Non-traditional relationships and assoiciated stigma

[NuevoYorko]

In any case, tell me is it good to get into casual arrangement with another dude to get out of this?

Get out of WHAT? Wow, that really threw me for a loop even in this thread.

[No_Go]

Get out of WHAT? Wow, that really threw me for a loop even in this thread.

 

Read Nuevo, read I explained 10s of times. You may like it or not but as you said - let’s keep consistent by citing old quotes. I’m pretty good at that as well

[Cookiesandough]

Read Nuevo, read I explained 10s of times. You may like it or not but as you said - let’s keep consistent by citing old quotes. I’m pretty good at that as well

 

No_Go, I think you are brilliant and your thread actually prompted some enlightenment for me. Before I was facing some incongruity within - what I wanted vs what I was supposed to want. I couldn't understand why I couldn't see the appeal of some things were so obviously supposed to be desired to the point I felt the need to force them. Of course, when I asked what for, I was met with "you're doing it wrong" or "you're not ready" instead of "perhaps it's not for you".

 

 

Romantic love, and even more,the "traditional relationships" you speak of are a relatively novel and localized cultural notion. Nonetheless, a cultural notion, and like most things that fall outside of that are not to be easily understood or accepted.

 

 

Maybe we should just start being what makes us happy and not what everyone thinks we should want. You find too many people in relationships and aren't really as happy as they could be because of this.

 

A lot of the greatest thinkers( I'd argue most) had unconventional relationships. Kant had a few flings but mostly retreated to intellectual pursuits. Schopenhauer had a crush but dumped her because he did not believe in marriage. Tesla fell in love with a pidgeon.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[No_Go]

Ooo, thanks Cookie, I'm very glad the discussion prompted some thoughts surpassing the surface represented by a reflection of one particular situation.

 

If I could give any advise, it would be to trust your gut when it comes to relationships. Both needs and wants in relationships are just a representation of a battle between the Biology and the Society, and for better or worse, the Biology has the upper hand.

 

(Romantic) love is nothing new - I think the twist that happened in the recent times is that people decided to couple the societal needs (partnership in daily existence, including sexual life) with the love as a feeling that connects us with another human without the need of anything in return, including reciprocation.

 

- If you decouple the two - you get back to the ground state of love (unconditional) and everything "non-traditional" starts to make sense, including falling in love with a pigeon, and the love is no longer an ingenuous expression of egoism.

 

No_Go, I think you are brilliant and your thread actually prompted some enlightenment for me. Before I was facing some incongruity within - what I wanted vs what I was supposed to want. I couldn't understand why I couldn't see the appeal of some things were so obviously supposed to be desired to the point I felt the need to force them. Of course, when I asked what for, I was met with "you're doing it wrong" or "you're not ready" instead of "perhaps it's not for you".

 

 

Romantic love, and even more,the "traditional relationships" you speak of are a relatively novel and localized cultural notion. Nonetheless, a cultural notion, and like most things that fall outside of that are not to be easily understood or accepted.

 

 

Maybe we should just start being what makes us happy and not what everyone thinks we should want. You find too many people in relationships and aren't really as happy as they could be because of this.

 

A lot of the greatest thinkers( I'd argue most) had unconventional relationships. Kant had a few flings but mostly retreated to intellectual pursuits. Schopenhauer had a crush but dumped her because he did not believe in marriage. Tesla fell in love with a pidgeon.

[NuevoYorko]

Read Nuevo, read I explained 10s of times. You may like it or not but as you said - let’s keep consistent by citing old quotes. I’m pretty good at that as well

 

It has not been universally agreed upon on this thread that you're "in" anything at all besides your own head. It doesn't take casual sex with a stranger to get out of that, though I'm not saying that's a bad idea.

[No_Go]

It has not been universally agreed upon on this thread that you're "in" anything at all besides your own head. It doesn't take casual sex with a stranger to get out of that, though I'm not saying that's a bad idea.

