Devil Inside Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Come on, 'fess up.... What happens in the subconscious stays in the subconscious. Link to post Share on other sites
Author OWoman Posted January 28, 2010 Author Share Posted January 28, 2010 What happens in the subconscious stays in the subconscious. Dunno - acting out (some) fantasies can be pretty hawt...! I know Freud is so over, but putting electric fences around the subconscious is not always a good idea - after all, "what cannot be remembered cannot be forgotten".... Link to post Share on other sites
Spark1111 Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Dunno - acting out (some) fantasies can be pretty hawt...! I know Freud is so over, but putting electric fences around the subconscious is not always a good idea - after all, "what cannot be remembered cannot be forgotten".... Touche. Ain't that the truth! Link to post Share on other sites
NoIDidn't Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Could we try to keep this more or less on-topic, please? Perhaps someone could start a spin-off thread called "BashFest for OWs and BWs to nail each other" where those kind of issues can be aired - but to have the umpteenth thread shut down because it degenerates into yet another bashfest doesn't strike me as particularly productive. As are a sensitive matter. OWs and BWs hold very different interests - diametrically opposed, in fact. It's natural that there will be disagreement. But it doesn't always need to nosedive into a war. Constructive discussions are actually possible IF PEOPLE STICK TO THE TOPIC IN HAND and stay off the "all [insert category here] are X" and "all [insert category here] are Y" hobbyhorse. I got this thread mixed up with the "part two" thread where the OP asked specifically if BSs are subjugated as villians. Wrong thread. Mea Culpa. My response would have been more fitting for that thread. Link to post Share on other sites
Devil Inside Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Dunno - acting out (some) fantasies can be pretty hawt...! I know Freud is so over, but putting electric fences around the subconscious is not always a good idea - after all, "what cannot be remembered cannot be forgotten".... Can't argue there...this just isn't the forum for my answers. As for Freud. I know the old pervert is a little out there...but he is still the father of psychotherapy as far as I cam concerned...most therapy comes from his framework of looking at the mind...so you quoting him is all good in my book. Link to post Share on other sites
pureinheart Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 I'm being lazy by not posting the links (Google: 9/11 firefighters divorces). Didn't a lot of firefighters engage in affairs with the widows of their fallen colleagues? My ex fiancee that I spoke of earlier was asked to volunteer concerning the twin towers...I was still talking to his sister at the time and she didn't say anything, although it mostlikely is the truth. Man I miss him..... Anyway, need to get off this thread, thinking of him too much. Also O Woman, sorry for getting it off track, I thought this was part 2. Link to post Share on other sites
Virgo1982 Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Virgo I so wish you were right about that.... Sadly, my experience as a high-drive woman was otherwise. While all I wanted was something physical (ONS or whatever, depending) they'd be wanting to shove a ring on my finger and their babies in my uterus I've certainly never seen myself as "wife material" (I still don't, though my H seems to think otherwise) but it seemed that guys just don't get that a woman can want something other than M from them. While I just wanted an O (OK, more than one ) they wanted a lifetime commitment. Basically, we have to be true to ourselves and others. It's when you start lying to yourself-and someone else-that the sh*t hits the fan. I know a married woman who constantly complains about her H and says she would not get married again if she didn't have children. Yet, she believes something is wrong with an unmarried woman. She despises cheaters. I cannot make this stuff up. No heroes or villians, just human perception and emotion. Link to post Share on other sites
White Flower Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 So now firefighters, police officers, military personnel, and others in authoritative careers have personality disorders and are all sociopaths likely to torture small fuzzy things?? LMAO!!! PRICELESS!!! :lmao: Just for the record, not all sociopaths are violent by nature. Many, many of them turn out to be very successful members of society including presidents and other leaders. Having said that, there are probably a good number of sociopaths in heroic careers. Their fearlessness saves lives. Link to post Share on other sites
White Flower Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 and to connect to the topic of the thread, being a firefighter might be the ultimate way for the child from a dysfunctional family to be the hero, don't you think? excellent point! Link to post Share on other sites
