Unpopular Opinions About Relationships

[Monster Energy]

7 minutes ago, something_else said:

This makes little sense overall, please explain again in more detail.

The last sentence is the only part I can actually understand, so I’ll reply to that with: the goalposts are bouncing all over the place. In your first post you specifically used the word “allow” and now you’re talking about forced vs freely accepted.

I’m not moving the goalposts. My point is that “allow” doesn’t automatically mean coercion. A man can have standards, and a woman can willingly choose to respect them. That’s the distinction I’m making.

 

[Monster Energy]

5 minutes ago, Asayake said:

I used to look at it like you, Monster Energy. But I changed my mind, I'd recommend looking into the idea of the polytheistic mind by James Hillman, if a girl wants to go to the club to dance with her friends for example she has a psychological archetypal need for the chaotic scene of the nightclub. Until she finds another outlet for that, the best thing for the relationship is that she goes there, it will reveal friction in the relationship and then you'll have that friction and decide whether the relationship is worth it with the dark aspects of the relationship brought to the surface. Rules that forbid the girl from going to the club will just push your problems out of sight, they'll still exist but you'll be unaware of them and they'll manifest in ways that are more sneaky that you can't predict.

That’s an interesting perspective, and I can see your point about how suppressing certain behaviours might leave underlying issues unresolved. I think it also comes down to compatibility and shared values, though. Some couples are perfectly happy with clubbing, while others prefer different boundaries in their relationships. Neither approach has to be wrong, as long as both people genuinely agree and feel respected.

 

[Emerald]

11 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

You keep assuming that having expectations means trying to change someone. People can willingly adjust their behaviour out of respect for their partner. Not every expectation is control, and not every compromise is a loss of freedom. Relationships require more than just doing whatever you want and leaving when someone disagrees.

You're doing that Motte and Bailey thing again that you often do.

You move the goalposts of your argument to soften your original argument.

Your original argument was: It's a sign of affection and care if a man doesn't allow his female partner to have male friends, go to clubs, wear revealing clothing, and skip church.

And you migrated your argument to: People can have expectations in their relationship. And people can willingly adjust their behavior out of respect of their partner. Relationships require more than just doing whatever you want.

Your original argument was... a man controlling his girlfriend's actions proves he cares. So, I'm refuting that one. Stop trying to shift to a softer and more reasonable argument to mask the problems with your original argument.

It's a dishonest argument tactic, and you do it often.

So, yes... people can have expectations in a relationship. And relationships require some adjustments and compromises to make that relationships work. Duh! 

But no... a man giving restrictive rules to a woman to follow just means that he's using control to mitigate the effects of choosing an incompatible partner. 

Basically... Don't get into a relationship with a stripper and then create a "No stripping" rule to try to control her.

Just create a "No dating strippers" boundary for yourself. And you don't need to create a "No stripping" rule.

Edited 3 hours ago by Emerald

[Monster Energy]

Just now, Emerald said:

You're doing that Motte and Bailey thing again that you often do.

You move the goalposts of your argument to soften your original argument.

Your original argument was: It's a sign of affection and care if a man doesn't allow his female partner to have male friends, go to clubs, wear revealing clothing, and skip church.

And you migrated your argument to: People can have expectations in their relationship. And people can willingly adjust their behavior out of respect of their partner. Relationships require more than just doing whatever you want.

Your original argument was... a man controlling his girlfriend's actions proves he cares. So, I'm refuting that one. Stop trying to shift to a softer and more reasonable argument to mask the problems with your original argument.

It's a dishonest argument tactic, and you do it often.

So, yes... people can have expectations in a relationship. And relationships require one adjustments and compromises to make that relationships work. Duh! 

But no... a man giving restrictive rules to a woman to follow just means that he's using control to mitigate the effects of choosing an incompatible partner. 

Basically... Don't get into a relationship with a stripper and then create a "No stripping" rule to try to control her.

Just create a "No dating strippers" boundary for yourself. And you don't need to create a "No stripping" rule.

My point was that a man can genuinely care about his woman and not be comfortable with certain behaviours in a relationship. You see that as control, but I see it as a man who takes his relationship seriously and has standards for it. I never said every restriction automatically proves love, but I don’t think it automatically proves control either.

 

[Emerald]

9 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

My point was that a man can genuinely care about his woman and not be comfortable with certain behaviours in a relationship. You see that as control, but I see it as a man who takes his relationship seriously and has standards for it. I never said every restriction automatically proves love, but I don’t think it automatically proves control either.

 

Again, you're changing the fundamental nature of your original argument to a softer and more reasonable one.

And that's what a Motte and Bailey argument is.

If you truly believe that 'a man controlling his female partner by telling her what she is and is not allowed to do is a sign of affection' then say it with your full chest!

Stop being dishonest and pretending your argument was something else... and replacing it with a fundamentally different argument.

Everyone notices your Motte and Bailey tactics.

And you're not getting away with it!

I certainly won't let you off the hook for it. Dishonest argument tactics are one of my biggest pet peeves.

[Monster Energy]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

Again, you're changing the fundamental nature of your original argument to a softer and more reasonable one.

And that's what a Motte and Bailey argument is.

If you truly believe that 'a man controlling his female partner by telling her what she is and is not allowed to do is a sign of affection' then say it with your full chest!

Stop being dishonest and pretending your argument was something else... and replacing it with a fundamentally different argument.

Everyone notices your Motte and Bailey tactics.

And you're not getting away with it!

