Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

The difference are that you edited a negative out of his first quote and in his second quote he was talking about a videogame.

Wheras you said, with no negative in front of it, and referring to the real world, that it is female to be punched in the face.

If you just used a gender stereotyping view of relationships that would be ok but you're trying to explain the entire world with a stupid pseudo-scientific analogy.  Either provide some evidence that these fundamental forces/ energies exist or stop doing it.

[Leatra]

the female potential to be punched in the face

Oh, that's a dirty shot. Focusing our attack on one flaw and ignoring the rest of the argument. We don't do that while debating.

I think he is just saying, no matter how masculine a man can become, he will still have femininity in him. Imagine a homo relationship between the one who punches and the one who got punched. One will be clearly more masculine than the other. That's how I understood it.

Not that I agree with any ideas I have seen here, but still.

[wagawaga]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 

According to your model, is a relationship where the giving and the taking is balanced possible, as in neither being has a "giving" or a "recieving" role?

I'm not talking of a relationship where there is no "giving" and no "recieving", but of one where the two forces balance.

You mean...each participant is 50% masculine and 50% feminine, with individual facets/qualities/personality quirks/etc complementing each other?

A B

M F
M F
F M
M F
F M
F M
M F
F M

Instead of:

A B

M F
M F
F M
M F
F M
M F

Sure. That could happen. That's fine.

Is it even concievable in your model, or is every relationship bound to be defined by a
more-ore-less strong degree of one part doing more "giving" than "recieving"?

Short answer: Yes, it's conceivable. No, relationships need not be defined in that manner.

Needlessly wordy esoteric long answer - There's no fundamental reason for complex participants possessing more than one "quality" to necessarily have a majority of their qualities swing one way or another. Though there are probably trends. For example, if you have 100 participants with 100 assorted "qualities" with each quality being either male or female...assuming any kind of moderate distribution, odds are good that probably a lot of them won't be precisely 50/50.

But...in any "system" of participants actively engaging in energy exchange, the overall balance of the exchange itself has to be even, by definition. If you view an actor/receiver as a single entity, their exchange will work out to net balance. For example, if the event: "a meteorite collides with a planet" occurs, then obviously there had to be a planet receiving the impact. You can't have more masculine or more feminine energy exchange within a single event.

"Energy" itself is not an event. Energy is the potential for an event to occur. Saying that someone "is" masculine or feminine is a gross simplification, as you point out above with your mention of the net balance of forces. It might be more accurate to describe people as having various potentials and preferences for potentials, and preferences for how their potentials are used. For example, let's say Bob wants to sexually dominate Sara, but there is no contact between them. Bob wants for a masculine/feminine exchange to occur in which his masculine energy meets with her feminine energy in a sexual capacity. But let's imagine that instead...Tom comes by and punches him in the face. Bob didn't want to be on the receiving end of that masculine energy, but he nevertheless had the female potential to be punched in the face, and his exchange with Tom occurred. Bob is probably unhappy with this. But he did have the female energy potential to be punched in the face.

So...looking at that...do we say that Bob has a surplus of female energy? We probably wouldn't look at it that way. Saying that someone "is masculine" or "is feminine" is similarly a bit inaccurate. Really what we're describing is a preference for how potential energy is put to use. Those Ms and Fs in the answer to the above question are probably "preferences" exhibited by each individual rather than individual, specific energy exchanges from an event. But both of those examples were "100% harmony" examples because there were matching Ms for every F. It doesn't really matter what the distribution is.

And, if it is possible, is it any more right or any more wrong than any other kind
of relationship (where also the two parts fit each other) your model describes?

...I'm not sure what sort of criteria could be applied to make a "right or wrong" judgement. "Morality" isn't relevant to the model. Your question is kind of like asking whether it's "good or bad" that the force of gravity pulls equally on apples as it does oranges of equivalent mass.

I suppose..."are both participants happy with the exchange?" would be a reasonable criteria. But that criteria doesn't suggest any preference for of against your scenario one way or another.

I don't believe relationships should work as a game of power.
I know that's the way the great majority of them DO work (that's why LordBucket's model makes sense, it is applicable to reality), but that doesn't stop me from believing it's... wrong.

...well, I think that's a personal bias showing up. There's nothing wrong with being female. Ask any woman who's had an orgasm. Exchange events don't need to be unpleasant, and there's no need for use of power to be any kind of "cruel game." If you want to do X, then find someone who wants to have X done to them. There's no need to play power games.

And it's sad when guys are afraid, or feel guilty about doing X when there are a bunch of women sitting around wishing for it to be done to them. That's kind of what I think is going on with the "nice guy" phenomenon. And that's not exclusive by any means to just sex. I'm sure it happens at least as often that a girl wishes a guy would just choose where to eat dinner rather than making a big production out of asking for her preference.

