Reading theadvancedapes' recent post on "finding your soulmate" reminded me of this short little read by Murakami - admittedly, the only thing by Murakami I've ever started and finished.
I don't have a particular view on "finding a soulmate," to be honest. Perhaps because it's an aspect of my life I'm not currently focused on. But it's something interesting to think about. Kind of brings in the argument as to whether you believe in fate.
Edit: Sorry TNE, I got my "the" usernames mixed up.
It is a well written story and a nice read... But the idea of a soul mate (or 100% perfect girl) is just a myth.
We aren't even really a monogamous species. We pair bond, and the average length of that pair bond is much shorter the the average life expectancy of an adult. We are also flexible in our sexual preferences and organization depending on ecology (or our "socio-economic" organization). In hunter-gatherer societies we tend to be more explicitly promiscuous with less power and ownership connected to sex and relationships. In agricultural societies we tend to be viciously patriarchal with men controlling women in one form or another from their birth to their death. The richer the man the more partners he will have (statistically speaking). Today we seem to be shifting strongly from this agricultural pattern to one that is in some weird mix between the hunter-gatherer-agricultural modes of socio-sexual organization.
I suspect this shift is directional towards a more egalitarian and far less monogamous organization. I suspect we are on our way to a socio-sexual organization that probably closely resembles our hunter-gatherer mode that is largely devoid of exclusive long-term pair bonds. Mechanisms that would facilitate increased sexual opportunity are already emergent, the function of pair bonding (raising offspring) is declining rapidly in the developed world in favour of cultural reproduction, and culture that demonizes females "promiscuity" is fading. Also, the more densely we are organized in cities and the longer we expect to live, the shorter exclusive bonds last because our options for other partners increase. Also, the longer females delay marriage the less males will adopt a monogamous sexual strategy when dating.
Of course that is dependent on two things primarily: our life expectancy and our socio-economic development. If we extend our life expectancy to any significant degree past 100 and if we create a world of abundance, monogamy as it existed in the 19tn and 20th century, will simply die.
Oh man, you beat me to it. Was crafting a reply a bit ago, then my friend stopped in to get lunch, and I lost my train of thought.
Basically, here's what I have to say:
- ...the idea of a soul mate (or 100% perfect girl) is just a myth.
This could just as easily say, "The idea of any construct of language is just a myth." Language and philosophy help us make sense of the world. Basing one's ideas on how humans should act based on what we've done historically and prehistorically (even if it's based on so called 'biology') is no standard by which to live. Should we rape, because that was once how procreation took place? Should we kill to satisfy our property and food needs? Should we force women into harems and ferociously guard them like a beachmaster seal?
Civility is diametrically opposed to our carnal nature. That's literally the entire point, overcoming one's baser instincts to work together to have a better life. We can argue about whether there is a perfect person for everyone, but to argue from a standpoint of "we didn't evolve to do this" misses the greatest thing about being human. Which is to say, we now have a freedom to choose.
- the idea of a soul mate (or 100% perfect girl) is just a myth
I couldn't agree more. There are certainly people we are more compatible with than others, but there's way too much emphasis placed on finding a soulmate or "the one".
Instead, I believe we should focus on selflessness and loving the one you're married to, not an eternal search for the mythical one that requires no effort other than finding.
- There are certainly people we are more compatible with than others, but there's way too much emphasis placed on finding a soulmate or "the one".
That's exactly right. In fact, these notions (I suspect) are the leading cause of relationship issues. We want to "fit" people into these imagined boxes. We measure our partners based on cultural expectations and our own dreams of an ideal mate. We turn these people that we "love" into objects for our own consumption. We are "buying" a life partner, making a socio-sexual "investment".
But people aren't objects. And people don't fit into nice little imagined categories that you can pick out at Walmart. People are people, which means they are complex and will change over time. No one will fit into your box. No one will be your "100% perfect girl". Telling someone that they are your 100% perfect anything is a good way to psychologically abuse them. Especially if they are young and naive enough to believe you. To change themselves to try and fit into your box.
