|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 30, 2009 05:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What can screw things up?
Quote:
I'm going to date two girls now
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 05:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
No, I'm not picky. Do you jump on the first girl that dates you, Death? 
I only meant about the "not talking" being too picky, the rest was ok.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 06:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
No, I'm not picky. Do you jump on the first girl that dates you, Death?
I think he will.
Pretty much like grabbing what he can grab
That was in terrible taste.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 08:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No, I'm not picky. Do you jump on the first girl that dates you, Death?
I think he will.
Pretty much like grabbing what he can grab
That was in terrible taste.
That was good.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 08:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Silence can be good, but not at the start of a relationship. Heh, not the best date... But I personally love that part in a relationship when you don't have to blabber all the time anymore and you can just be silent and lay next to another <3
yeah that's great, I like it too, but romantic silence and I-don't-have-anything-to-say silence are very different things 
mvass, I don't have a problem with dating a few girls at the same time. It's not cheating. Once I'm in relationship though, it's really "other girls don't exist". Maybe it has to do with low libido anyway I'm 100% faithful. Always.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 08:23 PM |
|
|
I hear you man  Having nothing to say is not a good sign.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted June 30, 2009 09:27 PM |
|
|
Today I got stung in the chest. Felt good while it lasted
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 03:29 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 03:33, 01 Jul 2009.
|
Quote:
mvass, I don't have a problem with dating a few girls at the same time. It's not cheating.
sounds like cheating imo, unless each girl knows you are dating other girls at the same time.
also, I think, having a relationship with a girl, while you are more interested in another girl is cheating (even if you never did anything with the other girl)
many people consider cheating is about the acts. imo, it's about the feelings. if you lie to your feelings, you are cheating.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 08:54 AM |
|
|
We all fear the silence because we know that it might reveal us for what we are. Will the other person get a chance to actually see our flaws, and be repulsed? Better keep talking so that they might not realise we have nothing but empty banter. One of the best and truest ways to discover the potential in a relationship is to sit together and say nothing. If a relationship can survive a long period of time without saying a word (while together, seperate doesn't count) then it is truely a strong relationship.
____________
Message received.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 09:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
mvass, I don't have a problem with dating a few girls at the same time. It's not cheating.
sounds like cheating imo, unless each girl knows you are dating other girls at the same time.
also, I think, having a relationship with a girl, while you are more interested in another girl is cheating (even if you never did anything with the other girl)
many people consider cheating is about the acts. imo, it's about the feelings. if you lie to your feelings, you are cheating.
I think that's a bit too black-and-white.
I don't think humans from nature's side are really supposed to be monogamous. It's something our culture has forced down on us. I think for the majority it happens, at one time or another, that they'll be attracted to somebody other than who they are in a relationship with. That's not cheating, that's just nature.
In the end, being in a relationship is a lot about compromising (if not sacrificing) - thus not meaning that it's a negative thing, because it isn't, but there are some things you give up on also, and that's the cost.
My personal oppinion is that the whole fidelity thing plays too much of an importance in our culture. Not to say that people should just go around having sex with everybody (for some that works, but that's the minority) - but in many cases, people break up a loving relationship over some stupid act that had nothing to do with love, and that's really a pity. Of course, the problem is that for many of us, these things are so deeply hard-coded that we're unable to separate sex from love, even if we wanted to.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 09:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
My personal oppinion is that the whole fidelity thing plays too much of an importance in our culture. Not to say that people should just go around having sex with everybody (for some that works, but that's the minority) - but in many cases, people break up a loving relationship over some stupid act that had nothing to do with love, and that's really a pity. Of course, the problem is that for many of us, these things are so deeply hard-coded that we're unable to separate sex from love, even if we wanted to.
I find the inherent logic in here pretty faulty. If what you call a "loving relationship" breaks over something that has to do with having sex with another person, then said "loving relationship" must involve sex as well (if it wouldn't - a "platonic" loving relationship" - it wouldn't break up because of sex.
Usually, within a loving relationship the boundaries are defined: it is usually clear what a partner can't or won't stand, and if it actually IS a "loving relationship" it should be clear that those boundaries have to be respected (which becomes immediately clear if you apply that rule to non-sex issues).
So, IF in a loving relationship that involves sex as well something happens that you describe as "a stupid act that had nothing to do with love", then obviously the relationship cannot be so loving. Either the partners are no match (too different interests) or at least one of them doesn't care as much as that would require.
