The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Where are you and where are you going?
Post Reply
7Wannabe5
Posts: 7332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Alphaville:

Everything is on a spectrum, but I feel like I understand and empathize much better with men through accepting that there are some innate differences. It has also been my experience that when I behave in alignment with acceptance of theses differences, my interactions are better. OTOH, as with many things, there is obviously another level that transcends acceptance of differences and once again focuses on integration or similarity. For example, I was watching an HBO show about couples in therapy, and there was one scene where a wife says to her husband, “You know I really appreciate your feminine side, but not right now. Right now, I just need you to fuck me.” You can’t get to the point where you can lovingly and straight-forwardly say that to your partner until/unless you first accept the notion that there is something like unto feminine and masculine sides that we all possess in good measure.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:34 am
feminine side
🥱

seriously i can't wait for feminism or some other ism to burn it all down so we can end these fucking dumb classifications and stereotyping of human behavior into "essentials". that there is the neverending problem: bad theories, spoiling reality.

ever tried watching old seinfeld episodes only to realize how cringeworthy his standup routine was? i mean i never liked it when it was on in the first place but 30 years later it must grate many more people much more.

also the way women and men relate isnt just about fucking.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

I liked the show, but I can’t really remember his standup routine. I never found him very attractive as a man. Fastidiousness turns me off. I’ve been told that my personality type is kind of like Kramer :lol:

Obviously, relationships between men and women are about a great deal more than fucking. Not everybody believes in sexual dichotomy theory. I didn’t want to believe, but it has been my experience that it “works.” However, I would note that it also “works” when I overtly bring the masculine energy to the party. It’s just not my preference to hold that posture for very long. However, it has also been my experience that when nobody wants to bring the masculine energy, you often end up with “two monkeys and no banana” or “slouch to the center of the cushy sofa sex dead” relationship functioning.

white belt
Posts: 709
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 12:15 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by white belt »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 5:29 am
In simplest terms, there is no way in hell that it would be my preference to pick a partner, even for the most casual of sexual encounters, from a catalogue of pictures or videos of assorted available genitalia. Obviously, any generalization is going to be a gross over-statement, but it has been my observation that men are okay with this kind of shopping whatever their druthers in particular parts preferred.

IOW, I don’t think it’s a generational gap that is informing my perspective.
In my experience (I get that we are all speaking at anecdotal level at this point), there are many women who select partners for casual sex encounters based exactly on a catalogue of pictures (it’s called Tinder or Bumble). If face/body meet some kind of criteria, then contact information will likely be exchanged after short introduction conversation. Often more explicit pictures will be exchanged after conversation is moved to another platform.

This is what I’m getting at about generational differences. I believe you said at one point that you had never gone to a man’s house just to have sex, but I’m saying there are many sexual encounters among young people today that skip the first date entirely and just go right to the post-date activities at someone’s house.

I also understand that there are some women who are appalled at the thought of having sex with a man they just met online, so I guess my point is that passing off sweeping generalizations as some kind of absolute truth maybe doesn’t lead to the most fruitful discussions.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 7:08 am
Not everybody believes in sexual dichotomy theory. I didn’t want to believe, but it has been my experience that it “works.”
well one could classify things in any possible way and it still give the appearance of... something. like that classification of animals borges made up:

1. those that belong to the Emperor,
2. embalmed ones,
3. those that are trained,
4. suckling pigs,
5. mermaids,
6. fabulous ones,
7. stray dogs,
8. those included in the present classification,
9. those that tremble as if they were mad,
10. innumerable ones,
11. those drawn with a very fine camelhair brush,
12. others,
13. those that have just broken a flower vase,
14. those that from a long way off look like flies.

go ahead and try it. it "works."

the problem with this simplistic gender essentialism in social life is that it ends up being more normative than descriptive. because clearly it can't describe much of anything except isolated bits of stuff that get labeled as either/or; but it's great at exacting compliance from people afraid to not live up to someone else's standards, either imaginarily or with cause.

eta:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:34 am
I was watching an HBO show about couples in therapy, and there was one scene where a wife says to her husband, “You know I really appreciate your feminine side, but not right now. Right now, I just need you to fuck me.”
i seriously doubt that "fucking" ensued after that.
Last edited by Alphaville on Tue May 11, 2021 8:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@white belt:

