Acting Goofy

From SS post https://www.scivillage.com/thread-5773-p...l#pid21845

Quote:..............
It’s a biological trick. We have been selected for desiring. Nothing could have convinced us by argument that it would be worthwhile to chase endlessly and insatiable after women, but something has transformed us from within, a plasmid has invaded our DNA, has twisted our nature so that now this is exactly what we want to do. But we did not choose a nature that would have such wants that would send us careening after women, fatuously, self-destructively, through all the days of our lives. Never, never would we, looking at the consequences, choose such a lemming nature. It was pressed upon us while we slept.
............

If I had been articulater I might even have written that (or something similar). Yup.

I feel this should be a starting point for discussion not an ending point. Ideally someone wiser or cleverer or just nicer than me will take over. In the worst case scenario I will take up arms on behalf of those I love, admire, work with, or just pass in the street.

Both sexes have been selected for desiring, just with different criteria. Because the desires of women are no less lemming-like in their careening, and arguably, even more so.

(Jul 22, 2018 07:48 PM)Syne Wrote: Men have no problem being friends with other men, who they can really understand and relate to. Women just don't offer that kind of value as friends, nor are men emotionally needy enough to require friends regardless of their value.

Don’t kid yourself, sweetie. We are your mode of valuation.

Syne Wrote:Why don't you just find some gay friends? You know, instead of always sounding like a bitter misandrist.

Why don't you just find some gay friends? You know, instead of always sounding like a bitter misogynist.

"There are several reasons why men were so damn affectionate with each other back in the day. First, men were free to have affectionate man relationships with each other without fear of being called a “queer” because the concept of homosexuality as we know it today didn’t exist then. America didn’t have the strict straight/gay dichotomy that currently exists.

The term “homosexuality” was in fact not coined until 1869, and before that time, the strict dichotomy between “gay” and “straight” did not yet exist. Attraction to, and sexual activity with other men was thought of as something you did, not something you were.

But at the turn of the 20th century, the idea of homosexuality shifted from a practice to a lifestyle and an identity."

https://www.artofmanliness.com/articles/...affection/

(Jul 24, 2018 06:21 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jul 22, 2018 07:48 PM)Syne Wrote: Men have no problem being friends with other men, who they can really understand and relate to. Women just don't offer that kind of value as friends, nor are men emotionally needy enough to require friends regardless of their value.

Don’t kid yourself, sweetie. We are your mode of valuation.

And that's absolutely true for the vast majority of men. But the vast majority of men are also minute men. They've been conditioned by society to have a more external locus of identity and validity (and to be the effect sexually), more akin to that of women...which women do not find attractive.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Why don't you just find some gay friends? You know, instead of always sounding like a bitter misandrist.

Why don't you just find some gay friends? You know, instead of always sounding like a bitter misogynist.

So since you think you know what you want, but refuse to actually define what that is, you think I hate women?
I actually want women to have what they really need and nourishes them emotionally, instead of the deeply unsatisfying things they think and claim.

Quote:"There are several reasons why men were so damn affectionate with each other back in the day. First, men were free to have affectionate man relationships with each other without fear of being called a “queer” because the concept of homosexuality as we know it today didn’t exist then. America didn’t have the strict straight/gay dichotomy that currently exists.

The term “homosexuality” was in fact not coined until 1869, and before that time, the strict dichotomy between “gay” and “straight” did not yet exist. Attraction to, and sexual activity with other men was thought of as something you did, not something you were.

But at the turn of the 20th century, the idea of homosexuality shifted from a practice to a lifestyle and an identity."

Again, absolutely true. In antiquity, wives were solely for children and boys were for fun. Judaeo-Christian values actually made male-female relations and marriage much more scintillating. It gave women the leverage to actually have a chance at equality...having more value than just offspring. The Judaeo-Christian values of the people who founded America did have this strict dichotomy from day one. It just didn't have that coined named. It was more just depraved hedonism.

But again, this just seems like a huge non sequitur for you to avoid defining what "nice guy" traits you think you're attracted to.

(Jul 25, 2018 12:29 AM)Syne Wrote: So since you think you know what you want, but refuse to actually define what that is, you think I hate women?

We need one of those swoosh (over the head) emoticons.

You're actually half-aware of the solution.

Syne Wrote:Learn to accept the world as it is rather than how you wish it to be.

Replace 'world' with 'woman'.

Syne Wrote:Judaeo-Christian values actually made male-female relations and marriage much more scintillating. It gave women the leverage to actually have a chance at equality...having more value than just offspring.

