Your dream date, both of 'em

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:02 pm

I think its a mistake to tie onself to only one other person, intellectualy or otherwise.

imo the more people you have close contact with the more you learn.

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:13 pm

Originally posted by Dottie:
I think its a mistake to tie onself to only one other person, intellectualy or otherwise.

imo the more people you have close contact with the more you learn.

Orgies as an educational exercise

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:14 pm

Originally posted by Dottie:
I think its a mistake to tie onself to only one other person, intellectualy or otherwise.

imo the more people you have close contact with the more you learn.

I agree with this - we learn a lot through close relations and good dialogue with other people.

Do you know Carl Rogers, a US psychologist with humanistic-existentialic views? He had the hypothesis that humans are social and group living creature, and that one person can never fulfil all the various needs of another person. He proposed an ideal model where a person has a life partner for rearing children etc, and then many "satellite" relationships - close friends, or even other romantic/sexual relationships.

But I'm sure you have some kind of "dream date" or person you would find it interesting or exciting to meet?

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:24 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Do you know Carl Rogers, a US psychologist with humanistic-existentialic views? He had the hypothesis that humans are social and group living creature, and that one person can never fulfil all the various needs of another person. He proposed an ideal model where a person has a life partner for rearing children etc, and then many "satellite" relationships - close friends, or even other romantic/sexual relationships.

I support this philosophy. The problem is, I think, that we are too unevolved to successfully adopt a lifestyle such as this, because jealousy usually gets in the way.

[ 10-28-2001: Message edited by: dragon wench ]

nael · Post by **nael** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:27 pm

Originally posted by Gwalchmai:

The problem with picking out celebrities for the physical date, such as Anna Kournikova, is that I have no idea what they might be like in real life. For all I know, she could show up smelling of cigarette smoke (a major turn-off for me IMO) or be something of a dip. Alternatively, we might not match very well personality-wise. She might suggest we get to know each other better by going out to the court so she could practice her serve, and I would say something dumb like "Why? You're never going to win any majors anyway?" That would be the end of that.

who said anything about talking to her???

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:28 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
I agree with this - we learn a lot through close relations and good dialogue with other people.

Do you know Carl Rogers, a US psychologist with humanistic-existentialic views? He had the hypothesis that humans are social and group living creature, and that one person can never fulfil all the various needs of another person. He proposed an ideal model where a person has a life partner for rearing children etc, and then many "satellite" relationships - close friends, or even other romantic/sexual relationships.

What? In modern Western culture, when people have a hard enough time finding the hours and spirit to relate to a single individual, we're supposed to maintain a complex, partially interlocking series of relationships? This has the feel about it of Ptolemy's crystal spheres regulating the movements of the universe: the kind of thing that could only be done as an intellectual exercise.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:31 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
Do you know Carl Rogers, a US psychologist with humanistic-existentialic views? He had the hypothesis that humans are social and group living creature, and that one person can never fulfil all the various needs of another person. He proposed an ideal model where a person has a life partner for rearing children etc, and then many "satellite" relationships - close friends, or even other romantic/sexual relationships.

But I'm sure you have some kind of "dream date" or person you would find it interesting or exciting to meet?

Unfortunatly i do not know Carl Rogers or anything about views

And though they sound intresting for me on a personal plane i oppose all forms of pre-defined social structures of this type as they tend to limit peoples abilities to come up with their own social organization.

Intresting to meet? hmmm... Emma Goldman or Karin Boye would brobably be a instructive experience.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:38 pm

Originally posted by fable:
What? In modern Western culture, when people have a hard enough time finding the hours and spirit to relate to a single individual, we're supposed to maintain a complex, partially interlocking series of relationships? This has the feel about it of Ptolemy's crystal spheres regulating the movements of the universe: the kind of thing that could only be done as an intellectual exercise.

Im not sure you were serious but
i think il have to reply anyway

As far as i am concerned a constructive interaction with people are far more important then perserving a imo flawed lifestyle.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:43 pm

Originally posted by dragon wench:
I support this philosophy. The problem is, I think, that we are too unevolved to successfully adopt a lifestyle such as this, because jealousy usually gets in the way.

I think that jealousy is a social convention more then a biologic fact, and as such can simply be ignored.

Sorry for spamming

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:46 pm

Originally posted by fable:
What? In modern Western culture, when people have a hard enough time finding the hours and spirit to relate to a single individual, we're supposed to maintain a complex, partially interlocking series of relationships? This has the feel about it of Ptolemy's crystal spheres regulating the movements of the universe: the kind of thing that could only be done as an intellectual exercise.

I think Roger's ideas, among other things, were aimed at reducing everyday stress factors in modern life. Strong social support reduces stress, that we know from numerous studies. If you have a strong social network, you can also for instance leave you kids at some friends or relatives, the children would also have close "satellite relationships" to other adults than the parents, and thus, they would feel safe and happy with those people. Or if you are in a period when you have to devout a lot of time to your work, then your spouse will not need to feel abandoned since s/he would have other close relationships.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 6:52 pm

Originally posted by Dottie:
Unfortunatly i do not know Carl Rogers or anything about views And though they sound intresting for me on a personal plane i oppose all forms of pre-defined social structures of this type as they tend to limit peoples abilities to come up with their own social organization.

I have only read Rogers at Uni, but I often think it's interesting to read different theoretical thinkers even if I don't agree with them.

