10 replies to this topic

[J-Roc]

Heh, I think this might be the thread to cause some violence (finally).

http://www.rooshv.co...ability-to-love

Read attached article entitled Women Who Own iPhones Lose the Ability to Love. It reflects a lot of thoughts that been running through my mind lately, and perhaps that's just discontent in singledom talking but there seems to be some extreme negative shit coming along with this techno age, but I guess we already knew that.

Thoughts?

[Kisseena]

*reads this from iPhone*

Yeah, I'm just gonna go before I read that.

[Sir Turtlelot]

Perhaps I'm just really detached from reality, but that article made very little sense. Too many generalizations for me to consider it credible, I suppose.

[Sir Deimos]

I don't think it's entirely true. Technology doesn't change how much interaction women have with men.

[Selena]

That article is laughably dumb and borderline offensive.

To use the crass language of the article, just because you flirt with us via facebook does not, under any circumstances, mean we want to ride your cock. Or any other genitalia. In fact, most women tend to outright ignore blatant digital flirtation like that. With optional disgusted eyeroll. Guys (or girls) trying to pick you up on facebook/whatever is pretty much like emails from that Nigerian prince guy - obnoxious spam that instantly goes in the trash. Or even if you're regularly in touch and they happen to try and pick you up via text or calls.

There are more options for romantic partners in this day and age, but being stuck with someone just because you have no other option isn't exactly what I'd call genuine interest. You want your girl/guy to stick with you? Earn it. Being comfortable doesn't mean the affection stops. If you slack off, they're going to go for someone who will actually put forth some effort.

If the girl likes you, she'll bang you. If she doesn't, she won't. The end.


edit: Of course, looking at the other articles on that site, I'm also not surprised. That's precisely the type of dude I want to punch right in the nuts. And if I weren't naturally gay, those sort of assholes would be a leading cause for me to switch teams anyway. Trying way too hard.

[Hana-Nezumi]

WTF is this chauvinistic bullshit? Barf-o-rama.

[Oberon Storm]

I couldn't get pass the first paragraph before I colsed it. This article is crap and nothing more needs to be said.

[Fëanen]

I couldn't get pass the first paragraph before I colsed it. This article is crap and nothing more needs to be said.

I made it to Paragraph 3 before the amount of wrong made my stomach churn. Granted, one of my grandfathers was a workaholic who ended up in a messy divorce and the other was an alcoholic who killed himself and may have been contemplating taking his wife and kids with him, so the first paragraph was certainly very cringeworthy.

My slight skimmings of the rest gave me equal hints of sexism, arrogance and bitterness. Maybe girls aren't sticking with this chap because he's a grade-A, board certified jerk. Just a thought.

[J-Roc]

The people have spoken

[SOAP]

I tried to go in with an open mind to see if he had a valid point beneath the overt sexism. I think what he's trying to say that smartphones oversaturate a woman's senses with constant bombardment of virtual sexual offerings that if they'll be desensitized to real thing. They'll think to themselves "Whoa! I'm hot shit! Why do I need you around when I have all these offers, from guys way hotter than you!?" Sorta like how some people say that all the free porn online makes men desensitized to what real life women have to offer. The easier access creates an unrealistic standard of what real love/sex is supposed to be.

I guess whether his argument has any merit depends on whether you believe porn affects men's (or women's) ability to love either. I suppose it can, taken to unhealthy extremes. It's kinda like fast food. If all you eat is McDonalds and Taco Bell all the time just because it's easier and quicker than cooking at home, then yeah you're keeping yourself from experiencing the joys and benefits of a properly prepared homecooked meal. It might also leave you with unrealistic expectations, such as going to a quality restaurant and getting pissed because the food isn't ready in three minutes and isn't saturated in fat and sodium.

But then the correlation kinda falls apart when you realize that unlike surfing the web for porn or buying fast food, online flirting is largely unsolicited, or at least, they don't have any control over how many guys flood their inbox. They can only block each guy one by one. Either that or shut off their phones internet but then that defeats the purpose of a smartphone for most people. Like Lena said, it's just spam. If it has any affect on a woman's capability to truly love, it lead her to believe men are bigger pigs than before and might shorten her patience when dealing with men in real life. Which goes back to men needing to cool it when dealing with women, online or off.

