Page 2 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jul 2011, 11:14 am

Kiran wrote:
It has been shown scientificly that "being in love" is a lot like being drunk and that it seriously impaires a person's ability to think clearly. To make any sort of decision, like getting married, while in that state seems extremely foolish to me. That being said, if two people want to get married they should of course care about each other, it seems also foolish to get married why someone you have no affection for. But since "being in love" is temporary, maybe marriage should be based on some other form of affection, like friendship. Friendship doesn't die as easily as "love". As i see it, marriage could be like a deal with a friend.

love doesn't necessarily die, but even if it does... it is well worth it for as long as it lasts. so what if it doesn't last forever? as long as it lasts it can be a beautiful thing.

what decisions are badly made when in love? the colour of the drapes? which car to buy? whether to get married at all? whatever these bad decisions are supposed to be, seems the only way to avoid making them would be to never fall in love. that would be sort of weird, and i don't believe that the majority of people could stop themselves. what if a person made a financial and sexual marital arrangement THEN fell in love? should they call off the marriage as they can no longer make good decisions? love will find most of us in the end, will-nilly.

given the choice to live with a romantic partner for 20 years or a best friend for 20 years... well, i would definitely choose the former, no question about it. my former husband and i still share the same roof and will do so for about a year, until we gain our footing and our child is an adult. he and i are absolutely best friends and get along extremely well... but there is no way i could last for 20 years in a home with no hope of romantic love.

i think if a person doesn't care about finding love and wants to have an arrangement with a friend or something that is totally fine and i hope it works for them. i would personally consider it to be a special kind of hell, but if that fulfills them, that's great. but reducing the sum total of a man's worth to his paycheque and getting married based on that is something else entirely.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Kiran
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 443
Location: Somewhere in Scandinavia

24 Jul 2011, 11:55 am

hyperlexian wrote:

but reducing the sum total of a man's worth to his paycheque and getting married based on that is something else entirely.


I honestly don't see why that's a problem. Men reduce women's worth to their physical beauty and their bodies. Why should they be the only ones who are aloud to be shallow?
If a man is gonna care for me only because of my looks, i want something in return. I'm personnally not interested in getting married for money, but i do no longer look down on women who do. It's only normal to want something in return for allowing someone to objectify you. Especially if you're not getting treated like an equal. And i've never meet a single man in my life who treated women as his equals. Maybe "equalitarian" men exist, but if they're real, they're extremly rare. Just like with the loch ness monster, i'll believe in it when i see it.

The notion that one day men will treat women as their equals is delusional. Men have not treated women as equals ever since the birth of mankind. Why do feminists believe that it is ever gonna change? Equality doesn't exist, not in any sort of human relationships. The only way to make a relationship more equal is to treat it like a business deal. "You'll give me this, and i'll give you that". If you don't have any sort of power over the other person, they can treat you however they want.


_________________
The modern artist is working with space and time, and expressing his feelings rather than illustrating
- Jackson Pollock


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

24 Jul 2011, 12:08 pm

Kiran wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:

but reducing the sum total of a man's worth to his paycheque and getting married based on that is something else entirely.


I honestly don't see why that's a problem. Men reduce women's worth to their physical beauty and their bodies. Why should they be the only ones who are aloud to be shallow?
If a man is gonna care for me only because of my looks, i want something in return. I'm personnally not interested in getting married for money, but i do no longer look down on women who do. It's only normal to want something in return for allowing someone to objectify you. Especially if you're not getting treated like an equal. And i've never meet a single man in my life who treated women as his equals. Maybe "equalitarian" men exist, but if they're real, they're extremly rare. Just like with the loch ness monster, i'll believe in it when i see it.

i married a man who treasures women. we did a great deal of role-reversal in our marriage - we were equal but also different...

i've never found that my worth totally reduced to looks. i'll be frank with you - i am not "hot" - i am not bad... for a fat middle aged 39 year old woman! but i have had kind and thoughtful and intelligent men approach me on here (some who are much younger and a much hotter than me). a couple of men once told me they were attracted to me because (in their opinion) i am kind and helpful and caring. if it was just about looks, i wouldn't even be in their sights.