IMO the interesting thing with Rogers are his concepts about healthy human development - he use a concepts called "incongruence" to describe how people often get stuck in trying to live up to pressure and demands from society and other people, and thus creating an alienation from their genuine self. In Rogers psychology, humans should strive for "congruence" between what they are ("true" self), what they want to be (self image) and what others want them to be.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 7:57 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
I think Roger's ideas, among other things, were aimed at reducing everyday stress factors in modern life. Strong social support reduces stress, that we know from numerous studies. If you have a strong social network, you can also for instance leave you kids at some friends or relatives, the children would also have close "satellite relationships" to other adults than the parents, and thus, they would feel safe and happy with those people. Or if you are in a period when you have to devout a lot of time to your work, then your spouse will not need to feel abandoned since s/he would have other close relationships.

Oh, I agree--I'm not inclined to argue with Roger's ideas. The problem is, like the Ptolemaic system of crystal spheres regulating the movement of the planets, it hopelessly ungrounded in reality. People have been jealous, have experienced waxing and waning relationships, have gone through mood swings, fancies, abrupt changes of sexual preference, since the dawn of recorded history. I have literally *nothing* against any lifestyle that refrains from harming others; but I can't see this intriguing concept (which has been the subject of highly thought-out fiction years before Rogers mentioned it) working in reallife. I seem to recall that even communes setup for a similar purpose in the US have fissioned apart in a flurry of ill-feeling.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 8:13 pm

Originally posted by fable:
The problem is, like the Ptolemaic system of crystal spheres regulating the movement of the planets, it hopelessly ungrounded in reality.

Yes, IMO it's a bit like Marxism - it only works in societies where people don't have the concept of private ownership, and in Roger's case, the concept of jealousy. Both ideologies have been shown to work just fine among for instance tribes who have had this cultural values for a long time and not been in contact with different societies.

I recently watched a documentary about a tribe who had lived with only community property and sharing everything collectively including sexual relationships (they had no core families like we have, they had group rearing of children), but when they came in contact with the Western world some 30 years ago, people there had developed both jealousy and greed.

Idealistic ideologies are mostly very naive - but very beautiful and sometimes worth to try to partly take impression from

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 9:12 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans:
. I recently watched a documentary about a tribe who had lived with only community property and sharing everything collectively including sexual relationships (they had no core families like we have, they had group rearing of children), but when they came in contact with the Western world some 30 years ago, people there had developed both jealousy and greed.

Idealistic ideologies are mostly very naive - but very beautiful and sometimes worth to try to partly take impression from

Sounds wonderful, I think that western society could learn something from this example. Instead, people have secret extramarital affairs because monagamy continues to be upheld as a value that we should aspire to. In my opinion, to limit oneself to a single person, emotionally, intellectually or sexually, is unnatural.

Delacroix · Post by **Delacroix** » Sun Oct 28, 2001 10:19 pm

For some reason I almost never remember my Dream.
But I dream awake too. My dream Girl exist. What is terrible. Sometimes I see her, sometimes, walking, going to faculty.
She is fascinating, each part of her nature is fascinating. She also know me. But she don't want me for boyfriend

. But this way is ok too (unless we meet again).

thantor3 · Post by **thantor3** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 12:31 am

@CE: I actually attended a lecture by Carl Rodgers. Unfortunately, he was a bit in his dottage by that time and spent the whole 90 minutes of his keynote address discussing his recent European intinary.

Although dating to bed sounds a little mercenary, I would say Anais Nin. For the other choice, I would say Eleanor of Aquitaine, since she has been credited with creating much of the modern sensibilities around romance. Beside being a fascinating person. Of course, there is that new Vulcan science officer on Star Trek: Enterprise...

[ 10-29-2001: Message edited by: thantor3 ]

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 3:15 am

Originally posted by dragon wench:
 In my opinion, to limit oneself to a single person, emotionally, intellectually or sexually, is unnatural.

That's cuz you haven't met the right person yet. When you fall in love (I mean TRULY in love) with some one, you'll want to commit yourself to him and him alone mind, body and soul for as long as you both shall live. It's called marriage, and 90% of humanity do it. Until that time, dragonwench, or until you decide to ditch these empty-headed notions, I expect you will continue to feel frustrated, confused and broken-hearted in your relationships.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 3:44 am

Originally posted by dragon wench:
In my opinion, to limit oneself to a single person, < CUT > sexually, is unnatural.

OMG

I take my vitamin E and Viagra....just for one. What will I have to take for two or more!!

dragon wench · Post by **dragon wench** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 3:47 am

Originally posted by EMINEM:
That's cuz you haven't met the right person yet. When you fall in love (I mean TRULY in love) with some one, you'll want to commit yourself to him and him alone mind, body and soul for as long as you both shall live. It's called marriage, and 90% of humanity do it. Until that time, dragonwench, or until you decide to ditch these empty-headed notions, I expect you will continue to feel frustrated, confused and broken-hearted in your relationships.

You know very little about me Eminem, and that you presume to do so is both arrogent and puerile.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Mon Oct 29, 2001 3:55 am

Originally posted by dragon wench:
You know very little about me Eminem, and that you presume to do so is both arrogent and puerile.

It doesn't take a genius to know what kind of life a person is leading based upon the belief system he/she holds to. And what is really arrogant, puerile, and if I may add, immature, is your belief that being tied to one person in a loving relationship is somehow unnatural. It is the most natural thing in the world! If you don't believe me, go speak to your mom and dad.