- I believe we should focus on selflessness and loving the one you're married to, not an eternal search for the mythical one that requires no effort other than finding.
Agreed again. We must first love ourselves. We must not seek someone else to complete us. If you love yourself, you will find someone that loves you for you, and you will find someone that complements and enhances your life. Maybe that will be for 1 year... maybe that will be for 100 years. There is no formula or equation that can tell you ahead of time what the outcome will be. You just have to live in the now and let life happen.
- Maybe that will be for 1 year... maybe that will be for 100 years. There is no formula or equation that can tell you ahead of time what the outcome will be. You just have to live in the now and let life happen.
We agree on so much - but here is where we see things differently. I acknowledge that I am old fashioned, religious, and a hopeless romantic. But the notion that we can't or won't or shouldn't commit to a long term relationship sounds…. hopeless and terrible. I mean - hey, if a person doesn't want to get into one- that's fine - but I loathe divorces of convenience because "we fell out of love".
- We agree on so much - but here is where we see things differently.
Perhaps we can still find common ground.
- the notion that we can't or won't or shouldn't commit to a long term relationship sounds…. hopeless and terrible.
I definitely don't mean to insinuate that we shouldn't commit to a long-term relationship. Perhaps it is my own fault for people often thinking that I advocate for that. My whole point is that you cannot guarantee how long a particular bond will last. You may meet someone one year and find yourself madly in love. That love may last 5 years or 10 years or 100 years. But it very well may fade and there is nothing inherently wrong with that. A relationship can end without it also being a failure. I am simply trying to alleviate the fear people have with a relationship "failing". Sometimes people put a tremendous amount of pressure on themselves to be in a bond that lasts "forever". When the relationship doesn't last forever, they feel like it was somehow "their fault".
So I guess the common ground would be that if you personally want a long-term bond, and your partner does as well, then go for it! There is nothing wrong with it, and many studies show that there are many psychological and health benefits to staying in a long-term committed bond. But just don't feel like you are personally a bad person/lover/partner if it does not last. Because statistically speaking, everything ends... whether that is because of some socio-economic fall out, death, or you just drift apart for some other reason.
We've got plenty of common ground! you're one of my favorite people that I've only met on the web. And you're well ahead of many people I've met in the physical world.
- But it very well may fade and there is nothing inherently wrong with that.
If both people foster the relationship - it won't. I think that's my point. It's a big "if" and it takes so much work (more than some are willing to put in).
I can definitely agree with that. We are the only species that can build symbolically-mediated bonds. Because of that tremendous power... literally any type of socio-sexual organization is in principle achievable if both parties are committed to it. Like you said though, be prepared to but in the time and energy (#physics).
My whole point with my perspective is to try and alleviate some of the confusion people in my generation have with the current system trends regarding relationships. People in their 20s aren't getting married and having kids at the same rate. This is causing some confusion. Some people feel they are failing or not being an adult properly. I was one of them not too long ago.
- I definitely don't mean to insinuate that we shouldn't commit to a long-term relationship
- don't feel like you are personally a bad person/lover/partner if it does not last. Because statistically speaking, everything ends
thankyouthankyou.
Right now I've - resigned is the wrong word - realized that I'll probably be in and out of long-term relationships for the rest of my life. Maybe 10-year relationships, maybe 1 year or 20-years if I am lucky. But I have never once dated someone I did not get bored of, eventually. Someone who I eventually no longer wanted to be with. Someone who eventually no longer turned me on or excited me. And you know what?
That's okay. It doesn't mean I won't love anyone ever. Doesn't mean I haven't. Just means that maybe I'm not set for an extremely long-term relationship - don't think I'm set for marriage for sure. If I can have my independence and a good 2-year romance every 5 years or so...what's wrong with that? I can have my happiness...and honestly, if I'm lucky, I get to fall in love again and again.