I certainly won't let you off the hook for it. Dishonest argument tactics are one of my biggest pet peeves.

I’m not making a Motte-and-Bailey argument. You’re mistaking clarification for a change in position. My original post was blunt, and when I elaborate on the reasoning behind it, the argument naturally gains more nuance and may sound less harsh. That can create the illusion that I’ve softened or changed my stance, when in reality, I’m simply explaining the position I held from the beginning. An argument doesn’t become a different argument just because its reasoning is explained in greater detail. I stand by my original point, and I’m not going to keep repeating myself.

 

 

[Majed]

10 hours ago, Monster Energy said:

1.

Ladies, if your man doesn't allow you to:

Go to clubs

Have male friends

Post thirst traps on Insta

Wear provocative clothes

Miss your Creed streaks

Congrats, you have a man who cares about you.

2.

I'll never understand when guys get a gf they don't hangout with their friends anymore, but when girls get a bf they always put their friends over the relationship.

3.

Girls will call themselves a "man hater" but somehow have more male friends than I do.

 

 

@Monster Energy This is peak insecurity bro...

[Monster Energy]

1 minute ago, Majed said:

@Monster Energy This is peak insecurity bro...

This is peak respect 

[Emerald]

9 minutes ago, Monster Energy said:

I’m not making a Motte-and-Bailey argument. You’re mistaking clarification for a change in position. My original post was blunt, and when I elaborate on the reasoning behind it, the argument naturally gains more nuance and may sound less harsh. That can create the illusion that I’ve softened or changed my stance, when in reality, I’m simply explaining the position I held from the beginning. An argument doesn’t become a different argument just because its reasoning is explained in greater detail. I stand by my original point, and I’m not going to keep repeating myself.

That may be the way you're rationalizing it to yourself.

But at the end of the day, your argument was that a man who doesn't allow his girlfriend to have male friends, go clubbing, wear revealing clothing, or skip church is a sign of care and affection... with the subtext that the control should be appreciated because the control is done out of care.

That was your argument. It doesn't matter if your rationalizations behind this argument make it feel more nuanced and reasonable to you.

it's fundamentally an argument for controlling your partner and telling them what they are and are not allowed to do.

It doesn't matter if you rationalize it and frame it as "honoring boundaries", "following rules equalling respect", or "healthy compromise in a relationship"... it's still fundamentally an argument that 'a man controlling his partner's actions is good and shows that he cares.'

'A man controlling his partner's action is good and shows that he cares.' is your claim.

Stop pretending that your nicer sounding rationalizations for this claim are your claim.

Edited 2 hours ago by Emerald

[something_else]

1 hour ago, Monster Energy said:

You keep assuming that having expectations means trying to change someone. People can willingly adjust their behaviour out of respect for their partner. Not every expectation is control, and not every compromise is a loss of freedom. Relationships require more than just doing whatever you want and leaving when someone disagrees.

 

Are the goalposts of your argument on roller skates on an ice rink?

[Natasha Tori Maru]

11 hours ago, Monster Energy said:

1.

Ladies, if your man doesn't allow you to:

Go to clubs

Have male friends

Post thirst traps on Insta

Wear provocative clothes

Miss your Creed streaks

Congrats, you have a man who cares about you.

These are all control methods. 

If you think that has the potential to encourage a healthy, sovereign connection with a woman - you might want to reassess. 

These sorts of methods of control isolate & cause disconnection.

I think its a power play - and says more about how little personal agency and power the man has, than the women.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Honestly it looks like more AI responses from @Monster Energy in this thread. Especially responses to @something_else. Morton bailey fallacy + goalpost moving. 

You should be aware that AI has its own values, judgements and calls that are acting as a filter for your own. This is part of the guardrail system.

The reasoning a model can perform is not identical to the reasoning it presents after its instructions, policies, and response constraints have shaped what comes out.

You have your own values. When put through AI, you are combining/remixing two value systems, it all just becomes a mess. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[something_else]

46 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Honestly it looks like more AI responses from @Monster Energy in this thread. Especially responses to @something_else. Morton bailey fallacy + goalpost moving. 

You should be aware that AI has its own values, judgements and calls that are acting as a filter for your own. This is part of the guardrail system.

The reasoning a model can perform is not identical to the reasoning it presents after its instructions, policies, and response constraints have shaped what comes out.

You have your own values. When put through AI, you are combining/remixing two value systems, it all just becomes a mess. 

It wouldn’t surprise me. It does read like AI and, to be frank, it reads of higher quality English than anything I’ve seen @Monster Energy write himself

The biggest problem with AI models is that they’re trained to please whoever is using them at the current moment, so they’ll gaslight you into thinking you’re more correct than you really are, even if your take is objectively stupid. Unless you prime them in a very specific way.

I like using them to tighten up my writing and brainstorm ideas in a discussion, I think that’s a fair use of them as a tool.

Edited 57 minutes ago by something_else

[Natasha Tori Maru]

34 minutes ago, something_else said:

I like using them to tighten up my writing and brainstorm ideas in a discussion, I think that’s a fair use of them as a tool.

Definitely. I use them as a brainstorming tool on occasion and for construction methodology / legal wording on contracts.

They can be a good aid for critical thinking if you are prompting correctly and exploring ideas. I dislike using AI to come to a conclusion FOR ME and present it as a neat little package (when brainstorming).

Even when AI models are primed, I find they often miss factors, revert and hallucinate (still).

Edited 23 minutes ago by Natasha Tori Maru

[Ulax]

There's no problem in using AI to make better arguments