Just keep in mind that emotional stressors can crop up anytime and anyplace. You may find someone who will be an ally. Perhaps a damn good one.

Yeah but if you make that person jump through too many hoops, she may just prefer that you f*ck off. There's an opportunity cost to everything, including trying to eliminate risk.

I've scraped by, as much by luck as anything.

I don't know what a broken heart is like, and it's frustrating to work in an information vacuum, but it really seems worse (harder to cope with) than many forms of torture. For example, this study implies that virtually nothing increases suicide risk as much as divorce. Divorced men have a suicide rate more than double that of married men, single men, and even widowed men. That's a sobering figure.

It's definitely a decision I've made. And I think life has plenty to offer outside of long-term romantic commitments, so at worst I have more time to pursue other things.

Funny, my parents divorced when I was very young, and it scarred both of them. Maybe our parental models color our outlooks even more than our own experiences do. But I agree it would be stupid to ignore the upside. In fact, it would be exactly the same as ignoring the downside, and it would carry the same potential costs.

I want to look good in all black, but I just don't have the complexion for it.

I agree, and it'd be naive of me to think I can maintain a firm footing in every endeavor. Sometimes life has a way of knocking us over, and it's important to know how to get back on one's feet. I don't want to sabotage myself or ignore opportunities, and I'm willing to compromise. But I mean to go into it with both eyes wide open, and I'm not in any hurry.

The people who are most damaged by failed relationships are people who were, all by their lonesome, unhealthy to start.

They're also potentially the people who will most be helped by good relationships.

At any rate we're all gonna do what we're gonna do. Relationships come together, and stay together, for all kinds of reasons, including bad ones and ones that don't have anything to do with reason at all. Many if not most of us could have had our heads screwed on straighter when making our major romantic decisions.

But perhaps it's not in our nature to avoid pain entirely, or in the nature of the world to coccoon us. Life is unpredictable and so are we and our partners. And even the perfect choice for one day might be the worst one for the next. A certain amount of taking our lumps in life, and probably passing them out even unwittingly, seems to be our lot. But perhaps that's not such a bad thing either.

Pain can be an opportunity for growth. It can stimulate us to think and feel in ways we never have before, and otherwise never would. It can lead us to being better people who may become better prepared for and more worthy of the happiness and love we wish for.

What would happen if you met the most wonderful partner possible, but had not had the life experiences necessary to realize it? What if you had not had the life experiences necessary to make of you more than a shadow of your potential? What would happen if the person you needed to be in order to be happy and make someone else happy didn't exist, because, in trying to protect yourself, you had prevented yourself from becoming him?

Who is to say that, for this very reason, this loss of your best chance of happiness hasn't happened already, and won't continue to happen again and again?

How much consolation is security in the long run?

Blarg I likey what you wrote. Reminded me of this:

There is a Taoist story of an old farmer who had worked his crops for many years. One day his horse ran away. Upon hearing the news, his neighbors came to visit. “Such bad luck,” they said sympathetically.

“Maybe,” the farmer replied.

The next morning the horse returned, bringing with it three other wild horses. “How wonderful,” the neighbors exclaimed.

“Maybe,” replied the old man.

The following day, his son tried to ride one of the untamed horses, was thrown, and broke his leg. The neighbors again came to offer their sympathy on his misfortune.

“Maybe,” answered the farmer.

The day after, military officials came to the village to draft young men into the army. Seeing that the son’s leg was broken, they passed him by. The neighbors congratulated the farmer on how well things had turned out.

“Maybe,” said the farmer.

What do we talk about when we talk about love, anyway? Whenever I teach Carver's story--and I did Monday night--I learn that the easiest way to silence a group of students is to ask them what love is. Eventually, they grope their way towards some sort of definition, and I let them continue along that track for awhile. Then I tell them that if I wanted a definition, I could simply look in a dictionary. Try again. They try again, this time offering more definitions. Again, try again, and look at the story. More attempts, and still they don't ever seem to get there. Finally, after an hour or so (and this only works with an evening class), I turn off the lights and tell them to listen. Then, finally, I ask them what they see. Well, at that point, nothing, of course.

Exactly.

Now try again.

I agree with this statement 100%.

Edit to add: My life just kind of went in a bad, non-directional manner from our relationship. Just living is all well and good when you are the child of rich and powerful people, but when you are me you need some structure and goals. I threw these all away to have fun and I'm still struggling 2.5 years later to get back on track, improve myself, and achieve the things I wanted.

I'm digging N.G., am excited about the prospects of what we can have together, but in general I think I have come to the conclusion that I pretty much dislike and resent women in general.

I don't want to be gay (like actually a homosexual) but they say 'fool me once, shame on you ... fool me twice, shame on me' (unless you are W) and I'm on like fool me #5 or 6. It's almost enough to just make me want to quit dating period, and just not worry about relationships. Then I meet someone new, I get that happy giddy feeling ... but at the same time in the back of my head I just feel so overtly pessimistic, thinking things like "this will never last".

All I'm trying to do now, is not over-think things (which is a problem in pretty much every facet of my life but especially in my relationships), treat her with respect and dignity (the way I would want to be treated), and just enjoy the moments as they come.