It's a weird world-view. But I'm okay with it.
- Right now I've - resigned is the wrong word - realized that I'll probably be in and out of long-term relationships for the rest of my life. Maybe 10-year relationships, maybe 1 year or 20-years if I am lucky. But I have never once dated someone I did not get bored of, eventually. Someone who I eventually no longer wanted to be with. Someone who eventually no longer turned me on or excited me.
Me too, and for a while I semi-sort of wondered if there was something wrong with me emotionally when I bothered to think about it all. I have a different understanding now, but it's still sad.
Tell you what, let's date. We'll get tired of each other in half the time we normally get tired of other people.
After crossing 30 and having a few nieces and a nephew, my views on family life have softened. I used to be adamantly against it, but I can see a different value now that I was indifferent to before. One of the main reasons I broke up with my previous girlfriend is that it became clear to me that she would make a terrible wife and mother. That didn't matter to me in the beginning, because I never wanted that (in fact, I think I found it attractive, because it took that out of the equation necessarily). But once I started feeling like it was even in the realm of possibility, I cut bait. It was a good choice.
I'm willing to believe my views may change in the future. That's wherefore all my mights and maybes. Maybe I'll meet someone who's so great they'll convince me I'll be a great parent too - not in a bad way, more like in a kb00 sort of way.
And you know what? It is a good idea, also, to cut out of relationships when you realize they're not what you want. Which is probably another stick in the pile of "why I'm okay with the prospect of being in long-term but not permanent relationships for as long as it works for me."
- *That's okay.*
That's right. Everything is going to be okay :-)
I've often wondered if I'm any more shallow than most other people. Sometimes I'll find myself looking at or talking to someone and thinking something like, "she's so pretty . . . except when she smiles" or, "I'd love to continue this conversation, but I don't like your voice." I've even caught myself thinking, "I don't want to find out what she's like in bed, because I don't think I could bear the disappointment if it's no good through no fault of my own" by which, I don't mean to imply that I am or that I think I'm the greatest lover ever, or that I'm able to elicit the best response with a given woman, but you know, sometimes there's that high level of mutual attraction and then for whatever reason it just doesn't click.
I don't know where I stand on the whole soulmate thing. What I do know, is that sometimes you find someone and it's like you've already known each other for a long time and that the best times are in the mail. I also think that can be a little dangerous as it's easy to get that false sense of security that allows each person to get complacent and then wake up one day wondering why things aren't going as well as they used to. I guess my idea of a soulmate is more akin to finding a good collaborator, in that each recognizes that there's work to be done and is willing to trust the other one to be accountable for their part, even if there's no hard accounting.
You're Jerry Seinfeld. It's okay. I'm Jerry Seinfeld too.
Reasons I have decided not to date people include: "I don't like his teeth;" "he lives too far away;" "we work at the same place;" "he works somewhere I'd have to see him every day/it would ruin [x place] for me;" "He hasn't dated enough people;" "not good enough in bed;" "seems too into me;" "has a kid;" "can't spell;" "unibrow;" "vegan;" and so on.
It's okay to be picky. Just don't let your pickiness become "artificial structures devised not beacuse you have a reason for them, but because you are afraid of dating, and so use fake "standards" in order to ensure everyone who approaches you is immediately ineligible." Sometimes it really IS the little reasons. Sometimes you really just can't stand their hair or their spelling. Sometimes you're not willing to put in the effort that would be needed in order to fix the problem ("not good enough in bed") for instance.
It's okay to be picky. Just recognize you're narrowing the field (a necessary thing) and ensure you don't narrow it too much, or for artificial reasons.
I have always said that I want is not a significant other, but a Partner In Crime. Someone who will do all the crazy shenanigans I want to do with me - someone who will be down for all my hare-brained ideas.
