So, I just encountered this thread and read through it... and then reread it again. Fascinating.
I'm bringing back the discussion on LordBucket's view, I don't know how much of a derail it is considering the current motion of this thread, but I guess it's fine. I might post my thoughts on the current topic (sex apparently), later.
So, some of my thoughts on what has been said here.
LordBucket, you have a most interesting position, a logically coherent one I can see you've put much effort into building, and I respect that. I respect even more the fact that you've kept talking and trying your best to explain it despite the sometimes abrasive reactions to it.
I've put myself into trying to understand it, and I think I got most of it, even if I'll never be able to fully comprehend it. So sorry in advance for any imprecisions or misunderstandings in my language, just question them and I'll try to explain it again, hoping we can eventually get our points across.
This is my attempt to summarize your model:
From what I gather, your model places most (all?) relationships between two beings into a giving/taking (or yin/yang, or whatever other words you want to use instead of those two), which implies one being starts the action and the other one recieves it, the first one showing strength over the other one, with no evil intention.
These relationships are all but black and white - indeed, there are many shades of gray in between.
The "giving" part is often associated to males in most cultures, and the "recieving" to females, hence your use of "masculine", and "feminine".
[On this point I'm not sure I completely understood, please correct me]
The achievement of "harmony" (I'm not too sure that was the word you used) is accomplished when the two parts are made to fit each other.
To put it into a (badly written, but I can't think of anything bettter) numerical metaphor, a being on 3/10 on the giving/recieving scale will achieve harmony when paired with a being on 7/10. That would be, in your words, "a correct matching of yin/yang."
Now, for my own view on relationships.
I've figured out it can actually fit in your model nicely, but it sits in a particular case you haven't discussed yet (or maybe you did and I missed it).
To better clarify, I ask you these questions:
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?
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"?
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 asking you this because from what I've seen you believe these forces to be fundamental (not sure if right word) forces, so I'm not sure wether a relationship where their sum is 0 (or close to it) even possible, or if the absence of a net force in one direction or the other would make the relationship null in your eyes.
I reiterate, I'm not talking of a relationship where there is no "giving" and no "recieving", but of one where the two forces balance.
[Here is where I start saying my beliefs on what is wrong or right, as well as some good amount of my personal experiences, ignore this part if you're not interested. None of the words in this part are meant to prove any kind of fallacy in Lordbucket's or anyone else's model, and if they sound like they are, then excuse my poor use of language. They're meant to be just that, my beliefs and my personal experiences]
Because that kind of relationship is the relationship I would strive for.
I think the only position in this thread that is close to mine is SalmonGod's, on page 7:
Anyway. My current best guess at understanding (after ~15 years of trying) is this. Establishment of pecking order is #1 priority in all human relationships. It's not even an unspoken rule. It's a deeply rooted instinctual imperative. I know it's pretty broadly understood that there are subtle power games at work in any social interaction. I think my problem is I refuse to participate. People want to weigh themselves against me, and my refusal to step on the scale is deeply infuriating in a way that they don't even understand. I'm not aggressive or submissive. As long as I refuse to play the game, it seems like most people cannot have normal interactions with me.
And this isn't a universal rule. I've met other people who are sort of like me in this way, but they're definitely exceptions.
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.
I believe that perfection in a relationship is when both parts are on the same level, and while it's an utopia at best, it's still a goal to strive for.
That's also the reason why I'm not interested in romantic relationships at all.
I don't dislike the idea of an intimate relationship, it's just that the widespread thoughts on them don't appeal me.
I've found that the closest thing to a perfect relationship to me is what most think as "the first step", that is, friendship.
I'd place much more trust in a close friend than in a lover, and friendship isn't bound by all the social norms romantic relationships are.
Don't let my words fool you into thinking I'm an extremely choosy person when it comes to relationships: I'm actually quite the opposite. Having a (utopic) goal does not mean having a minimum standard everyone I meet must measure up to.
I take what I get and try to make the most out of it.
In fact the whole "what do you look for in a partner" thing is something I just don't do, as they would be expectations from other people that I have no right to make.
To answer the OP, I have no idea why would a woman look for a nice/not nice guy. It's the kind of prejudice that just doesn't feel right to me.
I've yet to meet face-to-face with anyone that shares my position, but that doesn't make my beliefs any less valid.
Thank you if you took the trouble of reading my garbled thoughts, I appreciate that.
Author
Topic: "Why don't women like nice guys?" (Read 44748 times)