You clarified pretty much everything, thank you.
The "personal bias" showing up is, in fact, personal bias. Or rather, personal preference. That's why I put that last part into spoilers and warned in squared brackets to avoid confusion (I tend to make horrible word choices when voicing my thoughts).
Those are simply the kind of relationship I desire, I didn't mean to say other people can't or shouldn't desire otherwise.
I've just never felt comfortable (I should have used this expression rather than "it feels wrong to me") being strongly on the receiving or giving part.

In romantic relationships most of the time it's expected for one part to be masculine and the other one feminine.
In friendships it's more common (at least in my experience) for M/F roles to be much less present.
Thus the reason I'm much more comfortable with friendships than with romantic relationships.

[kaijyuu]

So it turns out heteronormative sexual dimorphism makes me feel actually physically ill. Whodathunk?

[misko27]

So it turns out heteronormative sexual dimorphism makes me feel actually physically ill. Whodathunk?

I don't know what this means. Google is confused. Something about phenotypical differences and heterosexuality.
 

Spoiler: Instead, I have this. (click to show/hide)

[kaijyuu]

I basically smashed a bunch of words together to make my own phrase, but by that I meant applying heteronormative gender roles (there being a "man" and a "woman" in a relationship, regardless of their actual sex) to everyone. Dimorphism is perhaps a bad word, but I meant it to mean "two-sided".

[misko27]

I basically smashed a bunch of words together to make my own phrase, but by that I meant applying heteronormative gender roles (there being a "man" and a "woman" in a relationship, regardless of their actual sex) to everyone. Dimorphism is perhaps a bad word, but I meant it to mean "two-sided".

Okay then, but I still want you to tell me where you think you are on my graph. I'm probably a one. Maybe, 0.8-1.2.

[kaijyuu]

~4.

The kinsey scale is totally broken and not very useful, by the way. It's not a sliding scale in reality. You don't necessarily become less attracted to one gender by being more attracted to the other.

[misko27]

~4.

The kinsey scale is totally broken and not very useful, by the way. It's not a sliding scale in reality. You don't necessarily become less attracted to one gender by being more attracted to the other.

Ehh, but still. It's sciency. And how many pther Graphs have you seen on the subject? Besides, it's a attempt to bring coherence to a tough subject.

[Rose]

I just have a two-axis scale, with each axis being level of attraction to a particular gender.

[kaijyuu]

Which leaves out the difference between sexual attraction and romantic attraction.

It also calls into question where trans individuals fit in.

And on a potentially-humorous-potentially-horrifying note, it also leaves out non-human attraction (such as toward automobiles. Seriously).

[Rose]

I have an intense romantic attraction to my Vespa

[LordBucket]

I think he is just saying, no matter how masculine a man can become, he will still have femininity in him. Imagine a homo
relationship between the one who punches and the one who got punched. One will be clearly more masculine than the other. That's how I understood it.

Tai chi tui shou exercises would provide a much better example, but I don't really expect anyone here to have any clue what that is, and youtube videos are unlikely to adequately convey the idea.

It probably doesn't matter. Those who want to understand, will. Those who want to ridicule, will. Everybody gets what they want.

You clarified pretty much everything, thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you for understanding.

[scriver]

It also calls into question where trans individuals fit in.

Since transsexuality is not a "-sexuality" in the same sense for example "heterosexuality" or "homosexuality" is, it isn't relevant to such a scale at all. To be clearer, the "-sexuality" of transexuality could be exchanged with a "-genderism" (transgenderism would mean roughly the same), while the one on bisexuality can be exchanged with a "-philia" (biphilia would mean the same), but you can't do the opposite - transphilia or bigenderism would not remotely mean or fit what it is supposed to enconcept.

[GlyphGryph]

Lordbucket, I think part of the issue is not that the core concept you are communicating seems rather... generalist, and mundane, and doesn't reflect reality as I've experienced it. Or that it comes to seemingly contradictory conclusions (you say men should take action, but that that being man or woman doesn't determine the balance of masculine/feminine, so why would a Nice person exhibiting more feminine attributes simply not be best served by finding a more masculine-focused woman?)

It's that you seem to have the ability to cast rather simple concepts in the most pretentious and offensive way possible. It would be if I had a discussion about crime by casting the various factors as the result of inherently African or European energies. I could. I could even do so in a way that, ignoring the language, would actually be roughly consistent description of reality.

But it would be stupid, and people would treat me like a dick, because words matter, and I'd be communicating far more than the idea within the "model". Like you are - you aren't just communicating your model, you're communicating a whole lot more, and all the non-model bits are not only extraneous, but actively damaging to your credibility.