- Reasons I have decided not to date people include: "I don't like his teeth;" "he lives too far away;" "we work at the same place;" "he works somewhere I'd have to see him every day/it would ruin [x place] for me;" "He hasn't dated enough people;" "not good enough in bed;" "seems too into me;" "has a kid;" "can't spell;" "unibrow;" "vegan;" and so on.
A lot of those are bullshit. Actually, most of those are bullshit. Perhaps all of them.
- It's okay to be picky. Just don't let your pickiness become "artificial structures devised not beacuse you have a reason for them, but because you are afraid of dating, and so use fake "standards" in order to ensure everyone who approaches you is immediately ineligible.
I've met two or three people in my life I'd consider dating. It's not that I'm picky to the point of avoiding. Just that I know what will work and what won't.
- I have always said that I want is not a significant other, but a Partner In Crime. Someone who will do all the crazy shenanigans I want to do with me - someone who will be down for all my hare-brained ideas.
I want both. :P.
- A lot of those are bullshit. Actually, most of those are bullshit. Perhaps all of them.
Have you not watched Seinfeld? Because if you had, you'd understand that that was exactly the point I was trying to make. Seinfeld is notoriously picky and has broken up with girls because of, say, the sound of their voice or the way they laugh. Moreover, I posit that they're only bullshit inasmuch as I haven't met someone whose good traits would overpower these perceived negative traits(except for the kid thing - plus, you don't know how bad his teeth were! - possibly further evidence I am Seinfeld).
As for the number of people you've met that you'd consider dating, well, that's cool and good for you? I wasn't leveraging my accusation, as you could term it, at anyone specifically on Hubski. I've seen it happen in real life and trust me, you can tell when reasons move from the "flippantly spurious" to the "downright ridiculous category." Stuff like "I'm not interested in even giving him my phone number because he has a buzz cut and from that alone I'm going to decide he's in the military and I have made a completely arbitrary decision not to date anyone who's ever been in the military, ever" or "I only want to date lawyers because I want to date people who have been to grad school" or "I'm not comfortable dating anyone who's not my skin tone" (which by the way is blatant racism; sure you're allowed to have preferences but if those are based solely on race, it's still racism).
Well then good. Go find thyself both. You're allowed to want what you want and it's also allowed to be different than what I want.
- Have you not watched Seinfeld?
Nope. Not at all.
- Seinfeld is notoriously picky and has broken up with girls because of, say, the sound of their voice or the way they laugh. Moreover, I posit that they're only bullshit inasmuch as I haven't met someone whose good traits would overpower these perceived negative traits(except for the kid thing - plus, you don't know how bad his teeth were! - possibly further evidence I am Seinfeld).
I find that I have an ideal, and then compare/contrast to that ideal. The closer the match, the more likely I'd date them. But if just one trait is off, yea, that's being just picky :P.
- As for the number of people you've met that you'd consider dating, well, that's cool and good for you? I wasn't leveraging my accusation, as you could term it, at anyone specifically on Hubski.
I realize. I was just responding to your comment. Because I guess from an outside perspective, it looks like I have a lot of ridiculous reasons/standards.
- I've seen it happen in real life and trust me, you can tell when reasons move from the "flippantly spurious" to the "downright ridiculous category."
Ridiculous to you perhaps.
- (which by the way is blatant racism; sure you're allowed to have preferences but if those are based solely on race, it's still racism).
I disagree. You are basically relating racism to dating preferences. I'm not a homophobe because I won't date a male. I have no problems with different ethnicities or sexualities. But I wouldn't date specific ones. That's just personal preference, not racism/homophobia.
- Well then good. Go find thyself both. You're allowed to want what you want and it's also allowed to be different than what I want.
That's what I'm working on.