 

That's exactly what I was referring to by 'getting out of it' - getting out of the situation created my own head That's much more difficult than breaking a link to another person (there stopping contact usually works wonders). I may say that I'll go for casual sex but knowing myself - the chance to actually follow through is very, very low.

[Cookiesandough]

Ooo, thanks Cookie, I'm very glad the discussion prompted some thoughts surpassing the surface represented by a reflection of one particular situation.

 

If I could give any advise, it would be to trust your gut when it comes to relationships. Both needs and wants in relationships are just a representation of a battle between the Biology and the Society, and for better or worse, the Biology has the upper hand.

 

(Romantic) love is nothing new - I think the twist that happened in the recent times is that people decided to couple the societal needs (partnership in daily existence, including sexual life) with the love as a feeling that connects us with another human without the need of anything in return, including reciprocation.

 

- If you decouple the two - you get back to the ground state of love (unconditional) and everything "non-traditional" starts to make sense, including falling in love with a pigeon, and the love is no longer an ingenuous expression of egoism.

 

 

Romantic love actually is relatively new in human history if we look at what we know. Before around 5th or 6th century BC, from evidence we have suggests 'romance' or the concept of uniting sexual desire + friendship/emotional fullfillment (let alone an actual partnership stemming from it) did not exist or was at least extremely rare. 'Romance' was just not seen in literature and wasn't until like the 16th century at earliest, from my knowledge(could be wrong, going off memory here). Previous to that(and even after that), women were looked at more as property, somewhat looked down upon, as little more than a commodity for lust, have children, do household duties, increase wealth. In ancient Greek philosophy we also see the idea of sex and companionship divorced and love split into more than 30 different groups - sexual desire something all on its own. They just had a totally different interpretation of human drive, including emotion

 

And to me it absolutely is still an ego drive. While it's true that everything is, 'love' specifically is seen to be selfless and pure when it is far from it. It's a direct reflection of the ego, often projecting our needs and desires onto a person, thing, or idea. Yes, even a pidgeon (although I don't think Tesla felt sexy feelings towards it ) You feel you are gaining something from it, whether by conformity, solidarity, or just plain old obligation.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[No_Go]

Ahha, I clearly see now where you and I are diverging: when I was defining love in my last opinion, I meant decoupling it from sexual desire as well. Sexual desire is transactional in its core.... I never understood why people associate it with 'love' and are even talking about attachment coming after sex, but my best guess is that's the biology part is overruling here (I mean oxytocin).

 

In ancient Greek philosophy we also see the idea of sex and companionship divorced and love split into more than 30 different groups - sexual desire something all on its own. THAT is exactly where I was heading where I referred to decoupling. I'm more of a proponent of this view - I just can't put it eloquently as Greeks did, but I tried to say multiple times even in this thread I do not want or expect all my needs to be satisfied by the same human (usually partner). I just don't find this modern twist realistic [of course it is not impossible to convince oneself it it, but ... isn't that delusion?]

 

It's a direct reflection of the ego, often projecting our needs and desires onto a person, thing, or idea Yes - you're right here. I need to spend some time to think this through, can the projection be avoided? Isn't that what religions refer to as divine love? Is the self-love then the purest form of love considering it's based solely on self-reflection? Too many questions and too little answers. I remember as a kid I'd tell people I am inspired (but don't understand enough) by biology, philosophy and mathematics, no at the verge of 33 I feel like nothing has changed, except I mastered the biology a little

 

 

Romantic love actually is relatively new in human history if we look at what we know. Before around 5th or 6th century BC, from evidence we have suggests 'romance' or the concept of uniting sexual desire + friendship/emotional fullfillment (let alone an actual partnership stemming from it) did not exist or was at least extremely rare. 'Romance' was just not seen in literature and wasn't until like the 16th century at earliest, from my knowledge(could be wrong, going off memory here). Previous to that, women were looked at more as property, somewhat looked down upon, as little more than a commodity to lust or to increase wealth. In ancient Greek philosophy we also see the idea of sex and companionship divorced and love split into more than 30 different groups - sexual desire something all on its own. They just had a totally different interpretation of human drive, including emotion

