Love

Shared experiences of life, and the path that has led you to where you are.

Moderators: windsong, BlueGobi, Moderators, vince13, Maelstrom, Astrid

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Love

Postby Frame » Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:09 am

Love, sex, respect; why aren't they gifts we give each other? Mutually beneficial, mutually cathartic, regenerative, strengthening; why am I so often shown they are mistakes, or sinful, or currency?

OK ; Discuss...

CrazyLady17

Postby CrazyLady17 » Sat Dec 28, 2013 10:10 am

Good question frame.
Well love is a hard thing in life and to be fair it's never going to be easy. Love will always have it's ups and downs, happy and sad times...

Ieris
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:36 am
Location: London

Postby Ieris » Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:10 pm

Women fake orgasms to gain love, Men fake love/relationships to gain sex. Do they really deserve any respect?

It is not gender specific, faking can be done by male or female. When people give something out, they will want something in return.

They say everything has a price, you can pay for sex, you can pay for love, you can pay for respect but it is not real if you have to pay for it.
The best things in life are free, if you can get them without compensating in any way then it is Real.

(Exceptions apply)

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Frame » Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:27 pm

So, is it fair to say, then that we all have mutually exclusive values; that men don't value love and women don't value sex. Otherwise, why shouldn't (couldn't) there be a mutual exchange, like gifts, of love or sex...

...[(or respect) wait, are you saying...which don't deserve respect?; love, sex, men or women. Because, I think they all deserve respect.]

In terms of the three acts, I think they can all be used as currency or given as gifts, between or within any gender. But they so often are not given freely. Why not?

Very interesting and provocative, what you said Ieris; not real. So many things any more are negotiable, intangible, imaginary, not real. Is it because they are not given freely?

Fascinating!

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Frame » Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:32 pm

That's another really important point. Of the three acts above, I think Love is the most confused. People tend to want to define it in any way that fits there present need. I could share my definition but it would probably just muddy the waters.

CrazyLady17

Postby CrazyLady17 » Sat Dec 28, 2013 1:35 pm

Hmmm, yes I agree with you there frame.
Love just confuses me..
You get with someone and you "love" them, well you think you do and then they break your heart. And they promise you they'll never cheat or hurt you. That's the most bulls*** I've ever heard.

Love is way confusing.

Ieris
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:36 am
Location: London

Postby Ieris » Sat Dec 28, 2013 3:45 pm

Personally I wouldn't trade love, sex or respect like some business deal.

However I know many who do.

- I know someone who will have sex with someone just so they have somewhere to stay for the night after clubbing.
- I have a friend who is in a relationship with a guy so that he can live in his apartment - rent free.
- I know a girl who is in a relationship because her boyfriend will buy her something from Chanel/Gucci/Louis Vuitton/Hermes
- There are people who will sleep with their boss to get a promotion/job

These are just a few examples, it happens all the time. That's how one night stands, friends with benefits etc come about. If you can find someone willing to trade then thats fine but not everybody works that way. I don't disagree with it or judge my friends for it as it their choice but it just isn't something I would do.
Last edited by Ieris on Sat Dec 28, 2013 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ieris
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:36 am
Location: London

Postby Ieris » Sat Dec 28, 2013 4:04 pm

@Frame

Each of the 3 things you named are complex subjects and could probably start a thread on its own. The definition of those things alone could mean one thing to you but mean something else to me.

Maybe you should define what it means to you just to keep things simple, as you started this thread. You talk about Respect, but respect for what? Because that can vary depending on the situation.

no_answer
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: usa

Postby no_answer » Sat Dec 28, 2013 6:27 pm

Love and respect are the abstract things I'd never consider together with the concrete sex. Yes, Frame, you nailed it by alluding to the importance of definitions. I have varying degrees of proficiency in multiple languages, but the problem of definition is the same for all of them.

My understanding of Greek (near zero proficiency) is that you would specify at least one of the three categories of love while you asked your question (caritas, agape or eros I think). While in Sanskrit you'd have to work even harder at asking your question and choose from 13 or 30 words for love (not exactly sure how many, but you get the point).

I think the same goes for respect. In some ways, respect is not even a good thing. I certainly wish I had no respect for big wild predatory animals on the trail, but I'm forced to give them respect out of my biological defenselessness as a human, as well as out of my conviction (or stupidity, or intelligence) to carry no firearms.