Racism - the act of judging someone based solely on their race
Saying you will not date someone because of their race - judging someone based solely on their race
You're not a homophobe and evidence exists to demonstrate that sexual preference is not based solely on your feelings on the topic of whether you like dicks. At this point there are clearly biological and/or genetic factors related to whether someone is queer, gay, bi, etc. Meanwhile, there are absolutely no genetic or biological factors identified in whether or not you "like" people of different races because guess what. Race is just a skin color. It's nothing more than that; there's no other difference between a black man and a white man than the amount of melatonin in their skin. Sexual preference = something you can't help. Race = something you can't help. But making a blanket statement that there are entire races you won't date makes a huge judgement call about that entire group of people based on knowing ONE THING about them - the color of their skin. Assuming that you know any more about that entire group of people solely because of the color of their skin amounts to stereotyping , gross generalizations, and - you got it - racism.
- ridiculous to you perhaps
Frankly, I don't even understand the point of your original comment in its entirety or this comment here. You go from calling my preferences "picky" to them essentially implying that my findings of someone else's standards to be "ridiculous" is a personal definition and one you disagree with. It's not okay for me to find someone else's standards ridiculous but it's okay for you to find mine picky? ooooo kay dude.
On a side note, your giant copy/pastings are kind of annoying. I understand you're replying to the text of my comment. You don't need to show me, say, entire paragraphs of what I've written in order for me - or anyone - to understand what you are responding to. It's the beauty of a forum - we all can already see, and if we aren't smart enough to figure out the context then I'd say the point of hubski has already been pretty much lost.
- Assuming that you know any more about that entire group of people solely because of the color of their skin amounts to stereotyping , gross generalizations, and - you got it - racism.
I never said anything of the sort. I said I'm not attracted to people with certain skin colors. Just as I'm not attracted to people with certain looks. Just as I'm not attracted to people with dicks. It's all the same line of reasoning. It's not that I went out and said "ethnicity X is obviously worse because of their skin color". No, I said "ethnicity X is a-okay, but I wouldn't date one". Just like I wouldn't date a guy, or someone I don't find attractive. Doesn't mean I would hate them because of it.
- It's not okay for me to find someone else's standards ridiculous but it's okay for you to find mine picky?
What is considered picky is an opinion. I never stated otherwise. It's not a bad or good thing to be picky/not picky. It's just an observation.
- On a side note, your giant copy/pastings are kind of annoying. I understand you're replying to the text of my comment. You don't need to show me, say, entire paragraphs of what I've written in order for me - or anyone - to understand what you are responding to.
I quote/copy the different sections of the comment so I can address each point individually. It makes it much easier to see exactly what I'm responding to, rather than just responding to the comment as a whole.
- we all can already see, and if we aren't smart enough to figure out the context then I'd say the point of hubski has already been pretty much lost.
I find that the point of hubski doesn't rely on whether or not people quote. There's a reason the markup was added in the first place (to support this kind of discussion). If hubski didn't need it (or doesn't want it) the function would be removed.
So, you are making a blanket statement about an entire group of people based on their race. It doesn't matter if the statement is "I am not attracted to them" or "They are all skinflints." The statement remains racist.
You are allowed to have preferences. If you have a preference about not dating an entire race of people, it is a racist preference, i.e., it is a preference based solely on race.
You do not have to hate a race of people in order to act in a racist manner. You are interpreting racism to mean something akin to "Walt Kowalski sitting on the front porch of his house calling his neighbors spics and gooks." Racism, like many things, is a spectrum. I am not saying you hate an entire class of people because your preference is racially biased. I am not saying you use racial slurs or would deny someone a job because of their race.
I have made, essentially, a proof in my prior post. Allow me to use variables this time to make it more clear.
A= being racist
B = making a judgment about a class of people based on their race
C = deciding that you won't date ANY people of a race, because of their race
A = B
B = C
Therefore, A = C.
QED, bitches. Until you can prove to me that deciding you won't date any people of a race because of their race is somehow NOT making a judgment call about a class of people based on their race, you have not proven that doing so is not racist. (Because I highly doubt you can disprove the first assertion.)