 

And to me it absolutely is still a ego drive. While it's true that everything is, 'love' specifically is seen to be selfless and pure when it is far from it. It's a direct reflection of the ego, often projecting our needs and desires onto a person, thing, or idea. Yes, even a pidgeon (although I don't think Tesla felt sexy feelings towards it ) You feel you are gaining something from it, whether by conformity, solidarity, or just plain old obligation.

[BluEyeL]

Sadly - yeah... I am just imagining tonight the sexless life I'll lead otherwise... even if we hypothetically date again. FWB will be really non-traditional relationship for me - I've never been into casual stuff but well, I guess there is no other choice here

You will find someone you'll not live a sexless life. Now, when , it's up to you, how fast you snap out of it and get ready to be out there available and ready to receive your love in your life.

[JuneL]

Ahha, I clearly see now where you and I are diverging: when I was defining love in my last opinion, I meant decoupling it from sexual desire as well. Sexual desire is transactional in its core.... I never understood why people associate it with 'love' and are even talking about attachment coming after sex, but my best guess is that's the biology part is overruling here (I mean oxytocin).

 

 

But don't you think it's so much deeper when you're intimate with someone you're so passionate about? Personally, I never understand how one can have sex with a guy whom she is not that attracted to emotionally, unless the guy is really physically attractive. I know most men can do that though.

[JuneL]

Oh no :lmao: Our stories seem so similar. Is this the new look that men go for?! I'm seeing this more and more and apparently this passes as cool girl look, but I simply like my dresses and make up too much to go for it :lmao: This guy also stated he's into natural body hair :/

 

I dunno. Didn't you emphasize that his dislike of materialistic possession and his appreciation for mental stimulation (sorry I was too lazy to go back to see the exact wording you used) are so inspiring? At least I see consistency in his tastes.

[Kamille]

 

It's a direct reflection of the ego, often projecting our needs and desires onto a person, thing, or idea Yes - you're right here. I need to spend some time to think this through, can the projection be avoided? Isn't that what religions refer to as divine love? Is the self-love then the purest form of love considering it's based solely on self-reflection? Too many questions and too little answers. I remember as a kid I'd tell people I am inspired (but don't understand enough) by biology, philosophy and mathematics, no at the verge of 33 I feel like nothing has changed, except I mastered the biology a little

 

 

Yes. I think projection can be avoided. My parents have been married over 40 years and for as long as I've been old enough to know them, they've been very accepting of each other as they are - flaws and all. So, for me: love = acceptance. Projection happens when people are in lust and limerence. But love? Nope, that's not about projection. It's about acceptance.

 

I feel like this thing you have with this guy is projection and self-protection. You would rather project fantasies onto him, imagine him as a muse who is inspiring you to live a unique and different life than face the fact that deep down, you don't want real love in your life. At least not right now.

 

I've read your two most recent threads and looked at a few of your past ones: to me, you sound scared ****less of intimacy. You would rather idealize (as with this guy) or minimize (as you did with your ex) than let someone in for real. I don't know why that's easier for you, but that's my read. And I know it's a traditional read, one that supposes you might eventually want a mutually loving relationship.

 

You mentioned something somewhere about being secure in your friendships. This suggests you've read about attachment theory. Would you say you're secure, anxious or avoidant in relationships? I can't make up my mind because you were so clearly anxious with this guy at first. Couldn't sleep, couldn't eat, were over-reading for abandonment. But then, he was likely avoidant. And avoidants can turn secure and avoidant attachers into anxious attachers. If you had to characterize your attachment style in relationships... What would you say it is?