[Manifold_Usurper]

I was thinking it was trolling in disguise, until he mentioned Croatia. Slovenians are clearly more socially evolved (I kid I kid).

People should seek to obscure their personal prejudices one level subtler. Gender? Pshaw. I think in finer categories of human beings.

I walk around going, "man, white people have a stick up their asses".

[Nevermind]

Fuck yeah.


Girls have germs.

[SOAP]

Fuck yeah.


Girls have germs.

Technically they do, as do guys. It's actually a good thing.

[Nevermind]

Yeah okay, welcome to the party, Captain Pooper.

[J-Roc]

I should digress and say that while I don't believe in taking this as a blanket statement for all women I certainly have met women that would fit the caricature that the author is going after. The reason I found the logic so interesting was because if it were to actually hold true in a blanket statement kind of way we would be pretty much looking at the end of true love and a massively different social landscape which regardless of whether this guy is a douche or not makes for some interesting thinking.

More and more people I meet kind of hint at some kind of massive social change being in progress or coming shortly, perhaps thats it. And there do seem to be a lot more fuckwads out there nowadays.

[Selena]

The reason I found the logic so interesting was because if it were to actually hold true in a blanket statement kind of way we would be pretty much looking at the end of true love and a massively different social landscape which regardless of whether this guy is a douche or not makes for some interesting thinking.

Arguably, there never was true love. There were people stuck with each other due to economics prior to the modern day, or people stuck together because they were born in the same town and travel was out of the question, so you paired up with the local person least likely to tick you off. That's just learning to cope with no alternatives - especially for women, who didn't have stable incomes unless they were hookers.

In the modern day, it's typical to have multiple marriages throughout your lifetime. Even couples who were googly-eyed and lovestruck at the start of their relationships break up after a number of years, and then you move on to a second marriage - many of which are more fulfilling than the first one. Sometimes you don't meet "the one," if that's such a thing, until you're elderly. Does that mean you shouldn't have a family life in your early years? You learn something from every relationship. You always grow. So even if there isn't "true love" or a "soul mate," then every person you ever loved has left some kind of imprint on you, and just because you split up with someone doesn't mean you can't cherish the happiness you had early on.


There are two big social changes at work: Female equality and social media.

Female equality means the womenfolk are finally allowed the freedom to pretty much do what they want - something that's been impossible until just recently. We were either forced to stick with a husband we didn't necessarily like in order to have a roof over our heads, or we were bound by strict social rules that prevented us from having flings/working/voting/speaking out of turn.

So, because we're finally free to do what we want, we're also no longer trying really hard to win husbands during our teen years or early 20's. That used to be the only objective of a young woman's life - our only job. We no longer have to force ourselves to tolerate that arrangement. Because we don't have to. We're allowed to have our careless flings - screw and move on. We're allowed to dump people without hesitation if we're no longer happy. We're allowed to date each other!

To use the author's theme, women are no longer prizes in the "game." They are active players. And yes, the constant attention and the constant offers will keep women on the look-out for better options. But only if they're unsatisfied with their current arrangement. So, yeah, you will have to keep your wife happy for the rest of your life if you want to keep her. Tough luck for anyone who doesn't want to put for that effort.

And, of course, the author is complaining about being "bumped off" by other men directly after saying how he did the exact same thing to some girls he picked up. So he's just butthurt that women are free to act just like he does, rather than acting like adoring fangirls who hang on his every word.


As for social media, it just means people in general are less likely to settle for second best - like the old folks who had to pick the least annoying person in town to marry. There's a whole world in that phone, and it allows you to meet people who you really get along with. Double-edged sword. On the one side, you find more suitable partners. On the other side, you become less social on a day-to-day basis. Fewer people are walking around town and meeting strangers on the street.

Not just with relationships, but with politics and other things too - you become less tolerant of immediate neighbors and instead look to find similar opinions around the entire world.

[Mark]

The reason I found the logic so interesting was because if it were to actually hold true in a blanket statement kind of way we would be pretty much looking at the end of true love and a massively different social landscape which regardless of whether this guy is a douche or not makes for some interesting thinking.

