Personality Cafe banner

81 - 90 of 90 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,550 Posts
That's got nothing due to genetics, it's a direct affect of identity politics promoting the value of the 'group' over the value of 'self' in order to get votes from the disenfranchised illiterati and to herd them into fenced in corrals where they'll be easier to control.
Ya had me until this.
If anything promotes the herd at the expense of the "Self" it's embracing traditional mores. Else there wouldn't be so much societal pressure to fit into neat little boxes or to play neat little roles.

Hell, it's in the name. Identity Politics. When you're raised being told your "self" is synonymous with certain roles, stereotypes or functions, and these notions are rejected, you get "identity politics".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
Ya had me until this.
If anything promotes the herd at the expense of the "Self" it's embracing traditional mores. Else there wouldn't be so much societal pressure to fit into neat little boxes or to play neat little roles.

Hell, it's in the name. Identity Politics. When you're raised being told your "self" is synonymous with certain roles, stereotypes or functions, and these notions are rejected, you get "identity politics".
It's more complicated than that, and I'd be happy to discuss it, but lets not hijack the thread over it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,550 Posts
It's more complicated than that, and I'd be happy to discuss it, but lets not hijack the thread over it.
Complicated and layered. But every forest starts with a seed.

Also sure, let's go back to discussing myopic, dystopian fantasies.
 

·
Registered
ENTJ; 8w7; Persian C
Joined
·
9,428 Posts
Sigh . . . . . How's that for a dead-hippie Boomer rant? :tongue:
I do not disagree with you - I said in my post most females are blue-pilled/looking for (comfort traits - beta males). Comfort traits "seduce" the woman into sex aka make her more 'comfortable' -- female sexuality is always on "high alert" to be disarmed by a male so she is willing to have coitus. For most blue-pilled women, a blue-pilled 'kind guy' will do. However, when it comes to "sexually attracting" women in general - we are not discussing nymphos that'll fuck anyone that asks or low inhibition old women, but instead disarming the 'average woman' into casual sex - or getting sex from the most attractive women possible without "dating" either through (Narcissistic Personality Traits) or comfort beta male traits.

Anyway, you are barking up the wrong tree with the rest of the stuff. We can agree to disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,097 Posts
OP- how is this attributed ONLY towards “liberal” society? It’s not like this wasn’t happening during the 1950s.

I rather people be upfront about their inabilities to remain non-monogamous. Albeit, that’s not to discredit people who do truly value monogamy and are naturally more monogamous.

I’d rather people be honest rather pretend to be faithful and lie. If only more people were honest and upfront, relationships could evolve to help couples to match their individual needs.

Not everyone’s needs will be the same.

That said- even my own male relatives would agree with you- (I have been forewarned many times).
 

·
私を愛して
ESTJ; LSE; 3w4; Sp/Sx
Joined
·
14,683 Posts
2 harsh realities that will keep most men and women alone
But, are those realities? Or just ones you've asserted to?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
1) that most men (50-80%) are absolutely physically and sexually unattractive to women. Women would rather chop wood, or clean a public toilet, than have sex with most men. Their biology is repelled, even repulsed by most men physically
In this socially liberal age, neither men or women are interested in compromise, so the majority of both will grow old alone and unsatisfied.
I completely agree with people being less inclined to compromise and be flexible, understand that when the other is wrong, they may be wrong as well.

We've now eliminated the need for people to be or pretend to be monogamous, although rarely individuals will manifest it in some pure form; and also most of the risks related to sexual intercourse. It all comes down to principles. I personally think the greatest rewards are achieved when truly knowing and spending your time with somebody, and this means having a committed relationship. Because of a combination of personal predisposition, family, growing-up environment and so forth, some people will see sex and relationships as an entertaining past-time activity, much like others find arts rewarding. It's sad to function on a carnal level only because we're humans quite literally and very scientifically endowed with a brain that we're barely actively using/accessing.

Personally, I do find it hard to be attracted to many people on a mental level. Sexually, it's easy, because of my body and desire for intimacy, but that alone is a big mistake with people, why? Because many simply lack the maturity and insight to understand what it takes to get familiarized with somebody and start including them in your mental processes, which, if you grew up in a normal-functioning happy family, you will be doing, aka integrating people in your life if you decide they're worth it, and will be extremely, very disappointing if they decide to cut ties and abandon you or anyone who's put energy and time into a link. Friends or lovers become part of you. Pretending that they do not, or being close with somebody without integrating them into your life on these different levels, speaks tons about emotional blockages, trauma, or bad crystallized lessons and fears; and the children of today are perhaps more afraid than ever to heal themselves patiently (although I have seen the opposite too, more acceptance as societies become more emancipated). Why allow some extremist, unbalanced views from some western countries crush these ideals everyone has always wanted? Freedom of choice, free-thinking... but of course, one needs principles to not turn these into orgies, and these principles will not be formed if you're never challenged or grew up overprotected. Also, overprotecting is not the same as giving proper guidance, it's simply about exposure to natural external stimuli, but we may each have our own definitions here. Yet nothing would be possible without some sturdy anchors, and they come in the form of "ancestral knowledge" or customs, or certain traditions. They should be balanced, not eliminated or mandated by the government.

It's like with religion, you don't let the acts of some idiots define what spirituality means to you.
 
81 - 90 of 90 Posts
Top