basically, good quality men are everywhere, especially here! it's just so easy to listen to the bitter misogynistic men who shout the loudest. but if you pay attention, there are quieter voices of likeminded men who are deeper and more ethical and more romantic than that.

there is no reson to stoop to the lowest common denominator when there are so many worthy, high quality men all around.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


schnapps
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Female
Posts: 16

01 Aug 2011, 5:47 pm

Kiran wrote:
honestly don't see why that's a problem. Men reduce women's worth to their physical beauty and their bodies. Why should they be the only ones who are aloud to be shallow?
If a man is gonna care for me only because of my looks, i want something in return. I'm personnally not interested in getting married for money, but i do no longer look down on women who do. It's only normal to want something in return for allowing someone to objectify you. Especially if you're not getting treated like an equal. And i've never meet a single man in my life who treated women as his equals. Maybe "equalitarian" men exist, but if they're real, they're extremly rare. Just like with the loch ness monster, i'll believe in it when i see it.

The notion that one day men will treat women as their equals is delusional. Men have not treated women as equals ever since the birth of mankind. Why do feminists believe that it is ever gonna change? Equality doesn't exist, not in any sort of human relationships. The only way to make a relationship more equal is to treat it like a business deal. "You'll give me this, and i'll give you that". If you don't have any sort of power over the other person, they can treat you however they want.


Since the "birth of mankind," we've also evolved to be sentient, and gone through different social arrangements because some weren't working.

All or nothing? You don't think things have gotten better for women at all? Or any other oppressed minority group? No offense, but I think that's a very counterproductive way of looking at it. Things aren't perfect, I'll give you that... but most Western women can't say that they're being treated like property anymore.

How are you going to judge whether or not someone is 'equalitarian'?

Besides, if business transactions were the best way of handling anything, you'd think that there would be far less litigation all the time.



Last edited by schnapps on 02 Aug 2011, 3:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

01 Aug 2011, 6:14 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Kiran wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:

but reducing the sum total of a man's worth to his paycheque and getting married based on that is something else entirely.


I honestly don't see why that's a problem. Men reduce women's worth to their physical beauty and their bodies. Why should they be the only ones who are aloud to be shallow?
If a man is gonna care for me only because of my looks, i want something in return. I'm personnally not interested in getting married for money, but i do no longer look down on women who do. It's only normal to want something in return for allowing someone to objectify you. Especially if you're not getting treated like an equal. And i've never meet a single man in my life who treated women as his equals. Maybe "equalitarian" men exist, but if they're real, they're extremly rare. Just like with the loch ness monster, i'll believe in it when i see it.

i married a man who treasures women. we did a great deal of role-reversal in our marriage - we were equal but also different...

i've never found that my worth totally reduced to looks. i'll be frank with you - i am not "hot" - i am not bad... for a fat middle aged 39 year old woman! but i have had kind and thoughtful and intelligent men approach me on here (some who are much younger and a much hotter than me). a couple of men once told me they were attracted to me because (in their opinion) i am kind and helpful and caring. if it was just about looks, i wouldn't even be in their sights.

basically, good quality men are everywhere, especially here! it's just so easy to listen to the bitter misogynistic men who shout the loudest. but if you pay attention, there are quieter voices of likeminded men who are deeper and more ethical and more romantic than that.

there is no reson to stoop to the lowest common denominator when there are so many worthy, high quality men all around.


I found this to be very well said. With over 3 billion males on the planet, there's bound to be some variety.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

01 Aug 2011, 6:32 pm

mv wrote:
I found this to be very well said. With over 3 billion males on the planet, there's bound to be some variety.

thank you! upon rereading i think i came across vain. :P


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


mv
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,131

01 Aug 2011, 6:39 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
mv wrote:
I found this to be very well said. With over 3 billion males on the planet, there's bound to be some variety.

thank you! upon rereading i think i came across vain. :P


Nope! Didn't see it that way at all.