But that's not all of it. If it IS INDEED what you describe as "a stupid act that had to do nothing with love" - then you have to ask whether your loving relationship may be too much about "love" and not enough about sex.
Lastly, you have to ask whether you can really separate sex from love - if we are talking about relationships between grown-ups. Would anyone of us (I exclude TheDeath) who likes sex really want to live in a relationship with a person of their preferred gender without having sex with him or her? For the life of it - I can't imagine that; why would someone want or do that?
And how about the other way round? The sex is great - but somehow that's all you feel for him or her? How long is that supposed to last? A week? A month? A year?
So while I don't disagree with humans not being monogamic by nature, I don't see much in our society that would be "natural" (as in "left the way it was 10000 years ago). I suspect that this point is most of the time just a cheap excuse for drawing half-hearted consequences from a less than satisfactory situation (that may have deteriorated over some time).
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 10:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
sounds like cheating imo, unless each girl knows you are dating other girls at the same time.
How can you "cheat" on someone not in relationship with, or not even really interested in one yet, instead just curious about you and how would you do as potential boyfriend. Lol.
Think of it as an innocent chat in cafeteria. No high hopes, no expectations, no requirements. Just a test whether we can have a good time together or not.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 11:30 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I find the inherent logic in here pretty faulty. If what you call a "loving relationship" breaks over something that has to do with having sex with another person, then said "loving relationship" must involve sex as well (if it wouldn't - a "platonic" loving relationship" - it wouldn't break up because of sex.
Usually, within a loving relationship the boundaries are defined: it is usually clear what a partner can't or won't stand, and if it actually IS a "loving relationship" it should be clear that those boundaries have to be respected (which becomes immediately clear if you apply that rule to non-sex issues).
So, IF in a loving relationship that involves sex as well something happens that you describe as "a stupid act that had nothing to do with love", then obviously the relationship cannot be so loving. Either the partners are no match (too different interests) or at least one of them doesn't care as much as that would require.
But that's not all of it. If it IS INDEED what you describe as "a stupid act that had to do nothing with love" - then you have to ask whether your loving relationship may be too much about "love" and not enough about sex.
Lastly, you have to ask whether you can really separate sex from love - if we are talking about relationships between grown-ups. Would anyone of us (I exclude TheDeath) who likes sex really want to live in a relationship with a person of their preferred gender without having sex with him or her? For the life of it - I can't imagine that; why would someone want or do that?
And how about the other way round? The sex is great - but somehow that's all you feel for him or her? How long is that supposed to last? A week? A month? A year?
So while I don't disagree with humans not being monogamic by nature, I don't see much in our society that would be "natural" (as in "left the way it was 10000 years ago). I suspect that this point is most of the time just a cheap excuse for drawing half-hearted consequences from a less than satisfactory situation (that may have deteriorated over some time).
You can cut and turn the words.
My point is that when you are in a "loving" relationship, as I descriped it, you will (normally) have sex with this person also (if we're talking about a standard "marriage" relationship etc. etc. etc.). However, our cultural and/or religious norms dictate us that when you are such a relationship, not only will you have sex with this person, you will have sex only with this person.
I tried to explain that I think it's not very natural for humans to be restricted this was. Religious persons might call it sinful temptations etc., I'll call it natural drift.
Problem is our culture(/religion) is so rooted in us that many people can't really separate sex from love, even if we wanted to and it would make relationships much more simple. Some people can, but many can't (and many won't!).
However, my personal belief is that just because you have sex with someone else doesn't necesarily mean you don't love the person you're in relationship with - although sometimes that will be the case. Or put the other way around, just because you have sex with someone, that does not mean you love them.
Of course that's not saying you should just do it, because you will be likely to hurt the one you're with, due to that person's cultural(/religious) heritage, which would make it a bad act. But sometimes bad things happen (more or less conciously), and I think sometimes people are too rigid in their consequences for such actions.
Of course, different circumstances apply to different situations, but it was just a general point that you can not always cut things in equal squares of black and white and saying "this is how it is".
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 11:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
sounds like cheating imo, unless each girl knows you are dating other girls at the same time.
How can you "cheat" on someone not in relationship with, or not even really interested in one yet, instead just curious about you and how would you do as potential boyfriend. Lol.
Think of it as an innocent chat in cafeteria. No high hopes, no expectations, no requirements. Just a test whether we can have a good time together or not.
Again, you guys are going too literal on the exact meaning of the words.
The point is: Would she be hurt if she found out?
