singles thread

[sifi]

Interesting.

I was witness to a lecture presented by Zizek recently. He talked about love. He said that love could only exist as an ideal. However, he rejected the ideal of 'to die for the other' calling it indicative of the socialisation of liberal culture citing Disney films (that was really funny). Instead, he said that true idealistic love had to be shared. And the only way to share is through an idealised third party. So, two people in love can only excercise their love through a shared look towards an ideal. He used the example of the revolutionary couple who look to, well, the revolution and value it more than themselves. This was interesting as it explains why we choose to have children after the consumation of sex and romance is over.

He didn't reject the notion of 'to die for' though. What he did was apply it to the third party. So, the person would sacrifice themself and even their lover for the third party. He cited the revolution, however if you look in relation to a child, this becomes much more easier to grasp.

Zizek is f**king excellent. And I usually detest Marxists.

[worm]

In what way? i mentioned both partners being happy and therefore the relationship will last... The personal goals they have to achieve this happiness is something personal to them.

The only judgement of sucess in a relationship can be happiness and whether the relationship thrives.

[worm]

He's obviously not been in love then.

[Radar]

How can you judge the thriving of a relationship that is shared with other sexual partners? In what way can its success be measured? You are one of many lovers, just as they are one of many lovers. If one person stops having casual sex with you, then there are others.

[Rufus Gwertigan]

I'm sure this lady will understand that there are often difficulties with that area. Obviously you don't want to scare her with some of the more difficult aspects but I wouldn't worry too much about telling her a little about that situation.

[worm]

You're making the mistake of presuming that all the sexual partners are equal.

Edited April 23, 2009 by worm

[Katster]

The thing that gets me in the assumed and inherent superiority of the "in love" position. Sure being in love is nice, and can make you feel good, but then so do a great many things. It can also make you feel like life has chewed you up and pooed you out. Again, like many things.

I'm not saying a relationship is a bad thing, I'm just saying it's no better or worse than being on your own. It's not necessarily you lot, although the smugness does ooze through the monitor from some of you, but people generally. Way much too much empahsis is put on finding your partner. Many people are made to feel inferior for having the taste and class not to cling blindly to the first person who shows them a bit of attention. Even intellegent people I know seem to get confused and deperate for this mythical feeling. I'm not saying it can't be good, or that it doesn't exist. I am saying that creating a situation where people are make to feel stupid and a lesser person for not being coupled leads to people taking on bad relationships and leading lives that could be so much happier if they were allowed to feel that being on their own was a legitimate choice. This leads to alsorts of problems. Divorce, domestic abuse and unwanted childen for starters. So hard is the lesson that you are alright on your own too.

Life is good, life is bad. Being in love doesn't alter that fact. The desperate will remain so, even when they are in love. Self contentment should be your goal, 'cos without it you are f**ked.. even if you do pull Brad Pitt (ask poor Jennifer!).

peace, love and independence.. but not always in that order.

[Peevis]

Is there a bad orgasm??

[Rufus Gwertigan]

Can I just let it be known that although I am very happy in my current relationship, I was also very happy when single and don't think finding/getting/having a partner is the meaning of life.

I'd have been quite happy bumbling along on my own forever more, if nobody special had come along who thought I was equally special too.

[Goblinz]

How can you judge the thriving of a relationship that is shared with other sexual partners? In what way can its success be measured? You are one of many lovers, just as they are one of many lovers. If one person stops having casual sex with you, then there are others.

Surely we should be saying relationships, rather than relationship. If you want to focus upon one relationship of the many, then of course it won't thrive in comparison to a closed relationship. Because it's just one relationship in relation to many. The success of an open relationship is decided by you having more than one relationship.

[Katster]

We are socially conditioned to beleive that in a relationship that you should only share you rbody with your partner and that everything else is bad and damaging

[Radar]

We are also, it would appear, socially conditioned to only think of lasting relationships as successful ones.

[Radar]

Exactly

[Goblinz]

We are also, it would appear, socially conditioned to only think of lasting relationships as successful ones.

[Katster]

You seem to understand these open relationships.

What if anything would you say was different about the people who are able to cast off all the social religious, biological and other suggested reasons for wanting exclusivity?

Are they (and/or you) simply more open-minded? More rational?

Just interested.

Edited April 23, 2009 by Katster

[worm]

No, the goal of an open relationship does not have to be to go out and sleep with as many people as possible, like some sort of competition.

[worm]

Exactly

Edited April 23, 2009 by worm

[worm]

I'm also GLAD I went out with Tosser McTosser a couple of years back, because he made me realise what was important in life, what I wanted from life (more what I didn't want but they go hand in hand ) and he made me determined not to 'settle' for an unhappy relationship. Sometimes you don't even know what the 'goals' of a relationship are, until you are long out of that relationship. It is also possible for people to love someone so much they KNOW they can't be with them and so they end the relationship, that doeasn't mean at all that their relationship has been unsuccessful.

[Katster]

You can't have success without a goal. There is nothing to measure it by. What you seem to be referring to is fortune.

[Radar]

Open relationship means that you are effectively single. On what premise can you judge that successful?

[Goblinz]

Just as well that I didn't say that then.

If the relationship is open then there is more than one relationship (more than two people). If the relationship is closed then there are only two people. Open relationship means that you are effectively single. On what premise can you judge that successful?

[worm]

Nope.

Again you're going back to this thing of whether it is only through sex that you can judge a relationship with a partner as being different to a relationship with anyone else.

Now I suppose it is perfectly possible to define a relationship with a partner differently - you are coming at it from the wrong angle, ie: "it must contain x to be y"

Surely you can see how x can be enjoyed with a whole range of people, as are other variables, yet there will still be something special about y?

(excuse the algebraic model, but I'm trying to break it down for you there)

Edited April 23, 2009 by worm

[worm]

No, there's a difference between sleeping around (single) and being in an open relationship (not single). I'm not sure how else I can put this so you an understand it.

[worm]

Well, whatever it is, it's sometimes something you don't realise from the relationship until long after the relationship has ended.

[Katster]

Nope.

Again you're going back to this thing of whether it is only through sex that you can judge a relationship with a partner as being different to a relationship with anyone else.

Now I suppose it is perfectly possible to define a relationship with a partner differently - you are coming at it from the wrong angle, ie: "it must contain x to be y"

Surely you can see how x can be enjoyed with a whole range of people, as are other variables, yet there will still be something special about y?

(excuse the algebraic model, but I'm trying to break it down for you there)