? Because plenty of women will have sex with him, as long as he is not honest about "just" wanting sex from them. They don't really need him to want more from them, but the honesty is too caustic, too sordid, and they prefer a little illusion, even when they both know that's what it is. But often that understanding is not as clear as it may seem. Which brings us back to the difference between men and women.

---

I'm curious what AG would've said...

As for me, I'm weird, and as long as there wasn't an assumption I'd say "yes" (or get angry if I said "no") then I'd find such honesty quite refreshing. It's unlikely I'd take someone up on the offer (though I might have back in my experimental days), but I wouldn't throw anything at him or her.

Overall I can sympathize with what you're saying here, though I'd amend it with "men and women tend to prefer different illusions." (Keeping in mind that the general rule can easily fail when applied to the specific.)

quote:

---

But, yeah, what I meant in my response to you, -- or, rather, what the women who explained it to me meant, -- is that it has to do with how I say things. I tried to make that clear to you. I'm told my posts are too logical and blunt, and that this automatically sets some women against me, but that males seem to relate to my tone better. Maybe true, maybe not. I get what you're saying. My response to AG may clarify, too.

---

If anyone says your words are "too logical," I think what they mean is "devoid of romanticism." That's not quite the same thing, unless you're a Vulcan. And in some ways, sometimes, men can be even less practical than women regarding love, especially when it comes to finances.

But that's not what I've found annoying on this thread. Just for the record, one thing I dislike is how you tend to show men & women each as if we were all of one mind and inclination based on gender, though I've chosen to overlook that as it may be nothing more than the limitations of language which make it all too easy to generalize when it's not intended. Nevertheless, plenty of men do assume women are of a hive mind (granted, plenty of women can do the same to men) and that demeans our individuality, reducing us to an accident of birth and interchangeable component rather than as a person worth knowing.

But beyond that is you're pushing buttons based on experience we have with men who lie or worse to "get some."

As an example, when I was 15 I accepted a ride from a guy who I thought was being nice, just as I did nice things for people. He even bought me a pepsi, though I didn't ask for it. When we were near where I needed to be he pulled into a parking garage and demanded sex, saying I "owed" him, and I could either give him what I "owed" or he'd take it "the hard way."

My impulsive, teenage brain turned out to be a blessing then as I acted without thinking, fought my way out and threw the drink he got me at him and screamed up such a fit that he pulled out of there instead of trying to get me back into the car. And while this was extreme, I've met plenty of men who were this way, pretending to be nice just to get into my pants, and sometimes even menacing.

So when you talk about pretending to want more than sex just to get sex and move on and pretending to care about her more deeply, women like me think of like that guy who tried to rape me in his car, along with lesser jerks, and that rubs us the wrong way and can even bring up very unpleasant memories which translate into unpleasant reactions, especially if you sound much like those jerks (and worse).

posted April 27, 2010 08:29 PM         

And Emma Goldman got into a lot of trouble in the very early 20th century in large part for preaching free love and generally against marriage, like here:
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/goldman/aando/marriageandlove.html

quote:

---

In our present pygmy state love is indeed a stranger to most people. Misunderstood and shunned, it rarely takes root; or if it does, it soon withers and dies. Its delicate fiber can not endure the stress and strain of the daily grind. Its soul is too complex to adjust itself to the slimy woof of our social fabric. It weeps and moans and suffers with those who have need of it, yet lack the capacity to rise to love's summit.

Some day, some day men and women will rise, they will reach the mountain peak, they will meet big and strong and free, ready to receive, to partake, and to bask in the golden rays of love. What fancy, what imagination, what poetic genius can foresee even approximately the potentialities of such a force in the life of men and women. If the world is ever to give birth to true companionship and oneness, not marriage, but love will be the parent.

---

posted April 28, 2010 06:15 AM         

Thanks for sharing
your thoughts and experiences.

Generalizations aren't intended
but are par for the course, I guess.

Thanks for the recommendations.

quote:

---

Some day, some day men and women will rise, they will reach the mountain peak, they will meet big and strong and free, ready to receive, to partake, and to bask in the golden rays of love. What fancy, what imagination, what poetic genius can foresee even approximately the potentialities of such a force in the life of men and women. If the world is ever to give birth to true companionship and oneness, not marriage, but love will be the parent.

---

______________________________________

No worries, teasel.

You have email.

I just want to say, to this:

quote:

---

Someone on another board, mentioned someone close to them getting AIDS, because her husband had cheated on her. Some people have no problem abusing the trust of those who love them, as long as they're getting their kicks.

---

posted April 28, 2010 01:00 PM         

quote:

---

For instance, you seem to imply that, if a guy is "only" interested in you for sex, he is not a good guy. I don't see the logic there. Are you judging him because he is (only) sexually interested? Would you still judge him if he were upfront about that, or is it the ambiguity that upsets you? If a guy pretends to be interested in you for something else, in order to have sex with you, I'd agree, that's sketchy. But, then, what would you say to the guy who approached you and just said, "I think you're incredibly sexy and, if you're open to something with no strings attached, I'd love to have sex with you." Would you say anything, or just throw your drink in his face? Be honest. Is it any wonder so many men feign a different kind of interest before they make their intentions clear? So many women punish and judge them for being honest and direct. It kills the mood. What mood? The mood where she pretends he cares about her, so she can get aroused, right? If he's not interested in "more" than sex, a little pretense is just considered proper flirting etiquette, isn't it? And why? Because plenty of women will have sex with him, as long as he is not honest about "just" wanting sex from them. They don't really need him to want more from them, but the honesty is too caustic, too sordid, and they prefer a little illusion, even when they both know that's what it is. But often that understanding is not as clear as it may seem. Which brings us back to the difference between men and women.

---

I have a Sag Mercury and Venus, so honesty is big. They're in the 7th, though, so tact and respect are as well, and with Capricorn there's always that good, ol' decorum.

I wouldn't be impressed with either agreeing party if I were to see such an event play out...unless it was on the stage, in which case I might find the brash request funny.

Ironically, however, I have participated in scenarios near this. There hasn't been any formal agreement that it's just sex for the fun of it, but it's understood that nothing may come of it. In fact, in both of my most recent relationships I had sex with them the first day I met them. That's certainly worthy of some criticism by the more chaste. My only defense being that the relationships did grow from there into long term things. So, for me, I do possess the stereotypical male instincts, but I don't feel very stereotypical, and wouldn't dream of pressuring someone into sex, or more precisely I'd give up the idea of having sex with a person if they expressed any hesitation (as certain touching or getting undressed might be considered a type of subtle pressure). I don't want people to do what they don't want to do.

posted April 28, 2010 04:17 PM         

quote:

---

LTT,

Those are worthy considerations. Like Nietzsche, I think it's our responsibility to consider all sides of a question. That means trying to justify, rationalize, or reason-out perspectives other than our own. We can all come up with a few (and sometimes a great many) good reasons for our own perspective, -- but weighing those against "the other side" is what counts. I try to consider all the possibilities. I can imagine visions of utopian free love, where no person, and no relationship is more sacred than another, and I can imagine a perfect union of two souls, their eyes pure and utterly locked on each other. And I can imagine everything in between those two extremes, if I let myself go. There's so much possibility, and, ultimately, all we can really say is that we hope we'll know what the right path to take is, when we're confronted with an unexpected destiny.

---