If you say you are not attracted to a certain race you are saying "I am not attracted to that skin color." Because that's the only difference there is.
How is that not racist?
- It makes it much easier to see exactly what I'm responding to, rather
I believe this is what that thing called "paragraphs" are for. But, Hubski as you wish; it's not my place to tell you what to do. You are entitled to do what you want and I am entitled to find it profoundly annoying.
Edit: You don't have to hate women to be sexist. So why would you have to hate other races to be racist?
- So, you are making a blanket statement about an entire group of people based on their race. It doesn't matter if the statement is "I am not attracted to them" or "They are all skinflints." The statement remains racist.
You are allowed to have preferences. If you have a preference about not dating an entire race of people, it is a racist preference, i.e., it is a preference based solely on race.
It's about appearance. Just like how I don't find people with outward noses attractive. I don't find certain skin tones attractive. Just like I don't find bald women attractive. It's not about race/ethnicity, it's about appearance.
- Until you can prove to me that deciding you won't date any people of a race because of their race is somehow NOT making a judgment call about a class of people based on their race, you have not proven that doing so is not racist.
As I said. It's purely an appearance thing. I have plenty of close friends that are of every ethnicity. Ethnicity does not influence what I think of them as a person. And what I think of the person's behavior or intelligence isn't the only thing that goes into whether or not I'd date someone. You seem to imply it is.
- If you say you are not attracted to a certain race you are saying "I am not attracted to that skin color." Because that's the only difference there is.
Yes, that is what I'm saying. I'm not attracted to certain skin tones.
- How is that not racist?
Because I don't look down on people I don't find attractive. I don't prevent them from talking to me or working with me. Just because I won't date another man doesn't mean I'm a homophobe or sexist. Just like I won't date certain ethnicities. I have no problems with them (just like I have no problems with the LGBT community). It's just my personal preferences when it comes to relationships.
- Edit: You don't have to hate women to be sexist. So why would you have to hate other races to be racist?
Perhaps it's a difference in understanding the terms sexist and racist. Could you please define them then? I was under the impression the terms meant discriminating against a certain gender/ethnicity. As I've mentioned several times, I have no problems with men, or different ethnicities. I just wouldn't date them. That doesn't mean I'm sexist/racist.
If refusing to date certain ethnicities makes me racist, refusing to date the same gender makes people homophobic and sexist. It doesn't. In either case.
No judgement calls are being made. Particularly when it comes to relationships.
Seriously are you asking me to define a term I have already defined twice in this conversation?
Congrats, you win. A big A+ for refusing to even fully read the conversation! My table is flipped, game is over, I'm out.
But your dating preferences? Still racist.
Actually, I hate to spoil this for you, but I'm
| A BIG FUCKING FLAMING QUEER BISEXUAL, |
I've got the exes to prove it, so a) You can take that back, and B) as I have previously stated and you have probably already quoted me on, there's a difference between preferences you choose, e.g., skin tone, and preferences you are biologically disposed towards, i.e., gender.
Thanks. Please feel free to QQ now.
Also, I'd encourage you to try to not make assumptions about gender and sexuality over the interet like you just did ever again.
My bad:
Most people's dating preferences? Still sexist.
Better?
I can't choose what I'm attracted to. And you of all people should be able to understand that. Being attracted to a certain skin tone is no different than being attracted to a certain gender. And that's no different than having some sexual fetish. It all falls in line in the same way. You can't choose what you are attracted to.
That's why I'm so chill with the LGBT community. They can't choose who they are attracted to and neither can I. No need to judge because of that.
Please explain how I can "choose" who I'm attracted to. Isn't that the whole argument the LGBT community is trying to make? That you can't? It's not like I can magically just be turned on by anything.
You are not biologically or genetically predisposed to dislike (or not be attracted to) certain races.
Moreover, even if you were, that wouldn't make it not racist. It would just make it inherent racism.