[Cookiesandough]

It's a direct reflection of the ego, often projecting our needs and desires onto a person, thing, or idea Yes - you're right here. I need to spend some time to think this through, can the projection be avoided? Isn't that what religions refer to as divine love? Is the self-love then the purest form of love considering it's based solely on self-reflection? Too many questions and too little answers. I remember as a kid I'd tell people I am inspired (but don't understand enough) by biology, philosophy and mathematics, no at the verge of 33 I feel like nothing has changed, except I mastered the biology a little

 

 

That's a difficult question to answer. I'll need to think about it more too. 'Pure' can mean many things, but the closest to me would some sort of 'altruistic' love. Not selfless, but a love between two people where nothing is asked for, but joy is [selfishly]mutually derived from giving. I can't see this being possible in a love affair that is based in part on attraction (sexual, physical, mental). You would need to be deriving something. I would be open to ideas.

 

I think it bothers people how you seem to be suppressing your ego a bit to have this person in your life. Look how many times something along the lines of "you won't be a priority" has been said. People want possession of the object of their affection. They want all of them. They don't want to just be a part of their lives, they want to be at least one of the main focuses of their energy. They want ALL of their sexual and emotional desire. They want to take as much as they give, if not more. Otherwise it hurts their ego?

Edited October 29, 2017 by Cookiesandough

[NuevoYorko]

Ahha, I clearly see now where you and I are diverging: when I was defining love in my last opinion, I meant decoupling it from sexual desire as well.

 

You did say somewhere in the last epic thread that sex less than once (or maybe twice) a week would not be acceptable for you. It was in the context of this guy making no physical advances - so at that time, you were still "coupling" sexual desire and love.

 

I do not disagree that a non sexual relationship is not only possible, but common. I do think that if you were to choose that for yourself it would not be wise to do it in response to a man you are gaga over not being attracted to you. Throwing your own sexuality under the bus because some man you just met doesn't want to have sex with you is not the way to approach "decoupling" sex with your primary love relationship. I think this would have to be your intention and arrived at independently for yourself in order for it to be a healthy choice.

[Els]

Of course is a projection to some extent. She is as said in performing arts so I 'stalked' a few videos to get an idea what she's like (yes you can tell by body language etc). I'm not claiming to have deeply psychoanalyzed the situation, right?

 

No Go.... you need to stop. Like, right now. Stop doing this to yourself. This is yet another indication that you're not actually "okay" with the "non-traditional "relationship"" (yes, the nested inverted commas was intentional, the phrase needed it!) you have with this guy. Stop stalking women he's interested in. Stop analyzing him and his motives. Stop letting your life revolve around him like that when you probably take up less than a second of HIS life every day.

 

I really don't understand why someone who is generally as pursuant of logic and analysis as you are would not even TRY to step back and take an objective look at this and say "yes, I need to try and stop this".

[No_Go]

Els, please believe me that I'm okay with it I really have no point to lie here. I'm not after him, I'm happy with my current life, I've checked on this girl months ago, I analyze his motives out of curiosity, not some underlying intent. Whether he thinks about me or not is completely irrelevant.

 

I'm not participating in any harmful or self-harmful behavior, I'm trying to understand my own needs and wants, using this as a tangible example from the current or if you want - near past.

 

I'll stop thinking about this particular person when it stops being fun / productive (NOT in a practical sense, I mean purely as a self-exploration experience )

 

No Go.... you need to stop. Like, right now. Stop doing this to yourself. This is yet another indication that you're not actually "okay" with the "non-traditional "relationship"" (yes, the nested inverted commas was intentional, the phrase needed it!) you have with this guy. Stop stalking women he's interested in. Stop analyzing him and his motives. Stop letting your life revolve around him like that when you probably take up less than a second of HIS life every day.

 

I really don't understand why someone who is generally as pursuant of logic and analysis as you are would not even TRY to step back and take an objective look at this and say "yes, I need to try and stop this".

[No_Go]

But don't you think it's so much deeper when you're intimate with someone you're so passionate about? Personally, I never understand how one can have sex with a guy whom she is not that attracted to emotionally, unless the guy is really physically attractive. I know most men can do that though.