Only sex seems to require no definition... but wait, isn't exchange of ideas on forums is a kind of sex:) Only instead of genes we exchange MEMs (cultural units of heredity).

Sorry I muddied the waters more than I intended. But I doubt anyone expected an answer from someone like me:)

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

MEMs (cultural units of heredity)

Postby Frame » Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:27 pm

OK; in semi reverse order:

No; sex is not what we have online. That's intercourse, social intercourse (There's a town in Pennsylvania named Intercourse, I still giggle when I drive by). Actually, your only the newest person I know who's not sure what sex is. So perhaps it could benefit from some definition also. I'm not sure I'm up for it at present.

I think it's a shame your uncomfortable with respect. Just as in your example, I believe respect is essential in creating boundaries [if only to keep from being eaten]. And while ill placed boundaries can be a bad thing, so can lack of boundaries. As a matter of fact as an abstract, I think it's the easiest to define. Almost any use of the word, respect, I've encountered refers to the magnitude of regard for something or some one and unwillingness ignore or interfere.

And as for Ieris:
Maybe you should define what it means to you just to keep things simple, as you started this thread. You talk about Respect, but respect for what? Because that can vary depending on the situation.
My apologies but it wasn't my intention to keep things simple. [I didn't mean to start a brawl but] I did want to get opinions and ideas.

Actually, I answered your question above: Love, sex, men, women; I think they all deserve respect. All human beings deserve equal respect [I'm a bit of a 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' type]. It's their actions I condemn or condone. In a sense I mean, I'd like not withhold respect for what may be many good traits in a human being, because of a single or even a set of bad ones. That seems not only unfair, but dangerous.

And as difficult as abstractions can be, I still feel Love and sex (OK, maybe it's not such an abstraction) deserve our regard and consideration. After all, they seem to start so much trouble when we don't.

Ieris
Posts: 217
Joined: Sat Nov 23, 2013 1:36 am
Location: London

Re: MEMs (cultural units of heredity)

Postby Ieris » Sat Dec 28, 2013 7:47 pm

Frame wrote:All human beings deserve equal respect [I'm a bit of a 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' type]. It's their actions I condemn or condone. In a sense I mean, I'd like not withhold respect for what may be many good traits in a human being, because of a single or even a set of bad ones. That seems not only unfair, but dangerous.


Ahh Okies, I get what you mean now. That really is a nice way to do things, gives everyone a chance. Not tar everyone with the same brush just because of a few bad apples. I guess we can all learn from that :D

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Frame » Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:21 pm

OK; so now...
...what I found so fascinating about your original response was twofold .

They say everything has a price, you can pay for sex, you can pay for love, you can pay for respect but it is not real if you have to pay for it.
The best things in life are free, if you can get them without compensating in any way then it is Real.
The idea that, if we turn anything (love, hate, sex, respect, men, women) into currency it isn't real. It becomes an abstraction. We negotiate there value. That's how things that, on the surface, we agree have great value, can lose there value.

It seems to me then the only way to respect (to up hold) their value is to keep them real. And the only way to do that is to give them freely. As gifts.

That's one. The other thing I seem to be hearing is, that abstract things are more complicated, harder to define, harder to understand and agree on. More slippery, I suppose. We should keep things simple. How do we do that in this kind of world?

Bla, bla, bla, ...tired...






pie.

no_answer
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2013 2:24 pm
Location: usa

Re: MEMs (cultural units of heredity)

Postby no_answer » Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:31 pm

Hard to address all the things that are simply a matter of taste and opinion, but let me try:
Frame wrote:
No; sex is not what we have online. That's intercourse, social intercourse .

Actually in my personal experience with intimacy I learned to understand how vaguely my partners (only women so far) understood abstract sex vs concrete intercourse...But that is just anecdotal evidence you can dismiss as unscientific...and I will not judge you for that.
Frame wrote: Actually, your only the newest person I know who's not sure what sex is. So perhaps it could benefit from some definition also. I'm not sure I'm up for it at present.

Glad you recognize my ability to question things we take for granted...And, no, I will not benefit from your definition, because we are already at odds with the distinction of everyday terms (please see my reply to your previous quote).
Frame wrote: I think it's a shame your uncomfortable with respect. Just as in your example, I believe respect is essential in creating boundaries [if only to keep from being eaten]. And while ill placed boundaries can be a bad thing, so can lack of boundaries.