Meanwhile, in the LGBT community, as I have stated, there is evidence that gender preferences have biological or genetic roots.
You are arguing this point because you do not want to view yourself as discriminating. Isn't it better to acknowledge the difference in racial treatment, and, if you're okay with not dating those races, move on? Some people, like me, are going to find it racist, and by my definition, which I've already stated multiple times, it undeniably is. It doesn't seem to bother you to make that judgment call on attractiveness based on the race of other people - it just bothers you to get called "racist" for it. Look. Some people are going to call you racist for it.
Can you back that statement please? I have not once made an active decision/choice towards what I'm attracted to.
- that wouldn't make it not racist. It would just make it inherent racism.
So I guess there's inherent sexism as well?
What's your explanation for sexual fetishes then? People choose to only be turned on by certain obscure things? That's a choice? What about pedophiles? They chose to be attracted to children?
That's a pretty bigoted and hypocritical worldview.
I can't choose which ethnicity or personality, or eye color or any other weird thing I might find attractive. Just like how I find inward noses attractive and am repulsed by outward ones. I guess I'm nose-ist as well, right?
God damn. How ignorant can you be? Just as people can't choose to be straight or gay, people can't choose what they are attracted to. It's all the same goddamn thing.
Edit: It's about as racist as being attracted only females being sexist is. And at that point, I'm okay. I'm not sexist because I only like females. And I'm not racist for only liking one ethnicity. Unless you are claiming 90% of the world is sexist.
Aw, man, you caught me! That's my problem. I'm ignorant. My bad. Lemme go get some education.
Whether or not you can choose it, you are making a judgment about an entire class of people based on their skin tone.
A Jewish person might decide for religious reasons that he only wants to date other Jewish people. He may have a very good reason for this, for instance he wants to raise his children in the Jewish tradition or he wants to have a Jewish wedding or whatever. It's still discriminatory.
In ways, dating is about discrimination. Yes, you're nose-ist, and I'm age-ist.
- people can't choose what they are attracted to
Can you back that up? Moreover, just because you don't think you've made a conscious decision, doesn't mean that a decision hasn't been made - a choice that you weren't born with, already formed in your consciousness.
I don't pretend to be an expert on sexual fetishes or what causes them but I suspect it is a multifold scenario with many variables and that many people have different "causes" or what-have-you behind their fetishes. I would posit that is far too broad a subject and one in which I have too little knowledge for me to comment on.
- you are making a judgment about an entire class of people based on their skin tone.
Except I'm not. I'm not making any judgements. It's "what I'm attracted to" vs "what I'm not attracted to". I don't act differently towards those people because of it. I don't think of them any differently. I just don't think of them as datable. And most people I don't consider datable. Which shouldn't really be the concern of anyone, since I'm only going to be in a relationship with one person (ideally) anyway.
- In ways, dating is about discrimination. Yes, you're nose-ist, and I'm age-ist.
Except you are totally butchering what it means. And you are applying both definitions onto the person. Which is wrong. I'm not racist. I just don't want to date them. I'm not nose-ist. I just don't want to date them. You aren't age-ist, you just don't want to date them. "ist" would imply you treat them differently and as less-than.
- Can you back that up? Moreover, just because you don't think you've made a conscious decision, doesn't mean that a decision hasn't been made - a choice that you weren't born with, already formed in your consciousness.
If it's a choice, I should be able to choose otherwise. And I can't. If it's not a conscious choice, it's not a choice.
- I don't pretend to be an expert on sexual fetishes or what causes them but I suspect it is a multifold scenario with many variables and that many people have different "causes" or what-have-you behind their fetishes. I would posit that is far too broad a subject and one in which I have too little knowledge for me to comment on.
I'm willing to bet it's approximately the same thing that "causes" gender preferences and any other sexual related thing. Considering it's all effecting the same thing anyway. As I said, gender is thrown into the mix with everything else. It's not "special". It's just yet another preference on top of the hundreds possibly thousands I already have. There's nothing special about it. So stop acting like there is.
