quote:
If you haven't disagreed with this, then shut up and admit that you have a personal bias that is influencing your ability to discuss this subject with an open mind.
Again, you make these notions are mutually exclusive, but they are nowhere near.
It is because I have seen through such eyes that I hold such insight.
It is not to say that such vision still blinds me.
The point of an open mind is to be able to see such potential influence without being clouded by it.
Just because I admit to having shared such struggles openly does not translate into my still being in that stage, an erroneous assumption you have made due to something you are stuck on here...
quote:
If you have adopted the mentality that women are inherently incapable of being "owned", you cannot contemplate that possibility when you are challenged with it
A slave is owned.
A woman can say, "I love him, I am his, he owns me" But this can easily change, unlike in ownership.
Yes, commitment and devotion are different than ownership, we know this, but those who struggle are the ones who confuse this.
And they do so by accepting a gift of love and then shackling it with expectations and demands.
Usually demands that are intended to shield insecurities that are basis of an unstable relationship to begin with.
I simply make a distinction between a person giving their devotion freely and a forced union with expectations attached.
I'm nit picking about a persons and a situations ability to change and for a true loving partnerships ability to accept that instead of forcing a commitment that has become insolvent.
The true challenge of love.
Because just as devotion and ownership are different, so are love and commitment or devotion.
quote:
that it is HIS actions in this circular exchange of abuse that is propagating his own abuse. I never said this
Oh but you did, whether you realize it or not.
I think I now see more clearly your issue here.
It was already evident that you were clouded by a bias I couldn't or chose not to attempt to pin point, as your
continual accusations of my bias had shown.
This was shown moreso in how you were talking to yourself in terms of your own understanding and assuming he had any ability or desire to understand your posistion.
Which of course set you up for what I saw coming.
The notion that any expressed agreement or positive response to your post was indicitive of such understanding and actual gratitude rather then him just being happy you didn't forcefully make him look at his own fault in his issue.
But where I mention you did say what you say you have not comes from either my dire missinterpretation of, or your profound self contradictions made in, such statements as these.
quote:
men are, in their own ways, and at the core, just as unloving
quote:
People are the problem, not women
quote:
A person attacking another to prove their own reality true - this is something both women and men do.
quote:
Both women and men suffer from the same problem - abuse. When people are forced into abuse as children they find a way of living within that abuse. They find pleasure in certain endeavors to cope with this abuse. When they get older, they still pursue these endeavors for pleasure because it's all they know. There are lots of other psychological factors that weigh in
And then I think the disconnect may come with the next sentence after the last quote.
Because how you can possibly not see that HE TOO is creating and chasing this cycle of abuse, or that such cycles and your conintual point of aggressiveness in relationships or their formation are only SUDDENLY attributibal to women, and in no way to him, is quite beyond me.
quote:
I have not agreed to any such thing and do not in fact think this is the case.
The only way you can even not see how obvious it is the case, is indeed by your sudden ability to incorrectly unequally attribute all your above factors of cycles and aggressiveness to women alone.
All of which was the seed of my woman hater joke, apparently half joke.
I honestly had no idea that you could not see the blatant hypocricy in his assertions of women's cyclical abuse chasing in a post that stated he was doing the same thing.
Wow.
quote:
you think being vulnerable to a girl and expecting her to be undyingly loyal to you is propagating the abuse. That's ridiculous
Not just being vulnerable, but defensive and offensive in defense of the vulnerability/insecurity.
quote:
However, seeking love from a female without bad intentions and without abusing her or them is not propagating abuse. It is seeking love, affection or whatever.
But you assume to much of him in direct opposistion to his own provided evidence.
You assume he does no wrong and is not abusive in his relationships or the seeking of them. (Yet you instantly take his word that he is abused and not deserving of it, interesting.)
Just as you seem to assume that he holds no responsibility for how he allows the outside world to affect him.
Poppycock.
quote:
You're saying "of course you're going to be abused you fucking idiot - you made yourself vulnerable
No, more like, "Of course you are going to be abused you fucking idiot, you are an abusive hypocritical asshole who seeks abusive women"
quote:
As i previously stated, his posts thus far have just proven to me that he is pissed off and can't figure out why chicks aren't just easy going and not so aggressive.
Than you missed his extremely blatant and evident ignorant hypocricy.
And if you think men are just easy going and not aggressive, then you share it.
quote:
This means you cannot get that innocent sort of soulmate partnership he is looking for. You state this as an impossibility
No, again, it cannot be forced or manipulated to suit one's desire to defend and deny one's insecurities rather than face them.
The innocense you speak of is formed by being truly open, yet not fearful and defensively offensive.
The latter being the key missed by both of you.
quote:
The confusion and argument is, as I stated, that you are not acknowledging that women are aggressive
Again, again, as noted above, and as noted even in the quote of mine that you cited, as I said I clarified this later, but will do so again.
Of course women are aggressive, and of course it is in direct response to their environment, upbringing, and developed defense mechanisms.
But this is no different, at its core, to use your words, than men.
Nor is it any different for Mr. I'm a blind hypocritical woman basher who ironically seeks their love.
What I clarified was that my EMPHASIS was on what mattered, HIS PART in all of this.
Let us not forget that regardless of our environment, upbringing, and walls, we are the masters of ourselves, no one else.
How the world around us affects us, and how we react to it is ultimately our choosing.
This is the first most basic rule to being a whole person, let alone a person worthy of a relationship.
Taking responsibility for yourself and your actions. Not blaming others and whining for all the pain you feel when they purposely or accidently step on your insecurities.
Pain that continues because instead of properly attending these sore spots, you either deny their existance, except when it suits your purpose, or become dependent upon them.
Ignorantly calling a relationship an attempt at a loving commitment when it is actually another attempt to squeeze salve for insecurities out of a forced abusive cyclic nightmare can indeed cause such confusion and blindness to this obviousness.
quote:
women are by far more competitive, aggressive and insecure
Absolutely not. Absurd even. It may manifest differently but this is sheer nonsense.
Besides, such a statement is going to run by a case by case basis and in regards to their respective point in development in further respect to the difference in how they develop and how society reacts to all of it.
Just because women become "less attractive" earlier and appear more aggressive at an age group you familiarize yourself with over others, or that men direct their aggressiveness towards obtaining the "things that attract a woman" or against potential rival suiters in a display to attract them rather then directly towards them untill domination is assured, by no means makes you correct in your assertion.
quote:
By that rational, it is impossible to assert from the get-go that he is just as at fault as the women he is complaining about are. Again, your very problem is you are suggesting that he is wrong for propagating the cycle - I do not see how he is doing so except expecting women to be amicable.
Then you don't see how his complaining, about everyone but himself, and his hypocritical notions, and his anger show that perhaps he is his own problem and is the source of his own cycle.
quote:
I wasn't talking about his venting. I was talking about his seeking love and affection and a partner that would want to be "owned" by him, that would love him, that would be eternally devoted to him. Him venting it is a non-issue.
The last part being part of what I said as well.
I see your point and agree, but my point was again mentioning his responsibility for his pain and his cycles.
quote:
You haven't given him a chance.
Untrue, I agreed with your initial point, that it takes balls to admit abuse.
But then I simply addressed another point. His part in his own cycles.
If you think I need to learn something about him to point out that he is responsible for his life, you are mistaken.
quote:
It's like yelling at someone who was hurt first to say sorry for punching out in retribution. You'll fail every time. First the initial onslaught must be acknowledged and then you move forward.
What you seem to have failed to take from his post is that what you regard to as the initial onslaught was expressed as a continual life long "abuse" that he then hypocritically derided others for while taking none of that derision for himself.
I simply helped him with that error.
But again, you confuse an initial onslaught with a cycle, HIS cycle, to which he holds all responsibility.
quote:
That's what he was looking for all the time - this acknowledgement that no one ever seems to want to give. That women are indeed aggressive, that men are indeed hurt by them, and that this is not just because they are pussies or homos but because society abuses women from the day they are born and that abuse carries over to the men who try to love them.
Again, the reason you both fail to understand the general stances against what you feel so obvious is that men are no less abused and most assuredly no more innocent than any women involved at any level in these equations.
You are the one attempting to tip the scales in an erroneous direction.
And you are doing so to deny facing the notion that we all have to face our equality as well as our need to take responsibility for ourselves in the face of it all.
quote:
you write a lot without actually listening, nit-picking points, sometimes erroneously.
Seeing as how I use quotes to the degree that I do and that my responses come due listening to others, I find this silly on the superficial level.
On a deeper level I find it a potential point that you perhaps don't listen to what I say, or don't understand what I hear and respond to.
You seem to think that what you extrapolate from a post is the only correct thing to hear, tsk tsk.
I can admit that I can do this to some degree at times, can you?