 

I have no idea June, I don't think I've experienced that so far. I've had very few (3) sex partners and wasn't wildly attracted to any of them, for me the criteria is certain level of chemistry which has nothing to do with physical and/or emotional attraction.

[No_Go]

True - this is pretty consistent. He wrote somewhere that looks for him are near-irrelevant indeed...

 

I dunno. Didn't you emphasize that his dislike of materialistic possession and his appreciation for mental stimulation (sorry I was too lazy to go back to see the exact wording you used) are so inspiring? At least I see consistency in his tastes.

[No_Go]

for me: love = acceptance. Projection happens when people are in lust and limerence. But love? Nope, that's not about projection. It's about acceptance. I'd say acceptance is a big part of it, but would acceptance exist if NOTHING is given in return (including reciprocal love or presence)?

 

You would rather project fantasies onto him, imagine him as a muse who is inspiring you to live a unique and different life than face the fact that deep down, you don't want real love in your life Yes! Deep down, right now, I want to focus on self, not build up a relationship. It sounds selfish but that's a transient state, I just have too many moving parts and I'm trying to fix few to be 'available' partner. Of course I swing back and forth between desire to date and not to date because... Well, biology.

 

you would rather idealize (as with this guy) or minimize (as you did with your ex) than let someone in for real - I absolutely agree. I don't know why - quite possibly because it is difficult to find balance.

 

If you had to characterize your attachment style in relationships... What would you say it is?

I don't know the theory well enough but from what I've understood (and few tests) - I'm usually leaning towards anxious attachments. I have few with long-term friends that may pass as secure.

 

 

Yes. I think projection can be avoided. My parents have been married over 40 years and for as long as I've been old enough to know them, they've been very accepting of each other as they are - flaws and all. So, for me: love = acceptance. Projection happens when people are in lust and limerence. But love? Nope, that's not about projection. It's about acceptance.

 

I feel like this thing you have with this guy is projection and self-protection. You would rather project fantasies onto him, imagine him as a muse who is inspiring you to live a unique and different life than face the fact that deep down, you don't want real love in your life. At least not right now.

 

I've read your two most recent threads and looked at a few of your past ones: to me, you sound scared ****less of intimacy. You would rather idealize (as with this guy) or minimize (as you did with your ex) than let someone in for real. I don't know why that's easier for you, but that's my read. And I know it's a traditional read, one that supposes you might eventually want a mutually loving relationship.

 

You mentioned something somewhere about being secure in your friendships. This suggests you've read about attachment theory. Would you say you're secure, anxious or avoidant in relationships? I can't make up my mind because you were so clearly anxious with this guy at first. Couldn't sleep, couldn't eat, were over-reading for abandonment. But then, he was likely avoidant. And avoidants can turn secure and avoidant attachers into anxious attachers. If you had to characterize your attachment style in relationships... What would you say it is?

[No_Go]

I quite frankly do not believe in completely 'altruistic' love between people. Even parent-child love is not altruistic: it is about preserving genes and/or life history. I'll think for scenarios for 'romantic' arrangements where it gets close but in the obvious ones - there is indeed to much of give and take.

 

Look how many times something along the lines of "you won't be a priority" has been said. Yes, it is impressive how many times I repeated a simple truth for myself that explains it all, but it is apparently hard to accept: my ego is just NOT based AT ALL on my 'romantic' relationship status. Plain and simple. This or other guy's avoidance just can't hit my ego because of that.

 

[i acted anxious not because my ego was hurt, but because I was missing information - leading to spinning mind ]

 

That's a difficult question to answer. I'll need to think about it more too. 'Pure' can mean many things, but the closest to me would some sort of 'altruistic' love. Not selfless, but a love between two people where nothing is asked for, but joy is [selfishly]mutually derived from giving. I can't see this being possible in a love affair that is based in part on attraction (sexual, physical, mental). You would need to be deriving something. I would be open to ideas.