White Flower Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Sure they are, just ask Red Devil.. as she is the one who said that people in those career fields are sociopathic, and are likely to kill animals. LMAO again!! Sorry, I just think that was one of the funniest statements I have read on LS.. Not wanting to participate in any mud-slinging but I do believe she said, 'many'. I think that key word takes out the generalization. JMHO. Link to post Share on other sites
Fallen Angel Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 Not wanting to participate in any mud-slinging but I do believe she said, 'many'. I think that key word takes out the generalization. JMHO. Well, I am willing to bet that "many" more people not in the careers that she was speaking about (her speaking about "many people" in those very specific careers makes it a generalization about those careers) are sociopaths with the tendency to hurt small fluffy things than people who are in those careers. Why you all want to argue semantics with me to try and cover for her idiotic statement is beyond me. Link to post Share on other sites
White Flower Posted January 29, 2010 Share Posted January 29, 2010 AFAIK from my reading of evolutionary psychology (a field of rather dubious academic standing, it must be said) the only "universal" (ie independent of culture, consistent across all cultures and times) standard of "beauty" or attractiveness in a woman is a waist-to-hip ratio of 0.7, which is taken as a proxy for fertility (since the hips are narrower relative to the waist before puberty; the waist thickens after menopause; and a higher waist-to-hip ratio in between puberty and menopause is likely to indicate overweight / obesity, and thus a lesser chance of a successful pregnancy). Things like facial symmetry etc also feature, but less consistently. Not all "driven" women have thick waists or facial hair - I'm sure it's possible for a woman to have a higher-than-average-for-a-woman level of androgens without pushing into the butch spectrum. Would such a woman be more or less attractive to males than a lower-testosterone woman who just wants to make a home and breed babies? Or, would they be attractive to males for different purposes - the high-drive woman for hot passionate sex (an A, maybe) and the low-drive woman as a nice wifey to cook and clean and raise the kids? Without giving TMI I would have to say that the those that I know involved in EMAs, this statement is true. Hi risk profession, high testosterone, high risk hobbies, and military mixed in with the above statement all point to EMAs that I know about with the exception of my father. He was not the usual risk-taker and he actually left for the OW. My dad's OW was maybe the same size or a few pounds lighter than my mother. Link to post Share on other sites
Author OWoman Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 I was at a party last night which led to further thoughts on this. My H's closest friend was there with his W. She lives for her family - they have a clutch of stunningly beautiful grandchildren; he is away very often, on business, while she stays home (they do go away together as well, but not nearly as often). He also has a group of male friends that he spends "boy time" with on a regular basis. He's very much a man's man - high testosterone levels. He's in the same profession as my H - a profession which also has a high number of WSs. He is fun, charming, attractive to women - but he has never strayed. He's had plenty of opportunity. He's had the means, should he choose. But he chooses not. He's not morally opposed to As - he's been incredibly supportive of my H and I throughout... But it's just not something he would ever do himself. The only reason I could think of is... his W. She is one of the most stunning women I have ever seen, still far more gorgeous than women half her age. She is intelligent, engaged, with her own circle of friends and her own interests. As attractive and fun as he is, he'd never land another woman as gorgeous as his W... and she has options, and would probably use them, if he strayed. He knows what he has to lose. He's not about to take that chance for someone who could never possibly measure up to his W. He's a lucky man, and he knows it. Link to post Share on other sites
White Flower Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Well, I am willing to bet that "many" more people not in the careers that she was speaking about (her speaking about "many people" in those very specific careers makes it a generalization about those careers) are sociopaths with the tendency to hurt small fluffy things than people who are in those careers. Why you all want to argue semantics with me to try and cover for her idiotic statement is beyond me. Because language and semantics are very important. Key words are important. I believe you wouldn't have become so angry if you focused on the word 'many' instead of thinking she said 'all'. That's all. Link to post Share on other sites
Fallen Angel Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Because language and semantics are very important. Key words are important. I believe you wouldn't have become so angry if you focused on the word 'many' instead of thinking she said 'all'. That's all. I wasn't angry, I was pointing out the ridiculous nature of her comment. I stand by what I said. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts