Relationships are immature.

[Valach]

4 minutes ago, LordFall said:

Have you heard of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? I think this model is quite helpful to visualize healthy human development.

If you mean my personal dating strategy, it's only complicated for someone who doesn't get it. From my perspective I have fun pursuing different activities, posting myself engaging in them and continuously levelling up my attractiveness level. I read a lot of men on here and in society at large being fed up and overwhelmed with dating and that's a shame.

If done right it should be like a video games where as you conquer different hurdles, you get better and better at getting your wants and needs met through attracting high quality people into your life. 

 

Sure, but then you have to clarify what "level" of need you mean. Most people, when they hear "human need," don't put things like purpose or self-actualization in the same category as food and water, even though they appear in Maslow's hierarchy.

And the need for intimacy and connection isn't the same thing as the desire for sex. You can have plenty of sex without experiencing much intimacy or genuine connection at all.

[meta_male]

59 minutes ago, Majed said:

My virginity 😝.

That's attachment right there. 

[LordFall]

10 minutes ago, Valach said:

Sure, but then you have to clarify what "level" of need you mean. Most people, when they hear "human need," don't put things like purpose or self-actualization in the same category as food and water, even though they appear in Maslow's hierarchy.

And the need for intimacy and connection isn't the same thing as the desire for sex. You can have plenty of sex without experiencing much intimacy or genuine connection at all.

I'm confused as to what value you think your clarification is offering here, did you just want to argue about the semantic difference between levels of needs that humans have? 

[Valach]

8 minutes ago, LordFall said:

I'm confused as to what value you think your clarification is offering here, did you just want to argue about the semantic difference between levels of needs that humans have? 

No, my point is that the distinction actually matters to the argument you're making.

If by "need" you simply mean something humans are naturally motivated to pursue and which can contribute to a fulfilling life, then sure, I don't really disagree. Sex, intimacy, belonging, purpose, esteem, etc. can all be called needs in that sense.

But that's very different from saying that these are needs in the same sense as food or water, which was the comparison you originally made. And it matters because you were using that comparison to argue that trying to transcend sex/relationships is like trying to transcend eating or shitting.

So I'm not particularly interested in arguing over the word "need." I'm questioning what conclusions we can actually draw from calling something a need.

[LordFall]

11 minutes ago, Valach said:

No, my point is that the distinction actually matters to the argument you're making.

If by "need" you simply mean something humans are naturally motivated to pursue and which can contribute to a fulfilling life, then sure, I don't really disagree. Sex, intimacy, belonging, purpose, esteem, etc. can all be called needs in that sense.

But that's very different from saying that these are needs in the same sense as food or water, which was the comparison you originally made. And it matters because you were using that comparison to argue that trying to transcend sex/relationships is like trying to transcend eating or shitting.

So I'm not particularly interested in arguing over the word "need." I'm questioning what conclusions we can actually draw from calling something a need.

The conclusion is simple: ignoring fundamental psychological and biological drives while living in the real world will ruin your mental health and produce bitter coping mechanisms.

If your entire contention was taking an analogy literally, you've spent a lot of energy arguing against a point no one was making.

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[Valach]

10 minutes ago, LordFall said:

The conclusion is simple: ignoring fundamental psychological and biological drives while living in the real world will ruin your mental health and produce bitter coping mechanisms.

If your entire contention was taking an analogy literally, you've spent a lot of energy arguing against a point no one was making.

No, I don't think I'm taking the analogy too literally. I think you've now stated the actual point I disagree with much more clearly.

I agree that repressing or denying your sexuality, loneliness, desire for connection, etc. can absolutely produce unhealthy coping mechanisms. Someone failing at dating and then convincing himself that relationships are beneath him would be an obvious example.

But that's different from saying that not satisfying a biological or psychological drive will "ruin your mental health." We have all sorts of drives and desires that we can acknowledge without necessarily organizing our lives around satisfying them.

And I think you're still grouping several different things together. The drive for sex, the need for intimacy/connection, and the desire for a romantic relationship are related, but they aren't the same thing. You can have enormous amounts of sex and still be lonely and disconnected, or have deep intimacy and connection without sex.

So my disagreement isn't that these drives exist. It's with the jump from "this is a fundamental human drive" to "you need to satisfy it in this particular way or you'll become psychologically unhealthy."

[LordFall]

20 minutes ago, Valach said:

So my disagreement isn't that these drives exist. It's with the jump from "this is a fundamental human drive" to "you need to satisfy it in this particular way or you'll become psychologically unhealthy."

Thanks for elaborating, I still disagree with you but perhaps our disagreement is in terms of timeframes?

Are you saying that if for a lifetime if someone ignores these drives you think it won't impact their mental health negatively or do you mean that a short break of a few months or few years can be healthy?

If it's the latter I agree with you, if it's the former I think you're off the boat and lost at sea. 

Edited 1 hour ago by LordFall

[Emerald]

Foregoing relationships will only make you less conscious.

I really dislike the culture that gets set up in this social group... to look down on the tendency to exist in a social group... whilst spending a lot of time interacting on the social group.

It's like the blindspot of this forum.

It's a social group of people of whom many are putting on horse-blinders and engaging in group think about, "I am above social groups and group think." or "I have transcended the need for romantic relationships."

Just let yourself be human and meet your social needs (romantically and platonically)... without making it about transcending your humanity (or pretending to, in order to convince yourself that you're on a higher level).

And this is not specifically geared towards you. Your post is just one example of a pattern that I see all the time.

It's a pattern that I see like 75% of this forum engaging in... and it's unhealthy. 

But it's also a form of social virtue signaling in a social context that's in deep denial that it is a social context. It's like many of the people here have to create an illusion that this isn't just a social club, in order to allow themselves to meet their social needs here.

So honestly, if you care about personal development, your best bet for growing and maturing and learning is to engage in relationships and friendships.