 
 

Syne Wrote:Being of "one flesh" has nothing to do with taking anyone for granted. It's about people joining in a way that compliments their individual traits. Dreamers with the grounded, emotional with the logical, etc..

I think you mean complements.  Want a little advice? I wouldn’t use the word 'dreamer' or 'emotional'.  It might give women the wrong impression.  It makes you sound like you’re a needy sloth.  

When two become one—connection can no longer happen. There is no one to connect with—no Other to enter.

Good luck! *thumbs up*

(Jul 25, 2018 05:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote:

(Jul 25, 2018 12:29 AM)Syne Wrote: So since you think you know what you want, but refuse to actually define what that is, you think I hate women?

We need one of those swoosh (over the head) emoticons.

You're actually half-aware of the solution.

I'm not the one here whining about not being able to get opposite-sex friends...and blaming the opposite sex for it.
All the while completely unable to define what you're attracted to.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Learn to accept the world as it is rather than how you wish it to be.

Replace 'world' with 'woman'.

Take your own advice. Until you can tell us what "nice guy" traits you find attractive, we have no reason to believe you even know what a woman, yourself included, really wants...even though it's betrayed by your actions.

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Judaeo-Christian values actually made male-female relations and marriage much more scintillating. It gave women the leverage to actually have a chance at equality...having more value than just offspring.

 
 

You think it's sick for women to be viewed as more than baby factories? O_o
What's wrong with you? O_o

Quote:

Syne Wrote:Being of "one flesh" has nothing to do with taking anyone for granted. It's about people joining in a way that compliments their individual traits. Dreamers with the grounded, emotional with the logical, etc..

I think you mean complements.  Want a little advice? I wouldn’t use the word 'dreamer' or 'emotional'.  It might give women the wrong impression.  It makes you sound like you’re a needy sloth.  

When two become one—connection can no longer happen. There is no one to connect with—no Other to enter.

Good luck! *thumbs up*

LOL! I used "dreamer" and "emotional" as example female descriptors to complement the example male ones.

If you think people actually become one, you're a dolt.

(Jul 24, 2018 01:04 AM)confused2 Wrote: I feel this should be a starting point for discussion not an ending point. 

I know you like to stir the pot but this one is thick.

It’s only fun when they can detect it. 

(Jul 25, 2018 06:57 PM)Syne Wrote: LOL! I used "dreamer" and "emotional" as example female descriptors to complement the example male ones.

If you think people actually become one, you're a dolt.  

I don’t have the heart. 

Back to the birds.

All the unanswered questions of things you'd rather not face about yourself.

And try to cover it with jokes and trolling.

(Jul 25, 2018 11:08 PM)Syne Wrote: And try to cover it with jokes and trolling.

Woah, you do have a sense of humor after all.  Trolling...now that is funny coming from you.  

No, dearie, it's just your two-dimensional understanding. You see a word and the context blurs. What, do you think you’re Robin Thicke or something?

Wheelis sort of violated the man code, didn’t he?

Quote:I know what they want. They want to be understood, but this was not my object, is not for me essential. I could live without it.

Syne Wrote:Another self-justifying caricature. As a women, you are primarily an EMOTIONAL BEING relative to men. You are not as constrained to the linear, logical thought processes men are most familiar with. As such men find male friends more comprehensible and relatable.

We’re not sexual beings, nor emotional beings. We’re three dimensional beings.

Imagine how frustrating it would be for a three dimensional being...

The Y chromosome is a hall of mirrors—an inverted-reverse sequence—a palindromic sequence—equal to its reverse complement.  It’s your reversed image. You can’t create us in your image. We’re not your complement. We are more than the sum of our genes.

Syne Wrote:You actually have an opportunity to grow here, if you can get out of your own way.

Oh dear!   

This is dripping with irony, but this is exactly why I think that so many people have trouble understanding Nietzsche.


He wanted us to think metaphorically about gender by gendering genre but we couldn’t get out of our own way.  It’s the same reason that Goethe never fully understood Newton’s explanation.  He glanced through a prism, noticed a reversed spectrum, and trusted his observation.  Yep, clumsy clamoring. Similar to how you handle topics with your perpetual pawing.

Like I said, we look for the same qualities that we look for in friends.  Jason Momoa comes to mind. He's got a few bestie qualites.  

C2 probably know this.  Who’s your bestie, C2?

(Jun 25, 2018 08:41 PM)Syne Wrote: Few people in general are highly intelligent (which is why intelligent people tend to have fewer friends of either gender).

Maybe it’s just fear.  The fear of being misunderstood.