taoist lovemaking and karezza

[C T]

Hi Non,

 

having nothing to be unhappy about does not equal happiness. You appear to have confused the matter somewhat.

 

As the Dalai Lama, and many other spiritual guides have said, over and over, "Happiness is the direct result of your thoughts, words and deeds."

 

You appear to be allowing what is going on to sweep you along, as if helpless to initiate a different set of conditions that will help steer you in the way you want to go.

 

Its apparent you are quite intelligent, and are able to assess things rather well... so why not attempt to create the right causes in order for you to obtain the desired results? You cannot expect to harvest a bumper crop of corn by planting grass seeds?

 

You expect conformity, but at what price? What are you willing to dish out? Certainly, whatever that is being released out of your thoughts, words and deeds are the exact causes of your present frustration. To avoid tomorrow's frustrations, rectify today's sequences and patterns in your general behavior.

 

Time to reassess your priorities, friend.

[Non]

so why not attempt to create the right causes in order for you to obtain the desired results? You cannot expect to harvest a bumper crop of corn by planting grass seeds?

 

i guess because deep down I am either ashamed, loveless, or I feel like it'd be morally wrong to take advantage of the situation even though I know it's wrong. Or I have the wrong perceptions, etc.

[Sloppy Zhang]

i guess because deep down I am either ashamed, loveless, or I feel like it'd be morally wrong to take advantage of the situation even though I know it's wrong. Or I have the wrong perceptions, etc.

 

From what I've read, all of those are a little bit right.

 

So what are you going to do about it?

[Seadoggy]

Its about trust and respect.For a woman, any woman to fully open up to you, inorder for her give you her all she needs to know that she can fully trust you.The trust must be there everyday,especially when she gets her claws out.A women must know that you are a man and that you wont back down or run away when things get heavy.

 

Everyday a woman should know that she is loved for who she is and respected.

 

If for some reason the trust is shattered it can never be fully repiared.NEVER!The relationship will lose its magic and both partners will have to settle for something less.

 

If on the other hand mutal trust and respect continue well theres no end to the depth a woman will love you.

[C T]

i guess because deep down I am either ashamed, loveless, or I feel like it'd be morally wrong to take advantage of the situation even though I know it's wrong. Or I have the wrong perceptions, etc.

I'm no psychotherapist, but this is precisely the kind of mindstate that i was talking about... first off, you are working from a base where you are holding a bag of 'incorrect' seeds, and secondly, you have not even tilled the ground to increase yield potential, and yet you expect to harvest the 'correct' crop. It won't happen. See where you are coming from in terms of motivation (seeds) for change - ashamed, loveless, morally wrong, wrong perceptions, etc... you are standing on infertile ground here, hence whatever you plant on this ground, you are leaving to chance that somehow, hopefully, something nice will grow and mature. What are the odds? Its about leverage, and, sorry to say, you have not got it (yet).

 

With leverage, its not merely about trying to get things right, or even by trying to be more positive. More than this, Its about fully understanding and accepting that you get exactly what you give. The unsatisfactoriness of your present circumstance stems not so much from doing things wrong, but from expecting the inappropriate results from your thoughts and actions. If you want to learn to be ok with what/where you are now, start to do so with the idea that you want responsible accountability and ownership of your situation, at the same time, bearing in mind that change will come from this mature and sane attitude. Then the right kind of result will be made possible, and in all probability, this mindstate, one of total acceptance, will shift you to creating a more fertile base with a higher growth potential. Here is where you begin to get leverage, one small nudge at a time.

 

As a start, you have to realize where you are now, to see it for what it is, without being mentally stuck with negative self-programming. Self-talk can be altered only when we learn to accept what we are without attaching judgement or bitter cynicism to the program.

[gendao]

And more specifically in response to the quoted segment, I seem to recall someone (most likely vortex, but if not, sorry for forgetting you) posting a study done in which they've found what what women were attracted changed depending on a variety of factors, while for men, they were attracted more universally to a certain "type".

I don't remember what all I've posted lol...but it does seem that a lot of women's choices are based upon situational Game Theory evo-psych. Which means that as her situation changes, her needs change too and so do her choices.

 

For example, I've noticed that the only time women in this country tend to settle for "beta providers" is generally when their backs are up against the wall and they really need them. Like after they're done having all the kids they can have and may have financial and other troubles. Basically, when they've reached a tipping point in their lives where their need for survival outweighs their need/ability to breed. This tends to be the type of women that the older Baby Boomers here interact with most.

 

Whereas most young, single women are nowhere near reaching this stage - and so basically instead focus on finding the biggest studs to breed with. This is the type of women that Non encounters.

 

In addition to the generational impact of feminism, this explains a lot of the generation gap in views of women between Baby Boomers and younger generations here. Because they very literally are talking about 2 different sets of women!