If anything I have done way too much internet dating. I know how men often prefer things to go, but I don’t go along with it. Some women do. I wouldn’t agree to meet some strange man in the middle of the night in his garage to buy a bicycle, so why would I do it for sex? It’s SOP for many men to try to get women to chat about sex or exchange risqué pictures before meeting. I have done some of that and later regretted it because I found the guy unattractive when I met him in person, so I don’t do it anymore. Maybe it is different for those of you who came of age with the internet; you can accept an attractive online identity combined with unattractive real life identity or vice versa. OTOH, I have interacted with a couple significantly younger men and I think they are more like even silent generation men than they are generationally different. Actually, the biggest generational difference I’ve noticed is that younger men seem to want to spell everything out very specifically beforehand; like I’m giving them directions for building a deck.

@Alphaville:

I agree that some classifications are more useful than others. Unfortunately, the human brain isn’t up to holding every input as unique. Do I find perennial vs annual a useful classification when gardening? Yes. Does it tell me everything I might want to know about a particular plant in its particular placement? No.

Is gender a useful classification? For better or worse, I think “Yes.” Does it tell me everything I might want to know about an inherently unique human being (or even member of another species of either gender)? Obviously, not. I might add that it can be annoying when differences are not recognized by those who have historically benefited from differences. For instance, I believe that you can understand and empathize with ellarose’s description of the man who fetishized her youth, but I don’t believe that you can empathize as strongly as somebody who has also experienced being “babydolled” in relationship. I have made the same mistake sometimes when I talk to students about race issues.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 8:09 am
Is gender a useful classification? For better or worse, I think “Yes.” Does it tell me everything I might want to know about an inherently unique human being (or even member of another species of either gender)? Obviously, not. I might add that it can be annoying when differences are not recognized by those who have historically benefited from differences.
there are sex differences and there are gender differences, and the inability to tell one thing from the other makes for a terrible theory.
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 8:09 am
I don’t believe that you can empathize as strongly as somebody who has also experienced being “babydolled” in relationship.
i have no idea what that is so i can't say

ertyu
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by ertyu »

Alphaville wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:44 am

seriously i can't wait for feminism or some other ism to burn it all down so we can end these fucking dumb classifications and stereotyping of human behavior into "essentials".
amen brother

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

. “Alphaville” wrote: there are sex differences and there are gender differences, and the inability to tell one thing from the other makes for a terrible theory.
I strongly agree, but that’s no excuse for not trying to puzzle out the difference between these differences.

My upbringing was reasonably gender neutral, probably due in part to the fact that I had no brothers. Our parents rarely commented on our appearance, maybe once a year when we were lined up for an Easter photo, and my father mostly encouraged us to be good at school and sports. My first marriage was to a man who grew up in a very progressive environment, so it wasn’t until midlife that I experienced dating older, more affluent, successful men. I’m sure you may have read Ibsen’s “The Dollhouse”? I read it much earlier, but I didn’t really grok it until I experienced it myself. Being “babydolled” is when somebody takes so much care of you when you are together, it’s like you are drowning in cotton candy and feel like you will eventually lose the use of your own limbs through atrophy.

Hristo Botev
Posts: 1316
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 3:42 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Hristo Botev »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 6:34 am
I was watching an HBO show about couples in therapy,
Just as a quick aside, DW and I watched this show last week during a free trial (it's on Showtime, though at this point I've no idea whether or not HBO and Showtime (and Disney, and Apple, etc. etc.) aren't all just one big corp.), and it was an absolute riot. Not sure why anyone in their right mind would agree to go on this show, but nevertheless, it was a lot of fun for DW and I to watch the show together (not so fun that we'd pay for a subscription to watch the rest of the episodes, but close), though the show didn't exactly bring out our most Christian virtues as we were commenting/gossiping/judging/criticizing/etc. the couples.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 9:37 am
I strongly agree, but that’s no excuse for not trying to puzzle out the difference between these differences.
trying to puzzle out things is great, but arriving too soon at totalizing proclamations to cover up our enormous ignorance of very complex things we have barely begun to examine... is not cool.

oversimplifying complexity just creates more problems than it solves. this is the problem we have still today with stereotyping people and pressuring them to fit stereotypes so that don't challenge our faulty pictures of the world.

there are also other lives and cultures and experiences that aren't yours. we can't derive a universal theory of gender from your particular michigan boomer experience. i mean cmon... a little agnosticism goes a long way. there is no shame in admitting ignorance or having reached the limits of the known or throwing aside a wrong model.

i certainly can't offer a coherent gender theory to replace yours. i can only offer the criticism that the coherence of your oversimplification is a self-fulfilling fiction. "i identify this behavior as masculine, therefore when i observe it masculinity occurs." um, okay...

this old reductionist model to "spectrum of polarities" is like a broken engine that oozes black smoke and shoots sparks from malfunction. it doesn't jive at all with what's going on in the world, how people live, what struggles we're dealing with, etc. it's like insisting on the validity of the phlogiston theory to explain the internal combustion engine. which, yeah, phlogiston "worked" too.

also... i don't know what affluent success and your dating life etc. have to do with the subject of gender determinism? i mean if there's an example of something there, i'm not getting what.

anyway, lmao @ babydolling. sounds smothering and infantilizing and... insufferable? but maybe useful in a hospital setting? i don't know again what this has to do with gender essentialism, or me not being able to sympathize with someone imprisoned by a caretaker?

but... can we just stop talking about phlogiston as the basis of feminism though? seems to me phlogiston theory is the very problem feminism is trying to address. from "hey, why can't you be more genderconforming?" to nightmare scenarios like"the handmaid's tale" (which could still happen in some places...)

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

i guess the ongoing problem i have with everpresent platonizing is that it ultimately posits plato's world of ideas, which is the ultimate reality of which we are merely shadows. and what doesn't fit there is guess is an abomination?

this is not merely theoretical--this attitude is reflected in platonism's operation in the world. from the neocon "good vs evil" approach to foreign policy, to the common notion that a person ought to reflect certain impossible ideals (but is always coming up short), to us trying to "tame" nature according to some blockhead plan and destroying ourselves in the process.

i don't believe in the world of ideas. ideas are mere abstractions we use to mentally organize a chaotic reality. they aren't, in themselves, "truths." yes, there are better ideas and worse ideas. but reality doesn't model itself after them.
Last edited by Alphaville on Tue May 11, 2021 10:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

“Alphaville” wrote: there are also other lives and cultures and experiences that aren't yours. we can't derive a universal theory of gender from your particular michigan boomer experience. i mean cmon... a little agnosticism goes a long way. there is no shame in admitting ignorance or having reached the limits of the known or throwing aside a wrong model.
Well, my first note would be that I am GenX not Boomer :lol: and my second note would be that I’ve probably been in relationships with more men (and one woman) from a variety of cultures than other people more likely to move their bodies around on airplanes but less likely to open their minds. My Persian ex with whom I was in Islamic marriage contract and I used to talk all the time about different perspectives on gender. Same goes for my African-American exes, one of whom was very much into sexual dichotomy theory himself. Same for much younger and older exes. Wealthy background/poor background. MusicianEngineerStockbrokerTeacher Etc etc. And these experiences have definitely helped formed my perspective, but mostly my theory is based on my reading and my experiments in “the wild” based on my reading.

Also, testosterone and vasopressin are not “phlogiston.” I know women and men who have taken testosterone for variety of reasons and it has a very real effect on adult humans of both sexes, even putting aside its effects during very early development and puberty. Do you truly believe that a testosterone suppressing drug wouldn’t somewhat alter your behavior or perspective? Do you have no clue or vague hypothesis based on all your scientific training what that alteration might be?

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:46 am
Also, testosterone and vasopressin are not “phlogiston.”
of course they aren't, but our understanding of endocrinology is not like our level of understanding of simple mechanical systems.

we can put together hunks of metal and make a bicycle. but we can't put together a bunch of hormones and make a person.

science understands well only very simple things. basic chemistry, ok. the endocrine system of complex organisms, hell no, not yet, not even.

science certainly hasn't "solved" gender, much less attempted to reduce it to 2 or 3 hormones. testosterone isn't a gender. it's just one chemical in a very complex system.

knowledge begins by knowing what we don't know. otherwise, it's like phlogiston theory.

eta, eg.:
7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 10:46 am
Well, my first note would be that I am GenX not Boomer :lol:
see, i didn't know this. i just "read the signs" :lol: (my theory: failed! people are complex :P )

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Alphaville:

