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 7 hours 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 7 hours 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.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

50 minutes ago, Emerald said:

It's like the blindspot of this forum.

Yes. 

Users here seem unaware that existing in intimate relationship to others is one of the quickest ways to grow in many domains

Intimate relationships are unusually powerful developmental environments. They continuously expose you to feedback, conflict, vulnerability, difference, responsibility, and the limits of your self-concept. They are often catalytic for growth.

Many users just don't know or have experience in a wide range of style, type, duration and connection within relationship. It is a limited experiential range producing limited awareness of what is possible.

It doesn't help that at large - social media, dating apps and general internet dialogue is becoming less and less tolerant of conflict, friction, discomfort and navigating complex problems that come up between men and women - and just close intimate relationships in general - romantic or not. 

The ability to sit with discomfort is an important life lesson.

Edited 6 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Ulax]

@Emerald @Natasha Tori Maru Its different for dudes

[Natasha Tori Maru]

1 minute ago, Ulax said:

@Emerald @Natasha Tori Maru Its different for dudes

Strong argument.

Edited 6 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Ulax]

1 minute ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Strong argument.

Ty ❤️

[Emerald]

3 minutes ago, Ulax said:

@Emerald @Natasha Tori Maru Its different for dudes

It's arguably even more urgent for men... as I've noticed that many men can tend to convince themselves that they can just be independent and need no relationships.

You're a young person now, and you can have your philosophies and your pride.

But you don't want to one day be an old man that nobody knows.

[Ulax]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

It's arguably even more urgent for men... as I've noticed that many men can tend to convince themselves that they can just be independent and need no relationships.

You're a young person now, and you can have your philosophies and your pride.

But you don't want to one day be an old man that nobody knows.

you can have your philosophies and your pride?

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Yes. 

Users here seem unaware that existing in intimate relationship to others is one of the quickest ways to grow in many domains

Intimate relationships are unusually powerful developmental environments. They continuously expose you to feedback, conflict, vulnerability, difference, responsibility, and the limits of your self-concept. They are often catalytic for growth.

Many users just don't know or have experience in a wide range of style, type, duration and connection within relationship. It is a limited experiential range producing limited awareness of what is possible.

It doesn't help that at large - social media, dating apps and general internet dialogue is becoming less and less tolerant of conflict, friction, discomfort and navigating complex problems that come up between men and women - and just close intimate relationships in general - romantic or not. 

The ability to sit with discomfort is an important life lesson.

Very well said.

The issue is that this space creates a culture of ego blustering and grand-standing... and not admitting to needs and vulnerabilities.

So, it's more likely to get applause when there's a young guy who speaks of "transcending" relationships.

It's like, "Good job! You are WAY better than the sheep."

But it really just allows him to reframe an issue and unmet need as a strength of character.

And that stunts growth their... whilst believing that he's already gotten to a very high level that no average person can touch.

It's a very insidious issue in this forum's culture... because anti-social values can stunt growth while convincing you you're growing.

[Emerald]

1 minute ago, Ulax said:

you can have your philosophies and your pride?

I don't know why I even bother attempting to have a conversation with you.

I'll remember not to reply in the future.

[Ulax]

2 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I don't know why I even bother attempting to have a conversation with you.

I'll remember not to reply in the future.

I'm genuinely confused

[Natasha Tori Maru]

11 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Very well said.

The issue is that this space creates a culture of ego blustering and grand-standing... and not admitting to needs and vulnerabilities.

So, it's more likely to get applause when there's a young guy who speaks of "transcending" relationships.

It's like, "Good job! You are WAY better than the sheep."

But it really just allows him to reframe an issue and unmet need as a strength of character.

And that stunts growth their... whilst believing that he's already gotten to a very high level that no average person can touch.

It's a very insidious issue in this forum's culture... because anti-social values can stunt growth while convincing you you're growing.

Typically this ends up with users who can display some quite profound insights - TOTALLY domain specific. I will read some great stuff from them. But I am hesitant to consider many here truly well rounded, mature people. Some users have regressed to retarded states in some domains (I use retarded in the formal sense, not the derogatory way). I am consistently shocked and disappointed when I read some really crazy takes from an otherwise intelligent sounding individual.

Obviously we all have our blind spots.

But relationships can be fantastic at fast-track revealing these - cross domain. And mainly because you are engaging in experiential reality with a team mate by your side. Direct feedback with another. 

Most people get caught in defining others by the value they bring in relationships. Ultimately they are about connection. And all of what true connection entails.

Edited 5 hours ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Emerald]

Just now, Ulax said:

I'm genuinely confused

Nevermind. I misread it as, "Can you have your philosophies and your pride?" as an answer back.

And I thought you were doing the thing you often do where you just make the same remark back... or you say some quippy snarky deflection thing that adds no value.

What I meant is that, you can have pride in "being above relationships" or you can have philosophies like "men don't need relationships."

But neither your pride nor your philosophies will prevent you from feeling the sting of being a lonely old man... if you don't start making friendships and having relationships.

Many of the men on this forum have philosophies they're very proud of that make them believe they're above relationships. And they go into denial of that need.

So, when you said "It's different for dudes"... that was your philosophy and your pride about 'being a man and not needing relationships' operating in a way that may one day culminate in you being a lonely old man.

And I was trying to dispossess you of that notion.

[Rishabh R]

@Majed It's an overgeneralization. Man you said that you have approached 1000s of women but still didn't get laid but what if you took the attitude of refining your strategy or for the love of God just keep going despite pain for the sake of being resilient.

Just focus on action and counting it as your achievement . I am also a single virgin and never had a relationship my whole life while people around me have gone from relationship to relationship but maybe it's time to stop chasing women but still continue being vulnerable with them which is the point. 

It's far more helpful to assume - I don't know . Hold this high quality assumption in your mind and then approach dating .