 

Of course, on a psychological "Byron Katie" level, your individual results will still vary depending on your own internal beliefs, regardless of all the stats out there.* Since I suffer from similar issues as Non, I am now starting to probe this issue deeply to finally resolve it. I made some headway yesterday, but haven't found the definitive answer yet. But, I think it has to do with a lot of rejection (including self-rejection) between the male and female within us (internal gender conflict).

 

* For example, I'm sure this chick could have married the biggest stud on the planet, if she wanted to. Instead, she marries this beta-looking geek - who even "jumped the ladder theory" with her!

"We were both coming out of other relationships and weren't in that mindset, I loved his energy and his spirit and I was always saying to friends: 'You've got to meet my new friend Geoffrey -- he's so much fun.' Then my friends invited him to dinner and he was late -- he's always late -- and they asked me if I wanted to save the seat next to me for Geoffrey and I went: 'No, no -- it's not like that.' Of course, as soon as I said it didn't matter, it suddenly did matter. I think my brain just had to catch up with my heart."

Maybe there is a logical reason why she apparently "dated down" - like developing an aversion to alpha studs in high school because she was a drama geek outcast then. But point is, Game Theory & evo psych are just pieces of the puzzle - but not the WHOLE picture in themselves..

 

For the women, there's many examples of this too. Look at David Letterman's ex-wife. For a late-night multimillionaire, he was arguably shooting well below what evo psych says his "league" should have been too. So again, personal psychological issues may have overridden biological instincts here as well..

Edited May 27, 2011 by vortex

[Owledge]

As the Dalai Lama, and many other spiritual guides have said, over and over, "Happiness is the direct result of your thoughts, words and deeds."

"Direct", what a vague term, so it's difficult to prove or disprove this statement. This is the kind of metaphysical life advice that won't help, because either it describes something that is so extremely trivial and obvious that you don't have to tell people, or it's just wrong.

You can think, speak and act only positive, constructive, compassionate, and you can still be fucked by life to the point where you wonder why you are such an idiot sticking to the 'light side of the force'.

You could say that if you believe in the system of karma, of cause and effect, and not in the Christian system of good vs. bad, your life's destiny might be to be a villain. But probably not a popular view ... and for a good reason.

 

I also recently heard a saying that is interestingly inconsistent. It was used in a Christian context, but is also used more generally and still includes mostly the same problem:

"The Lord never gives us a challenge too great for us to handle."

Oh, then suicide is no longer shunned by Christians? Because all the people committing suicide must be part of God's plan, since he doesn't give us more than we can handle. Interesting, classifying suicide as "handling a situation".

Oh waaaaait! The devil could have intervened! Yes, that's convenient. God is almighty, but he just can't do anything about that nasty guy!

[Birch]

Well.. the following might also be true:a woman will size you up moments after first meeting you and put you into one of 2 categories: she could find you sexually satisfying, or she doesn't. This affects all interactions thereafter, and yes even normal common non-sexual interactions.

 

If you're not sexually satisfying her currently or are not going to.. even if you are able to then it's best to steer clear of her. She will either a) call you out on sexual harassment and/or look at you as less of a man, or inferior.

 

It's just biology. I know it seems wrong and messed up but this is primitive human biology.

 

 

Oh man, I never thought I would suggest this to you. But here goes.

 

Stop giving a rat's arse about what women think/want/see/believe.

 

Focus instead on what they have to give you.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Oh man, I never thought I would suggest this to you. But here goes.

 

Stop giving a rat's arse about what women think/want/see/believe.

 

Focus instead on what they have to give you.

 

[Birch]

 

What ?

[Sloppy Zhang]

What ?

 

I never thought something like that would get said either.

[Owledge]

K's suggested solution is probably too simple and straightforward for most people to see. Kind of an emergency measure, not breaking a vicious cycle, but removing it. Emotional surgery.

[Sloppy Zhang]

K's suggested solution is probably too simple and straightforward for most people to see. Kind of an emergency measure, not breaking a vicious cycle, but removing it. Emotional surgery.

 

I mean I get it. It just SOUNDS really bad

Edited May 28, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[Pietro]

Statistically men and women are about equally happy. FOr every benefit a woman has a man has another.

 

NOTE:

There is no correlation between the two phrases.

People who won the lottery and people who lost the use of their legs are also equally happy after 6 months of the event. Our statistical happiness is not very much correlated with the benefits we have.

 

[C T]

"Direct", what a vague term, so it's difficult to prove or disprove this statement. This is the kind of metaphysical life advice that won't help, because either it describes something that is so extremely trivial and obvious that you don't have to tell people, or it's just wrong.