I agree in theory. In practice, I still think that if I want a boy to come out and play, I am 81% more likely to get laid if I describe the game as The Bunny and The Wolf vs. The Wolf and The Monkey With a Tiny Stick. IOW, trying to take the initiative with my clitoral energy is rarely successful in comparison to relaxing into my vaginal energy.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 12:37 pm
@Alphaville:

I agree in theory. In practice, I still think that if I want a boy to come out and play, I am 81% more likely to get laid if I describe the game as The Bunny and The Wolf vs. The Wolf and The Monkey With a Tiny Stick. IOW, trying to take the initiative with my clitoral energy is rarely successful in comparison to relaxing into my vaginal energy.
see part of the reason i had culturally pegged you as a boomer (sorry) i guess is that you approach all gender issues from the point of view of... not just fucking in general, but heterosexual fucking in particular.

and then you seem to always define women by their attractiveness in the eyes of straight men... and men by their attractiveness to straight women... comes across as hugely heteronormative and genderconforming and ultimately objectifying.

which of course you have every right to choose your model universe as you wish, but... while i grew up in the shadow of that cultural atmosphere... i no longer want to live in such a one-track world :lol:

ertyu
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sun Nov 13, 2016 2:31 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by ertyu »

it's one of those economics type models. many simplifying assumptions, etc., but actions based on it end up successfully selecting for the desired type of partner - in this case, a male who would be familiar with and then be able to act the corresponding "guy" role.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

OTOH, although I am generally quite open-minded and exploratory sexually, it might just be the case that I am in fact currently stranded in relationship with a grouchy bisexual man who does not find me particularly attractive, so my memories of drunk fucking a cheerful guy who looked like Hutch in the back of a potato chip truck in 1981 seem like the good old days.

User avatar
Alphaville
Posts: 3621
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2019 10:50 am
Location: Quarantined

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by Alphaville »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:35 pm
OTOH, although I am generally quite open-minded and exploratory sexually, it might just be the case that I am in fact currently stranded in relationship with a grouchy bisexual man who does not find me particularly attractive, so my memories of drunk fucking a cheerful guy who looked like Hutch in the back of a potato chip truck in 1981 seem like the good old days.
hahaha, ok.

i hit puberty after aids exploded onto the world, so i grew up with the notion that sex could kill you. boomers had free love, genxers had "gay cancer" (remember that term?) to look forward to.

in any case, look: you're a friend, so, regardless of age or gender roles, my internet relationship with you *is not about fucking*. i'm not here for the porno, or to ask about your tits, or looking for "a piece of ass". i just like the conversation. and you're a nice person. and smart and very funny too. and as a friend i try to be supportive of your pursuits.

but here, and speaking of gender roles, you realize that if you were posting as a straight male, with these kinds of stories, you might have been told long ago "dude, stop making everything about your dick", yes? :lol:

anyway friend, i hope you find better new partners, sexual or otherwise, but with that sexist framework... i don't know what future awaits you. because:
ertyu wrote:
Tue May 11, 2021 1:21 pm
it's one of those economics type models. many simplifying assumptions, etc., but actions based on it end up successfully selecting for the desired type of partner - in this case, a male who would be familiar with and then be able to act the corresponding "guy" role.
yes, this. this is how it works. and this is also how it's broken.

it's not about "men" or "women" but the system. the operating system.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 7332
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: The Road Goes on Forever--Sometimes in Circles

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

“Alphaville” wrote: but here, and speaking of gender roles, you realize that if you were posting as a straight dude, with these kinds of stories, you might have been told long ago "man, stop making everything about your dick", yes? :lol:
Yup. I know my tendency towards hyper sexuality would be much less acceptable if I was Howard Woliwitz. Perhaps you didn’t know that it is common in people with cyclothymia or bipolar disease? Preoccupation with gender roles is also common in people with these disorders which mess with hormone production in your brain.

Hyper sexual females have very little trouble finding sexual partners, so the use of conventional filtering mechanisms, such as don’t initiate or wait until the 5th date, is often advised. Unfortunately, although these mechanisms do serve the purposes of getting to know somebody better and determining true interest, they also tend to select for more aggressive players.

Luckily, I have found that my more mature and experienced partners are generally quite accepting of the fact that my hyper sexuality is just part of who I am.

Post Reply