Excellent clarification. Most boundaries (in real, not ideal world) are ill placed. Therefore, there is the complicated legal system. Therefore, there is the survival of the fittest as the main engine of the evolution. Is it really such a shame I'm uncomfortable with the latter (or even with the former)?
Frame wrote: As a matter of fact as an abstract, I think it's the easiest to define. Almost any use of the word, respect, I've encountered refers to the magnitude of regard for something or some one and unwillingness ignore or interfere.

Good attempt at definition...until I realized the clever substitution of "regard" for "respect" (definition circularity?) You see, according to your attempt someone who just doesn't care can look respectful. Someone who is brown-nosing can look respectful too....but are they?
Frame wrote:My apologies but it wasn't my intention to keep things simple. [I didn't mean to start a brawl but] I did want to get opinions and ideas.

....and so did I. And it is very difficult to get opinions and ideas on something that is so hard to even formulate.

And in a positive attempt to answer your original question "why am I so often shown they are mistakes, or sinful, or currency? " I can offer a
mind-teasing theory that love, sex and respect are all of the above: currency, sin, mistake and free gift. All of it is true because we lumped the many meanings into a few abstract terms to simplify our language. But by doing so, we complicated our communication, so that we cannot agree on what the word means to us as a group, because there are so many meanings.
You cannot resolve a problem by means that created the problem in the first place. Start learning Sanskrit:)

Frame
Moderator
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 11:25 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Frame » Sun Dec 29, 2013 8:43 am

Frame wrote:
As a matter of fact as an abstract, I think it's the easiest to define. Almost any use of the word, respect, I've encountered refers to the magnitude of regard for something or some one and unwillingness ignore or interfere.

Good attempt at definition...until I realized the clever substitution of "regard" for "respect" (definition circularity?) You see, according to your attempt someone who just doesn't care can look respectful. Someone who is brown-nosing can look respectful too....but are they?

I can't agree with your attempt at my attempt, no-answer; For two reasons:

I believe I can see a difference between the look of regard and the look of not caring. Actually, it's one of the first things I notice (No matter the color of their nose. Disregard is a blatant quality.)

Also you have fractured my definition. Regard was not an exclusive quality. It is linked (with "and') to an unwillingness to ignore or interfere. Once again, it's difficult to not care but simultaneously be attentive.


...complicated legal system. Therefore, there is the survival of the fittest as the main engine of the evolution. Is it really such a shame I'm uncomfortable with the latter (or even with the former)?
Perhaps not . Your dis-comfort with evolution or legal systems bares no shame. Your in good company. I'll jump in there with you. But I think dis-comfort with boundaries of any kind can be problematic. "In some ways, respect is not even a good thing." On second look, maybe I read that wrong.

...we are already at odds with the distinction of everyday terms (please see my reply to your previous quote).
Please elaborate. Which terms, specifically are we at odds with?

This IS getting interesting.







Need more pie.

4EverMe
Posts: 927
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 4:50 am
Location: Washington State

Postby 4EverMe » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:01 pm

Hi Frame, in my opinion, sex and love should intertwine. Hmm, but it doesn't always, because everyone is different, and with a varying set of values...

I will not attempt to do the angel impersonation. In my life, I have made my mistakes.

In relationships, I can honestly admit that not ALL women fake orgasms. Myself, I've climbed Mt. Everest, lol, but it was with someone I was committed to, and emotionally/intellectually 'into.'

My definition of great sex is an emotionally, intellectual, and hot physical attraction to one you truly care for...
Otherwise, it's a one-night stand that can be regrettable, regardless of...heights climbed.

I've SO much more to convey, on this issue, but I'll wait an hour! Lol!

Leris, I must disagree with sexual concepts/opinions, as they surely don't agree with my own. Seems as though you've possessed a bad experience or two....How do I even elaborate on this??"

Because I have had many generous moments, by female experience, I'll have to give the opinion that you, are, in large ways incorrect...

However, and very unfortunately , there are people who take sex and personal closeness for granted; Too many envision sex as only a sweet, but momentary pleasure - a cheap and one-night stand.


Return to “Your Story”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 116 guests