It's scary because I feel like I'm out on a ledge without even my negativity to protect me, but I really think that's what love is all about. Just sucking it up, putting your balls on the line, and saying regardless of any future negative outcomes that I'm going to pursue this because of the way I feel. I guess your bound to get hurt, but I hope eventually I won't. That the person I put my heart on the line for will love me in return, and we can have a nice life together. It hasn't happened yet though, and I hate myself a little bit more for trying each time. But I do love that giddy feeling.

You should just try to normalize pejorative slang for men. Just start calling us 'walking dicks' or 'sex only thinking machines'.

Why? I don't think I would inflict myself to something like that.

What? Then we wouldn't be the "fair sex" and get to have the last word...

Women objectify themselves, they don't need men to do it for them. Look at every modern, popular, clothing store inside a mall. Go look at every store meant for teenage girls, and young women. It is all low rise jeans, short skirts, shirts with massive cleavage. Its not all this type of clothes, but it definitely is a majority. Look at people magazine or women magazine such as people, or vogue, or cosmo. Everything inside these are to objectify women, yet who reads these magazines? Yep, women. Look at the show, and movie of "sex and the city." The entire series is based upon objectifying women, yet who are the ones doing the objectifying? Yep women. All they do is shop, wear sexy clothes, have sex, talk about sex, cheat on significant others, etc.

Honestly men will always be like "damn, look at the dime piece, look at her ass, legs, titties." We do this because we find the woman's body the most attractive, beautiful, sexy thing in the world. We desire it, so when men "objectify" a woman, they should feel great. Its the women who objectify out of jealousy, and yearning to look better, that make it a negative thing.

Women have been increasingly taught by the media to objectify themselves. This objectification is even at odds with the women's rights movement. Who controlled the television networks over the last 50 years? Up until the early 1900s women were wearing long dresses and showing an ankle was a big deal. There was a big stink when bloomers were introduced. Sex has been tied to product identification to make money. I'm sure the people making money didn't care that these images spilled over to young girls and told them they are nothing if they aren't sexy in addition to a million other traits women have to possess to be successful in this world.

If the women bought into it well they were trained to it but they've only recently gotten into business and politics in a big way so I don't think women did the objectification all by themselves and if they did it was because of the messages they received. They just bought into what society has always told them.

Sex sells. Here are some ads: http://inventorspot.com/articles/ads...sex_sells_5576

You sound like you are trying to make adjustments but are still very goal-oriented and likely to impose your vision of a relationship on situations and relationships instead of just enjoying them for what they are and getting your maximum due of happiness out of life on that basis. That sets up an obstacle course up for yourself and your partners to negotiate. Hardly a low-tension environment, even if you often feel comfortable with it. Maybe you would be better served by not imposing restrictions on yourself and other people and just letting things be what they are.

If you were to look at people in terms of spending your life with them and putting your heart on the line, you would direct yourself toward a very narrow vision of happiness and find the vast majority of people ultimately if not immediately unsatisfying. But that wouldn't usually be because of them and what they had to offer at all; in fact that viewpoint would sell a great many of them considerably short. The fault would lie with your own limited vision and egocentric stubbornness and rejection of the fullness of life's opportunities.

Splendour, blaming men for the human nature of both sexes doesn't make much sense and is, on a practical basis, a complete dead end.

i feel very similar and can definitely empathize with you...
except for me it isn't "this will never last" its "im not getting ****ed over again" so i never really develop any attachment (defense mechanisms woohoo)


i should note that im not against love, in fact i love being in love, but i hate feeling terrible and depressed when i get ****ed over...im still hoping for the everlasting fairy tale romance like in the movies

Splendour, I'm trying to decide if the name calling thing objectifies women. I'm not sure it does. I think women call men other things besides just "dude". We call them *******s, jerks, immature, etc.

It's a small minority of guys who call women names. They certainly don't think all women are ho's or bitches, just certain specific women.

If you can come up with the male equivalent of the word "bitch", then I'll agree with you. But I don't think a word with such negative connotations and long history exists in the English language for men.

jerk

No jerk is unisex. You can call a woman a jerk.

But you don't.

I'm not sure people call girls "jerks" with the same tone and sneer. Face it, men know exactly what we mean when we call them a jerk. They don't like it.

If you don't believe me try calling your boss a jerk (or your boyfriend...or your neighbor...or the guy sitting in the car next to you at the light)

Well this forensic psychologist calls women jerks:

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2005/10/...jerks-too.html

dictionary.com:

under jerk notice the absence of sex:

Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.

under bitch notice the presence of sex:

Slang. a. a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman.
b. a lewd woman


Women are always more strongly identified in sexual contexts then men and yes we catch it from both sides.

No way. To my mind, calling a guy an ******* is worse than calling him a jerk.

Why is "son of a bitch" an insult?
Why do guys call each other "bitches"?

HH,

I have done my own private study on this topic. My data indicates that men would rather not be called a jerk. I suggest trying it yourself and seeing which one gets the worst reaction.

Try this:

"Don't be such an ass hole"

"You know what? You're a real jerk"


Even men on message boards prefer the former.