Arguably, there never was true love.

...

Female equality means the womenfolk are finally allowed the freedom to pretty much do what they want - something that's been impossible until just recently. We were either forced to stick with a husband we didn't necessarily like in order to have a roof over our heads, or we were bound by strict social rules that prevented us from having flings/working/voting/speaking out of turn.

So, because we're finally free to do what we want, we're also no longer trying really hard to win husbands during our teen years or early 20's. That used to be the only objective of a young woman's life - our only job. We no longer have to force ourselves to tolerate that arrangement. Because we don't have to. We're allowed to have our careless flings - screw and move on. We're allowed to dump people without hesitation if we're no longer happy. We're allowed to date each other!

To use the author's theme, women are no longer prizes in the "game." They are active players. And yes, the constant attention and the constant offers will keep women on the look-out for better options. But only if they're unsatisfied with their current arrangement. So, yeah, you will have to keep your wife happy for the rest of your life if you want to keep her. Tough luck for anyone who doesn't want to put for that effort.

And I thus conclude that a man should NEVER give an inch of loyalty to any woman - for they are not deserving of it.

if there is any realization yet to happen, I dare-say that this is it.

[Sir Deimos]

What? How did you come to that conclusion!? Women are no more, or no less, trustworthy than men. We're all human. Trustworthiness isn't something owned by having a penis.

[Mark]

and I craft my words carefully (if with some emphasis) - i said 'loyalty' not 'trust'.

[Twinrova]

What you said is still fucked up. Why is it that no woman is deserving of a man's loyalty but not the other way around?

[Mark]

and if selena's generalisations are apt, then so too is my comment taken generally.
I said nothing about the situation the other way around.

[Twinrova]

I said nothing about the situation the other way around.

That's kind of the problem. I don't see how the social changes going on mean that only women don't deserve any loyalty. Honestly in my opinion I think if a woman decides she wants to be with you and only you these days, that should mean she deserves MORE of your loyalty...because out of the thousands upon thousands of options she had, she chose you. Rather than just being stuck with you because you were her ONLY option. I'm just really not understanding where you're coming from.

[Mark]

Arguably, there never was true love. ...

So, because we're finally free to do what we want ... We're allowed to have our careless flings - screw and move on. We're allowed to dump people without hesitation if we're no longer happy. We're allowed to date each other!

To use the author's theme, women are no longer prizes in the "game." They are active players. And yes, the constant attention and the constant offers will keep women on the look-out for better options. But only if they're unsatisfied with their current arrangement. So, yeah, you will have to keep your wife happy for the rest of your life if you want to keep her. Tough luck for anyone who doesn't want to put for that effort.

If selena is correct in saying (generally) that women will "look-out for better options" if they become "unsatisfied with their current arrangement".
and that if a bloke wants to "keep her" that he will "have" to "keep her happy for the rest of his life"

'she' is not being loyal to 'him'. and therefore I say that 'she' is not deserving of 'his' loyalty.

Edited by Mark, 01 November 2012 - 11:19 AM.

[Steel Samurai]

How far do you take the concept of loyalty? What if he's beating the shit out of her on a nightly basis?

These misbegotten views of loyalty are what land people in perennially unpleasant relationships.

[Twinrova]

Arguably, there never was true love. ...

So, because we're finally free to do what we want ... We're allowed to have our careless flings - screw and move on. We're allowed to dump people without hesitation if we're no longer happy. We're allowed to date each other!

To use the author's theme, women are no longer prizes in the "game." They are active players. And yes, the constant attention and the constant offers will keep women on the look-out for better options. But only if they're unsatisfied with their current arrangement. So, yeah, you will have to keep your wife happy for the rest of your life if you want to keep her. Tough luck for anyone who doesn't want to put for that effort.

If selena is correct in saying (generally) that women will "look-out for better options" if they become "unsatisfied with their current arrangement".
and that if a bloke wants to "keep her" that he will have to "keep her happy for the rest of his life"

'she' is not being loyal to 'him'. and therefore I say that 'she' is not deserving of 'his' loyalty.

If you're not willing to put forth the effort to be a loving, caring, supportive partner for your woman, do you really expect her to want to stick around? If you're not being the person she needs you to be I would argue that YOU are not being loyal to HER. Relationships can't work if only one person is putting forth any effort.

