Unpopular Opinions About Relationships

[Emerald]

4 minutes ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Yep - nailed it.

Once you get used to spotting this type of fallacy it is easy to navigate. But if you aren't well versed in it, when engaging, it has a feeling of being slippery, sly and just not right. Even when you cannot put your finger on it. You have to really pin the person down on the original claim and disregard the "Motte". Often repeatedly. 

It is quite a dishonest and disingenuous way of interacting as it can be a little ego wriggly mechanism. Sometimes people do present arguments that aren't initially clear and then rescind or amend their original claim - but they usually state this (for clarity to seek truth) rather than continue to push a line of reasoning that has changed in original premise without qualifying the initial mistake. I actually think some people engage in this way totally subconsciously and are surprised by the fallacious reasoning being called out.

I view it mostly as egoicaly attempting to preserve the appearance of having been right all along.

That's definitely true that it can be a slippery tactic when you don't know how it works.

And people can definitely be doing it unconsciously as well.

And I'm not sure how much the OP is doing this tactic consciously or unconsciously. I just know that he does it a lot.

He'll come out with a really bold claim (or even sometimes a really extreme story). 

Then, when he inevitably gets challenged on it, he retreats to softer and more reasonable arguments as though that was what he was arguing all along. Or he frames the extreme story as just joking or trolling.

So, he's either putting out controversial perspectives because it's what he genuinely thinks. But then he can't take the heat when he's challenged, and he instinctively retreats to the Motte.

Or he's doing it on purpose in order to frame controversial opinions (about women/Muslims/etc.) as being normal and reasonable in order to try to normalize those controversial opinions in this space.

[Ulax]

4 hours ago, something_else said:

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

Hahahaha

[AION]

If she has daddy issues or something you need those rules. Her way of testing those rules is to see if you are her daddy. With most women you don’t need that. But those are usually older women further in their development and their place on the sexual market place has shifted which change the dynamics too. 

Edited 15 hours ago by AION

[yetineti]

@AION
 

If you’re smart enough to identify that, you should be smart enough to avoid it. Otherwise you’re literally identifying and preying on lower consciousness women. Maybe they do need direction but to act like you’re going to be the saving grace and be willing to provide that for them—that’s not a relationship or a hook up or a fling—that’s an abusive power dynamic. If that’s the type of relationship you’re looking for, I’d question those motives considerably. If it’s just a situation you’ve ended up in and noticed—I would question those circumstances.

Would you not want to avoid women like that? 

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[AION]

26 minutes ago, yetineti said:

@AION
 

If you’re smart enough to identify that, you should be smart enough to avoid it. Otherwise you’re literally identifying and preying on lower consciousness women. Maybe they do need direction but to act like you’re going to be the saving grace and be willing to provide that for them—that’s not a relationship or a hook up or a fling—that’s an abusive power dynamic. If that’s the type of relationship you’re looking for, I’d question those motives considerably. If it’s just a situation you’ve ended up in and noticed—I would question those circumstances.

Would you not want to avoid women like that? 

 

 

I live in a small city and I don’t have the luxury to disqualify women for being women in casual dating. Rest assured I come across high value woman too but I’m not ready for a serious relationship with them. 

Edited 1 hour ago by AION

[yetineti]

38 minutes ago, AION said:

I live in a small city and I don’t have the luxury to disqualify women for being women in casual dating. Rest assured I come across high value woman too but I’m not ready for a serious relationship with them. 

@AION

The problem with claiming that behavior is ‘women being women’ is that you now have to qualify what it even means to be a high-quality woman.

You say you come across high-quality women but if just being a woman entails the downsides you articulated—then I don’t see how being a ‘high-quality woman’ changes that foundation.

Maybe the only thing between you and high-quality woman is getting rid of this notion of high-quality itself.

It sounds like a limiting belief.

And it doesn’t change the fact that it sounds like you’re ending up with women you otherwise would have disqualified. It’s okay to disqualify people from being with us.

Even without diagnosing why that may be, it raises a question of integrity, don’t you think?

Edited 1 hour ago by yetineti

[Sugarcoat]

It's unattractive dynamic to have rules, imo, don't know how else to put it for now. But people are in all kinds of dynamics and relationships that make me think, why is that better than being alone? Are they even attracted to each other, do they even like each other? Lol. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Sugarcoat

[yetineti]

16 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

all kinds of dynamics and relationships that make me think, why is that better than being alone? Are they even attracted to each other, do they even like each other? Lol.

Attention, money, sex—survival, really. 

Also that fact that nobody can sustain isolation very long without consequences. Some decide to never be alone and ignore the tradeoffs.

I think there’s equally as many people that can do the opposite and will ignore some of the survival tradeoffs they make in their solitude.

Edited 45 minutes ago by yetineti

[yetineti]

I lean towards less rules. I think the steel man of @Monster Energy ‘s argument is that a lack of boundaries in general can be equally unattractive.

Although I don’t think that was his point, and I would hate to incentivize poor argumentation styles.

Edited 42 minutes ago by yetineti