Increasing popularity of friends-first approach

Post Reply New Topic

Says they'll make it "simple", but then complicates crap with extraneous assumptions...

But thank you for clarifying the idea of "man plus woman". Up until then, I had thought you meant a squid, a moose, and a lemur, playing poker on a twister mat doused in lavender oil...

As before, perhaps these are things you personally have experienced, but that does not speak for anyone, let alone everyone, else.

To be fair, I'm willing to wager that, from the perspective of someone with zero self-control, any self-control likely feels like a Zen Master level skill - in much the same way anything is "heavy" or "impossible to move!" to someone who's sufficiently physically weak. Sounds more like a case of "if I can't do it, nobody can!", to me.

Additionally, I notice that in your "part B" section, your after-thought of (or male) after starting with "female", could just as easily been replaced with "person", and not had to navigate the gender divide to begin with. Furthermore, you speak of a "conflict of interest" when one person does find a steady partner, yet you had no reservations about being friends with married women, as it (presented no risk), or words to that effect. It really seems like you think this is mostly something that "women to do men", despite the "inclusion" tossed in as an afterthought, to be quickly forgotten.

You'd think p*ssy was heroin, the way some speak of the impossibility of self-control when lust is involved. Lack of sex is not lethal. It's not like hunger or thirst. While the desire itself may be physiological, the obsession and desperation are purely psychological. Sure, sexual frustration is, well, frustrating. So go whack-off. Many men don't, because "that's for losers and betas". Their choice, their loss, their problem.

It sounds like an alcoholic blaming the existence of alcohol, rather than their alcoholism. Their inability to say "no" is nobody's problem but their own.

You rang?

There IS such a thing as emotional discipline.
Not all ppl revert to animalistic behaviour.
Probably, most don't, if they are in a healthy relationship.

It is more difficult for NTs, though, due to their more emotionalistic nature.

cyberdad may be in the group that thinks men and women can't have deep friendships because of sexual tension.
I am not of that group, btw.

So, as functioning adults, should they be expected to have emotional discipline, since not all people revert to animalistic behavior? Or do they get a pass because it's "difficult" for their "emotionalistic nature"?

In either case, interesting observations. I'd be curious to hear more. Please do elaborate.

I am curious to find out what he thinks bisexual people do. Only befriend married people?

Can lesbians never have friends because their male friends will pine over them unrequitedly and the lesbian will pine over all her female friends? Or do we just only befriend gay men and / or married people? Or can we only befriend women if we find them repulsive?

Seems excessive.

Animalistic/emotionalistic behaviour, bad.

BTW,
Not all adults are functional.
I don't EXPECT emotional discipline from most ppl.
On the contrary.

And tedious. Like a constantly changing series of restraining orders, telling you who you can and can't be around.

Also, how is marriage a guarantee of anything? A single person can still develop feelings for a married person, and a married person can still develop feelings for a single person - or both can occur, and it's mutual, so they have an affair.

I am not a lesbian, but I can give a viewpoint as a heterosexual male.

Just because "you" are friends doesn't mean "you" have sexual attraction.
Some ppl, like me, can switch it off.
E.G., I will never fall in love with a married woman, full stop.
"Love/lust is a choice."
This discipline often/usually comes with age/experience.

Teenage men are often dickheads because of their testosterone levels and inexperience controlling it.
More mature men have less testosterone and usually have greater discipline, especially if they are already in a healthy relationship.

I read just recently that men's libido can lower when they are in a committed relationship.
Apparently, evolution has provided a mechanism where they become more nurturing to help look after the children.
"Interesting."

The key word is: "healthy coupling relationship".
Ok, three words.

Premise: The ppl involved are in the "normal" range of human behaviour.
Reason would suggest that if a couple is happy in their relationship, there is less incentive for infidelity.
Presumably, most "flings" are the result of something missing.

I made very specific caveats which you seem to have conveniently missed.
Male A - attracted to Female B
Female B knows but gives mixed signals in order to string Male A along
Male A practices zen like abstinence fro several years in order to spend days in a week with female B
Female B friendzones Male A while sleeping with several low life Males who use her for her body

I am certainly not saying I handled the relationship well, not am I saying Female B is totally to blame (I must take responsibility for my own naivety)

But female B gameified my desperation and simping for her own ends. When I think of that Singaporan guy suing his former :friend" for friendzoning him, I feel the same way. I was scammed.

I have no reason to believe what you described is inaccurate.
I haven't experienced anything like that but I can understand your resentment.

Are you talking about "The Princess"?

Yes, I was 32 when I met her and she was 18. I stopped talking to her when she was 21.

She has scarred you for life, it seems.

Could she have simply chosen badly with the other men?
Could it have been your age difference that made her feel you two were not suitable?
Did she REALLY lead you on? I thought you said she was surprised when you showed your interest.

Which "normal" range are we talking about?





The emotionalistic ones, or the majority that you don't expect emotional discipline from?

Just cos someone is happy in a relationship doesn't preclude the possibility of being happyER with someone else. And being emotionlistic, even if they are in a happy relationship, if the new person makes them feel even bigger butterflies, then emotionalism should trump logic, yes? Especially since you don't expect emotional discipline from most people. On the contrary...

Oh, I noticed them. They were indeed specific. Very specific. Very very specific. So specific, it's almost as if you were describing something that happened to you. Lo and behold...

I also noticed it contains a lot of vague assumptions that are just supposed to be taken as true.

So you got bamboozled by someone. While I am not without sympathy for such things, as it has happened to me as well, running away seems like a far less effective and healthy approach than learning to say "no" and set boundaries. The neat thing about opportunists is, after a few times of being told "no", they self-remove, in search of someone more compliant. Whereas, if all you know how to do is disengage and avoid, all they have to do is corner you and bear down.



Bingo. Given that we can only control our own actions, that's about all anyone can do.

Your experience is real and true, sure, and it's a shame it happened. It seems to have caused you some deep unhappiness, and that alone is unfortunate.

But you're still casting a wide net based on a single person, just to avoid something rather than confront it.

People with avoidant tendencies tend to be easier to manipulate, and if the goal is to prevent manipulation, engaging in avoidant behavior seems counter-productive, despite the initial "obvious logic" of simply avoiding situations wherein you might be manipulated. "Avoid" is a fast and easy solution, so people tend to go for it, rather than any slow and difficult options. It doesn't work, but people do it. Fairly common reaction.

I just now noticed this.



While I am not without sympathy for misfortune, I'm strugglin' here...

Ppl with integrity don't.