[Mark]

How far do you take the concept of loyalty? What if he's beating the shit out of her on a nightly basis?

These misbegotten views of loyalty are what land people in perennially unpleasant relationships.

Good. the question becomes how much loyalty in that case.

EDIT: In truth I think that most people want to spend their life with more than a 'fair-weather' friend. the question of how much more enduring the friend - i think - is a measure of loyalty.

Arguably, there never was true love. ...

So, because we're finally free to do what we want ... We're allowed to have our careless flings - screw and move on. We're allowed to dump people without hesitation if we're no longer happy. We're allowed to date each other!

To use the author's theme, women are no longer prizes in the "game." They are active players. And yes, the constant attention and the constant offers will keep women on the look-out for better options. But only if they're unsatisfied with their current arrangement. So, yeah, you will have to keep your wife happy for the rest of your life if you want to keep her. Tough luck for anyone who doesn't want to put for that effort.

If selena is correct in saying (generally) that women will "look-out for better options" if they become "unsatisfied with their current arrangement".
and that if a bloke wants to "keep her" that he will have to "keep her happy for the rest of his life"

'she' is not being loyal to 'him'. and therefore I say that 'she' is not deserving of 'his' loyalty.

If you're not willing to put forth the effort to be a loving, caring, supportive partner for your woman, do you really expect her to want to stick around? If you're not being the person she needs you to be I would argue that YOU are not being loyal to HER. Relationships can't work if only one person is putting forth any effort.

and if 'she' is going to "look-out for other options" when she becomes "unsatisfied with her current arrangement" - just as I may "look-out for other options" when I become "unsatisfied with my current arrangement" in my backwards part-time job - what loyalty is there?

If I fail to keep her happy then "tough".

Edited by Mark, 01 November 2012 - 11:36 AM.

[Egann]

Yeah, there's a couple bits of half-truths in what the author of the article says...but goodness gracious, the rest of the stuff is a lost cause.

First off, smartphones do hamper relationships...because when someone pulls one out, it projects a bubble. It makes the person difficult to approach when they're plugged into the phone and only peripherally paying attention to anything else.

Second, the real threat to relationships isn't the smartphone, but pornography and vibrators. It's counter-intuitive, but this stuff is very addicting and much more potent than the real thing. It literally re-wires the brain, makes an actual partner less attractive, and creates sexual dysfunction. Pornography can even use orgasms to warp sexual tastes over time and create fetishes that aren't real. That explains rule 34, I guess.

You can think of these as using the brain's own chemistry to create cocaine. They even have withdrawl symptoms. In fact, here's a website dedicated to porn recovery run by a neuroscientist, if you're interested. Here's an interesting tidbit from an older article.

Today's mainstream advice erroneously insists that sexual tastes are immutable, porn harmless, and erectile problems in twenty-somethings perfectly normal and unrelated to porn use. (Huh?)

In any case, on discussion...

Arguably, there never was true love. There were people stuck with each other due to economics prior to the modern day, or people stuck together because they were born in the same town and travel was out of the question, so you paired up with the local person least likely to tick you off. That's just learning to cope with no alternatives - especially for women, who didn't have stable incomes unless they were hookers.
...
To use the author's theme, women are no longer prizes in the "game." They are active players. And yes, the constant attention and the constant offers will keep women on the look-out for better options.

That is both very pessimistic and a gross overgeneralization. While yes, women can be active players these days and are given better options... most women I've seen don't know if they want to be chased or to do the chasing. They're just plain confused. They're not forced into a relationship for economics sake, many want stable, long-term relationships...and remember how earlier I mentioned that pornography made relationships difficult? Something like 70% of men under 25 regularly visit porn sites. Men aren't chasing and women don't know why.

Furthermore, the real problems with relationships (and why so many started to become undone in the 50's) is that, for relationships to stick, they either need to be forced or maintained. Most people don't know how to maintain their relationships, or even care. It's not like things before the 50's were entirely doom and gloom; sexuality can be channeled and controlled, and even changed over time and use.

Edited by Egann, 01 November 2012 - 11:38 AM.