 

I think it bothers people how you seem to be suppressing your ego a bit to have this person in your life. Look how many times something along the lines of "you won't be a priority" has been said. People want possession of the object of their affection. They want all of them. They don't want to just be a part of their lives, they want to be at least one of the main focuses of their energy. They want ALL of their sexual and emotional desire. They want to take as much as they give, if not more. Otherwise it hurts their ego?

[No_Go]

It was in the context of this guy making no physical advances - so at that time, you were still "coupling" sexual desire and love. - Ha, I don't think it was coupling the two, it was more 2 urges in parallel and lack of another object of sexual desire. In my 3 past relationships have never had a strong loving attachment, but sexually - they were very intense... in terms of frequency. However, this never helped me to deepen the attraction, that's what I meant that I'm decoupling the two...

 

You did say somewhere in the last epic thread that sex less than once (or maybe twice) a week would not be acceptable for you. It was in the context of this guy making no physical advances - so at that time, you were still "coupling" sexual desire and love.

 

I do not disagree that a non sexual relationship is not only possible, but common. I do think that if you were to choose that for yourself it would not be wise to do it in response to a man you are gaga over not being attracted to you. Throwing your own sexuality under the bus because some man you just met doesn't want to have sex with you is not the way to approach "decoupling" sex with your primary love relationship. I think this would have to be your intention and arrived at independently for yourself in order for it to be a healthy choice.

[LoverOfDance]

@NO_GO

 

 

I have been following your posts all the way from "Quenching the fire". I didn't read much of this one because it is SUPERRR long, way too long and I have to go to dance class but from what I have read about your ideal man, I think the person you are looking for is GOD. Literally. Like seriously. The person you are looking for doesn't exist on this earth. I can promise you this.

 

Only GOD is kind, full of love and treats everyone same. No man does. We always love some ppl more than we love others. It's a human thing. I feel like the man you're looking for is a perfect man. He doesn't exist. We are flawed by nature and some of us spend our whole lives working towards perfection. Although we know we will never reach it, it's good to work towards becoming better.

 

I think you should really sit down and think about what it is you're really looking for and be truly honest with yourself. You are looking for something but maybe you don't really know what/who it is. Maybe you're not even looking for a man. Think about it. Human beings are complicated and I think you still have a lot to learn about yourself.

[No_Go]

LoverOfDance, that’s a very interesting perspective.

 

I’m agnostic but trying to learn about different religious/spiritual perspectives in attemp to find myself and what I’m actually looking for in life. Maybe I’m not looking for a (hu)man indeed. I am still not sure.

 

All I can say in the moment is I’m going on a journey of introspection that may give me some answers. I lost myself when I was attempting to fit in, especially going with the flow in the dating realm. The person of this thread served his purpose: he awakened me, and prove to me I’m still alive, not just living.

 

I’d possibly get back with updates if I get answers but at the time being: I’m very very grateful I had this experience, and that I’m a touch closer to myself compared to the past few years of dormant existence and fitting in.

 

@NO_GO

 

 

I have been following your posts all the way from "Quenching the fire". I didn't read much of this one because it is SUPERRR long, way too long and I have to go to dance class but from what I have read about your ideal man, I think the person you are looking for is GOD. Literally. Like seriously. The person you are looking for doesn't exist on this earth. I can promise you this.

 

Only GOD is kind, full of love and treats everyone same. No man does. We always love some ppl more than we love others. It's a human thing. I feel like the man you're looking for is a perfect man. He doesn't exist. We are flawed by nature and some of us spend our whole lives working towards perfection. Although we know we will never reach it, it's good to work towards becoming better.

 

I think you should really sit down and think about what it is you're really looking for and be truly honest with yourself. You are looking for something but maybe you don't really know what/who it is. Maybe you're not even looking for a man. Think about it. Human beings are complicated and I think you still have a lot to learn about yourself.