Edit: Skin Tone / ethnicity isn't special either. And I'm surprised you latched onto this instead of continuing the discussion from earlier. I think you just wanted to call someone racist :P
- It's okay to be picky. Just don't let your pickiness become "artificial structures devised not beacuse you have a reason for them, but because you are afraid of dating, and so use fake "standards" in order to ensure everyone who approaches you is immediately ineligible."
I'm not sure how it looks from the outside, but I can say that I've dated quite a few girls who didn't fall into the "ideal female" category in the magazine of my own fantasies. Come to think about it, I've even dated girls that have shattered fantasies for me. I used to think that dating a girl who couldn't keep her hands off me would be great . . . and it was, for a surprisingly short time. After that, it got to be kind of a pain.
Partner In Crime is a good way of putting it. I have plenty of guy friends who fit that description, but for friends I'm not always certain it's a good thing. For example, I have a good friend like that and sometimes we'd just feed off each other until we'd created a perfect storm of What Not To Do. Live and learn.
- Partner In Crime is a good way of putting it. I have plenty of guy friends who fit that description, but for friends I'm not always certain it's a good thing. For example, I have a good friend like that and sometimes we'd just feed off each other until we'd created a perfect storm of What Not To Do. Live and learn.
Partner in Crime - I'm so gonna steal that one to describe relationships.
The best friends I have, have that magic combination of serious, thought-provoking discussions and sarcastic, silly humour. I'm lucky to have multiple people like that in my friend groups, but not many of them are female. Partner in crime sounds like the best kind of relationship, really: working together to achieve goals, but knowing each other well enough to help the other out.
Ha, thanks. It is a good encapsulation of what I want. You sum up the essense well. I want someone who is in on my crazy plans, but as you add in - "knowing each other well enough to help the other out" - someone I can depend upon if things go wrong (as we cavort about breaking the law a la Bonnie and Clyde). Someone who is worthy of my trust in these potentially-madcap adventures.
In a perfect world my perfect partner in crime would be someone who would help me win the prisoner's dilemma. But that requires me to trust them as much as they trust me, and that's where I think I would run into problems first.
Edit: But really. What's two years in prison?
(Being facetious!)
- Sometimes in a restaurant I’ll catch myself staring at the girl at the next table to mine because I like the shape of her nose.
I do this for everyone. I like looking at noses. Sue me.
But more honestly, a "soulmate" is a stupid concept. Mainly because people generally fall under a few different "types" and those types can be matched.
That said, I was once asked "what do I look for in a girl/woman". I didn't know. Hadn't thought about it. So over the next few years I spent carefully figuring out what I liked in a person. What brought me joy. Etc.
I'm close to finishing what I think of as my "100% Girl". Personality, appearance, hobbies, etc. It's much more than what the article states. Looks aren't everything.
But I could easily list trait after trait on who I'm looking for. And I've found some people that are close in one way or the other. And all I have to really do while looking for a mate is basically "tick boxes".
As much as I am a believer in fate and determinism. A soul mate is a ridiculous concept. An "ideal" mate is not. And honestly, it baffles me that people get into relationships that they know won't work out. Unless they seriously don't know what type of people they are compatible with or want to be in a relationship with...
AshShields introduced to to Murakami via this post - incredible stuff. If you haven't read some of his other stuff, I strongly recommend it. On Seeing the 100% Perfect Girl One Beautiful April Morning is the one that stuck with me the most, but The Elephant Vanishes has crept into my mind more than once since the initial reading.
No problem, I was wondering when I posted that. FYI, when you edit a shout-out, it doesn't go to the new recipient so I will shout-out to TAA for you. Here goes nothing.... theadvancedapes
edit: Sure glad you mis-shouted out to me. What a fantastic read.