[SOAP]

Whoa whoa WHOA! That escalated rather quick, guys.

Let's see if I understand where Mark is coming from (since I seem to like trying figure out what he trying to say whenever he shows up and makes things a little more interesting)

I think what he means is that previously, a man's loyalty was needed to make a relationship work whereas a woman's loyalty was pretty much a given (lacking access to better oppurtunities, ect). I guess a woman would earn a man's loyalty the same way a man earns a woman's trust. But since the playing field is more even now, both sides should put all the bullshit aside and not expect anything more than what's on the surface.

Personally, I think it should be the other way around. There's still a need for loyalty, even if you don't believe in monogamy and "true love", there's still STD's and AID's and unwanted pregnancies... So really both men and women need to ear each others loyalty (and trust). The best way I can think of it now is that the gender dynamic has changed where both men and women play both the "man" AND the "woman" in the whole relationship game. In other words, congradulations heterosexuals, you're the new homosexuals. Welcome aboard.

[Selena]

And I thus conclude that a man should NEVER give an inch of loyalty to any woman - for they are not deserving of it.

if there is any realization yet to happen, I dare-say that this is it.

[etc., etc.]

If you aren't willing to be a supportive partner or show your partner affection for the rest of their life, then you've got no business being in a long-term relationship to begin with. This is true for both men and women. This does not mean that every day has to be like some dramatic fairy tale. This does not mean you have to do over-the-top shows of romance on a regular basis. This does not mean you have to be some sort of slave.

It's the little things that count in relationships that last. You have to make your partner feel appreciated - which can be done with a simple look, really. A squeeze on the shoulders. A peck on the cheek. You should still take them out for dates every once and a while. Nothing fancy. Even just a scenic walk. You need to communicate and share things. A lot of marriages end because all the couple does is come home after work and crash on the couch. They seldom talk to each other - the bond between them eventually fades. You shouldn't just outright stop the "courting" phase just because you've ball-and-chained someone.

Basically, if you get married with the idea that you can do anything you want and have your partner stay loyal, your marriage probably isn't going to last long. That's a holdout from the days where you weren't allowed to end your marriage.

And for every woman who left her husband for a more attentive man, there's a husband who left his wife for a more attentive woman. It's not one gender.

You should still give every serious relationship your all. But it's not good to be dependent, and there's no need to act like it's the end of the world when it's over.

That is both very pessimistic and a gross overgeneralization.

It is.

To the gross over-generalization bit: Yeah, there are couples who make it for an entire lifetime. Good for them. I would like to be one of them. Almost everyone wants that. Granted, not all couples who make it last for a lifetime are even remotely happy about it, but some are, and that's amazing.

On the charge of pessimism, I'd prefer call it "realism." I've never idealized marriage -- I've just observed the marriages and other long-term relationships around me. Most of them start off strong. Positive. Everyone with the best of intentions and a true desire to commit. Sickening displays of affection. Then, well, time passes. My boss recently had her husband cheat on her with a younger woman after 20+ years of marriage. My mother is trapped in an utterly loveless and destructive marriage that leaves everyone unhappy even though they've "stayed together for the kid" like all good, upstanding people are meant to do. Another coworker recently ended marriage #3 after the nice man she was hitched to kidnapped her, drugged her, raped her, stabbed her, and left her to die. ..Granted that last one doesn't happen too often.

And then, of course, you've got relationships that appear pleasant in public but are abusive in private. But I'm sure nobody's really impressed by anecdotal arguments. In the end, spending time around other couples has left me a bit guarded. At the same time, it's taught me how rare and precious a lifelong relationship is. It's something to strive for, but it takes hard work and the right type of pairing.

Furthermore, the real problems with relationships (and why so many started to become undone in the 50's) is that, for relationships to stick, they either need to be forced or maintained. Most people don't know how to maintain their relationships, or even care.

So... what? If people are unable to maintain relationships, are forced marriages are somehow better than just moving on? And even if not, why is marriage that important, especially after all the kids have grown up and moved out?

It's not like things before the 50's were entirely doom and gloom; sexuality can be channeled and controlled, and even changed over time and use.