If you consider this question and your best guess is: "No", then no problem.
However, if your evaluation is "Yes", then you're doing a wrong thing, because she might potentially be hurt.
It all cuts down to honesty in the end. As long as you play your cards open with respects for the other person's fealings, there's no-one to say exactly how to do it and how not to do it.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 11:49 AM |
|
|
Although I consider myself a very spiritual person I agree with Alcibiades. Jealousy to me is just a forein concept. While I understand people do get jealous, and why, I just don't see the point of it. Its just like the anti-nudity thing. We were born nude, why so prudish about it? Just does not compute  . We are not in the 1700's any more.
I think a lot of it is double standards and ego. I won't go into that, however, not the place.
____________
Message received.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 11:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Although I consider myself a very spiritual person I agree with Alcibiades. Jealousy to me is just a forein concept. While I understand people do get jealous, and why, I just don't see the point of it.
Problem with jealosy comes when people with (radical) different views on the nature of relationships team up. If one wants more freedom than the other and doesn't respect his/her limits, the other person will get hurt and jealous.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 11:56 AM |
|
|
Very true. You must always respect your partners view on the matter as well. Humans are one of the more adaptable species, so sometimes we have to adapt
____________
Message received.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 12:20 PM |
|
|
@ Alcibiades
Well, I did realize what you meant, but I still think, it's too superficial a view.
Let's see. Right, it is possible to have sex with someone without loving him or her, sure. Consequence of attraction. In the best of situations you are NOT living with anyone you share the bed with, but instead alone or with one or more friends (of your not-preferred sex). In this situation it is of course possible to even have more than one - let's call it affair - at the same time.
There is of course nothing wrong with living that way, and that lifestyle is not unusual among young people. In fact I would even advise younger people to avoid concentrating on serious relations.
However, I think that this situation changes if the feelings of one person for another (and ideally vice versa) culminate into the wish to share more time with each other - the indicator for which is usually the wish to share a flat. This may be fuelled by ideas about children, the simple fact that increased work won't allow the time to cruise around town, looking for adventure or simply the wish to explore another person a little bit deeper.
But whatever the reason, as soon two people MUTUALLY decide to overstep a certain boundary of intimacy it's clear that every change of "balance" within this shared intimacy needs MUTUAL consent - it doesn't matter IN THAT SITUATION, that humans are not monogamic by nature, because here is a lot more involved than a little bit of sex.
I don't think that this has to with religion and so on; my opinion is that it has more to do with the fact that a relationship involves a lot more than sex. It's no happenstance that most divorces are mean and dirty wars. You usually won't tell someone you know a week and have slept with once all your secrets, and humans are complex and have many times. Building a relationship means that the deeper it is the more you share, and bringing in other persons UNIlaterally is pretty difficult to handle emotionally.
Since people usually are working, they have limited time as well and can't put all their energies into handling these emotions, steering all the cliffs and so on.
To sum it up: I think, that from a certain stage onwards, a relationship needs mutual consent if something characterictic is to be altered, changed or added to. This true for more than two persons as well - whether with sex or without sex: If a couple of friends meet regularly once a week, sharing intimate details of their life while drinking a beer and playing a game or something, you can't just go ahead and surprise everyone, bringing in a guest.
And if you are part of some menage a trois or a foursome, there will come the point as well after some time, when a certain level of "relationship" has been reached, that changes will have to mutually agreed with or split the grouping.
So while humans are indeed not monogamic by nature, I think, this "it could all be so much easier if", would need to see humans a lot less complex structured, emotionally and life a lot easier and more primitive.
|
|
alcibiades
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
of Gold Dragons
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 12:26 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker ... I think we are having a lot of the same points, but we reach two different conclusions. I guess that just underscores that what's right for one person is not the same for another.
You say relationships are more than sex. That's exactly my point; being that: Why is it we see (so often) that sex must be the bane of all the rest?
My point is just because one part has sex with someone else, it doesn't necessarily have to disrupt anything, much less everything else there is in the relationship. After all, it's just sex.
The reasons for doing it is much more important than the action itself, if you ask me.
____________
What will happen now?
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted July 01, 2009 12:30 PM |
|
|
A good read JJ. I agree to it, but you are talking about a situation before cheating and Alchi is talking about handling cheating. I agree with both of you actually - I think an affair is overrated, in a sense that you throw 5 years away when your partner had sex with someone else. It is a bit excessive over an act that is just pleasure (there are no feelings involved)
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