You can think, speak and act only positive, constructive, compassionate, and you can still be fucked by life to the point where you wonder why you are such an idiot sticking to the 'light side of the force'.

You could say that if you believe in the system of karma, of cause and effect, and not in the Christian system of good vs. bad, your life's destiny might be to be a villain. But probably not a popular view ... and for a good reason.

 

I also recently heard a saying that is interestingly inconsistent. It was used in a Christian context, but is also used more generally and still includes mostly the same problem:

"The Lord never gives us a challenge too great for us to handle."

Oh, then suicide is no longer shunned by Christians? Because all the people committing suicide must be part of God's plan, since he doesn't give us more than we can handle. Interesting, classifying suicide as "handling a situation".

Oh waaaaait! The devil could have intervened! Yes, that's convenient. God is almighty, but he just can't do anything about that nasty guy!

'Direct' is pretty precise, i would think. Stick a finger directly on to a hot plate and the end result is a sore finger. Its not even the least metaphysical, unless of course you insist on determining it in ways that are only clear to you, and no one else.

 

Of course nice people get screwed over, but what is the real motive behind your emphasis? There is you, and there is life. Are you saying you want guarantees that life will treat you good before you set about to practice positivity and compassion? This makes very little sense, to me anyway. As Wittgenstein said, "I sit astride life like a bad rider on a horse. I only owe it to the horse's good nature that i am not thrown off at this very moment." Even if one rides well, who is to say the horse will always oblige to carry one to one's destination? But then, this should not in anyway mean that one ought to cease riding, or even to learn how to hone one's riding ability. It would be rather foolish to think this way.

Edited May 28, 2011 by CowTao

[Owledge]

Are you saying you want guarantees that life will treat you good before you set about to practice positivity and compassion? This makes very little sense, to me anyway.

Wow, you bent it the way it's convenient for you. No, I mean that when someone practices positivity and compassion and the result is in an inverse relation to it. I mean the case where those virtues create a vulnerability that makes it increasingly difficult to maintain them. I'm talking about people burning themselves out because their compassionate and positive behavior is often met with greed for more, ignorance, or even hostility. The kind of experience that makes one wonder whether "good" is "bad" now and he didn't get the memo.

 

That's what I meant with things not being "direct" regarding type of energy sent out and type of energy received. I would say "We receive what we send out" is wrong and more new-agey instead of oldschool karmic. More correct would be to say "The universe receives what we send out and everything influences everything else."

This, by the way, also kinda models a neuronal net like we have in our brains.

[Birch]

I mean I get it. It just SOUNDS really bad

 

 

What's so bad about it?

 

I was pondering this stuff of Non's (yes I spent some time on a walk to the store and I thought about it...) and I figured how exhausting it must be for him. A real energy drain. Plus all that time he has to spend digging up evidence to show everyone. So yes, I figured that Non might be overly dependent on all this stuff to the point of detriment. So my suggestion to him was to just give up his dependency. I don't think it's more nor less than what we were discussing in the thread about acknowledgement or approval (I think the word was). I don't believe that someone who resolves these issues will be anything other than kind to anyone. To the contrary

[Sloppy Zhang]

What's so bad about it?

 

Because it's a hair's breadth away from saying "don't care about other people, just use them for how they help you with no thought to their needs" (I had to make it sound a bit worse than the way you said it, or else I'd have said what you said ). It sounds as if it is without compassion and moderately exploitative- in the wrong hands.

 

But I agree, Non's gotta do something different.

[Birch]

Because it's a hair's breadth away from saying "don't care about other people, just use them for how they help you with no thought to their needs" (I had to make it sound a bit worse than the way you said it, or else I'd have said what you said ). It sounds as if it is without compassion and moderately exploitative- in the wrong hands.

 

But I agree, Non's gotta do something different.

 

Oh no. That's not at all what I meant. Besides, I don't see how becoming un-dependent on anyone else implies you don't care for them. I suggest the opposite.

 

I don't think that caring for oneself implies you don't care for anyone else. I happen to be very interested in this one

 

I don't think I was implying 'using' people either. If you don't depend on them for your needs then you won't 'use' them IME. As to their needs, well, are you suggesting that the only way those could get met is through dependence on 'you'? Wow, that's some impressive self-image Unless you're talking actual dependence, like with children or something?

 

I guess if someone came along and said, 'ack, I have this food dependence, I'm fat but I don't want to stop eating bad food' then no-one would have a problem with the suggestion to stop, or eat healthier.

 

But because it's 'love' we can't say stuff like that?

I say it's not 'love' that we're talking about in Non's case (in a round-about way it is, but I digress :-))

[Sloppy Zhang]

Oh no. That's not at all what I meant.

 

I know, I'm just saying that it could sound awfully bad