Yeah, my women's health book from the Victorian Era says the same thing. Next to the chapter on hysteria, and we all know what caused that.

Second, the real threat to relationships isn't the smartphone, but pornography and vibrators.

Oh, but plenty of women would say that vibrators are the only reason they can stay in their relationships.

In seriousness, though, I'm not saying porn addiction isn't a "thing." It is. But I don't think it's quite as destructive as you're making it out to be. At least not worthy of being called a leading cause of relationship malfunction.

I can't speak for men and their love of porn. I'm obviously not a man, and I don't really watch porn. Although if porn was that destructive, no man on LA would be in a relationship.

As for vibrators or the power of masturbation in general, I'm sure the argument is something along the lines of being unsatisfied with your man because you've trained yourself to be satisfied by a machine with limitless stamina (or yourself). Masturbation is arguably a good thing, though. Women learn what they like, how to get off quickly, and they may even be more sensitive to stimulation because the muscles have been conditioned. It may actually be easier to please a woman who masturbates on a regular basis.

There's also the fact that intercourse, while very pleasing for the male, is not necessarily too stimulating for the female. Women are more likely to reach orgasm via manual or oral stimulation due to how our nerves are laid out. If the man just sticks it to her, she's less likely to be satisfied simply due to biology. So, unless you have your guy trained to spend time on all that, you may need to take matters into your own hands to satisfy yourself. If he flat out doesn't enjoy foreplay, then you may be SOL. I would like to think that all boys are willing to go the whole nine yards, but the last sexual statistic chart I saw didn't seem to indicate they are - at least not in general.

Not sure where to find that chart now, but I may hunt for it.


But, even if you do use a vibrator/masturbation to satisfy yourself, it's not exactly the most emotionally supportive life partner. It doesn't cuddle. You can't talk to it. You can't walk down the street holding hands with it (at least not without getting crazy looks). It doesn't give you the warmth of someone's skin against yours or any sense of emotional closeness. Self-gratification is good for keeping yourself content when single, but it's not replacement for an actual relationship.

Men aren't chasing and women don't know why.

As a woman who has visited a bar in recent times, I assure you that this is not true. You practically have to punch a lot of dudes out to get them to stop bothering you.

[Mark]

Personally, I think it should be the other way around. There's still a need for loyalty, even if you don't believe in monogamy and "true love", there's still STD's and AID's and unwanted pregnancies... So really both men and women need to ear each others loyalty (and trust).

I like that. good on ya SOAP.
I wonder if it should have ever been anything different.

And I thus conclude that a man should NEVER give an inch of loyalty to any woman - for they are not deserving of it.

if there is any realization yet to happen, I dare-say that this is it.

[etc., etc.]

If you aren't willing to be a supportive partner or show your partner affection for the rest of their life, then you've got no business being in a long-term relationship to begin with. This is true for both men and women. This does not mean that every day has to be like some dramatic fairy tale. This does not mean you have to do over-the-top shows of romance on a regular basis. This does not mean you have to be some sort of slave.

It's the little things that count in relationships that last. You have to make your partner feel appreciated - which can be done with a simple look, really. A squeeze on the shoulders. A peck on the cheek. You should still take them out for dates every once and a while. Nothing fancy. Even just a scenic walk. You need to communicate and share things. A lot of marriages end because all the couple does is come home after work and crash on the couch. They seldom talk to each other - the bond between them eventually fades. You shouldn't just outright stop the "courting" phase just because you've ball-and-chained someone.

Basically, if you get married with the idea that you can do anything you want and have your partner stay loyal, your marriage probably isn't going to last long. That's a holdout from the days where you weren't allowed to end your marriage.

And for every woman who left her husband for a more attentive man, there's a husband who left his wife for a more attentive woman. It's not one gender.

You should still give every serious relationship your all. But it's not good to be dependent, and there's no need to act like it's the end of the world when it's over.

lol..... I win :-D


In that case in which one partner dosnt give a shit - and is unlikely to ever give a shit, then I say that quite possibly it is in both the peoples interest to end it. thus it may possibly be said that the relationship should end on that basis.
however even if this isnt the case, the question of how much mutual loyalty is going to be given in a relationship is upto the people themself to decide what is best (in the global, moral sense).