Marshbear Posted July 27, 2005 Posted July 27, 2005 Originally posted by JS17 yes i would, and i've done it before, kind of. my bf in college didn't want to have sex. we were together for a while but i didn't love him. my bf that i broke up with in the beginning of the year had ED and i was willing to marry him. i may not be the norm though. I commend you if you truly would be this selfless. You are not the norm but that is not a bad thing. No sexual desire is usually a deal breaker. If you can love them for what is on the inside then you are a rare person. I, myself, would have a problem with this because if I really love a women I want to be able to express it and a man's way of expressing love is sex. Yes, there are other ways to express love and I do these also but a physical relationship with the one you love is very important to me.
JS17 Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by Marshbear I commend you if you truly would be this selfless. You are not the norm but that is not a bad thing. No sexual desire is usually a deal breaker. If you can love them for what is on the inside then you are a rare person. I, myself, would have a problem with this because if I really love a women I want to be able to express it and a man's way of expressing love is sex. Yes, there are other ways to express love and I do these also but a physical relationship with the one you love is very important to me. i feel the same way about being able to share physical intimacy (well probably not exactly the same ) and i'm not sure that the lack of intimacy in my sex-free college relationship wasn't a huge part in what ended it....what did i know? i was so young. BUT i can definitely say i would take bad sex with everything else being wonderful and i can sure as he!l say that i would take bad sex with someone who loves me over great sex with someone who is just f***ing me . although i want (not need) to have love and great sex rolled into one person. (i'll admit that mr.bad sex did complain about my having a stronger sex drive than him though )
Marshbear Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by JS17 i feel the same way about being able to share physical intimacy (well probably not exactly the same ) and i'm not sure that the lack of intimacy in my sex-free college relationship wasn't a huge part in what ended it....what did i know? i was so young. BUT i can definitely say i would take bad sex with everything else being wonderful and i can sure as he!l say that i would take bad sex with someone who loves me over great sex with someone who is just f***ing me . although i want (not need) to have love and great sex rolled into one person. (i'll admit that mr.bad sex did complain about my having a stronger sex drive than him though ) I would say we are on the same page...
loony Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by Outcast I think it has more to do with a person being mentally uninteresting. How much intellectual growth will someone flipping burgers experience? How could someone who has an active mind and imagination be satisfied with doing something so mundane for the long term? Certainly very bright people might take low-end jobs in the interim, but for someone to do so for life means that they settle for very little in terms of mental stimulation. I can't imagine that would make for an interesting partner. That's what I mean.
d'Arthez Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by Outcast How much intellectual growth will someone flipping burgers experience? How could someone who has an active mind and imagination be satisfied with doing something so mundane for the long term? Certainly very bright people might take low-end jobs in the interim, but for someone to do so for life means that they settle for very little in terms of mental stimulation. I can't imagine that would make for an interesting partner. Einstein. Sidis. It is strange, but these were among the brightest people the 20th century saw. "Simple" jobs gave them the precious time they need / needed to develop their ideas. Or even worse, some rest from the world. Many starting writers, especially if they are not writing in one of the big languages. Artists in general, as they will need money to allow themselves making art. If you are not worn out when you finally arrive home, it is a big plus. People who want to experience life in all its aspects. People who are not interested in the rat race, or the office wars. People with limited materialistic wants. In the US perhaps someone who has failed drug-tests, or is a victim of repressive legislature of some sorts. In short your preconceptions about when you are allowed to be mentally stimulated, and in what fashion, shape your idea that people in these jobs can't be interesting.
loony Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Einstein stayed in his boring job till he had developed his theories and then he was off to more fun jobs (teaching in Princeton was probably a lot more fun than working at some office). These kind of jobs are usually only temporary or are valued for the stable income that they provide. All the people you mentioned probably only considered these jobs as a mean in order to be financially independent enough to pursue their dreams and goals. Most people strive though to find a work with some meaning to them as they see themselves doing this job for a couple of years till they retire.
d'Arthez Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 True to some extent. If Einstein had to use all his mental capacities, to teach kids in graduate school about mathematics, he could not have thought as much and as deep about relativity, as in his job in a patent bureau. Having a "simple" job, actually helped him develop his theories. Sure he may have went to Berlin, and later to Princeton, but that was by no means a certainty when he was working in the patent bureau, now was it? In fact if he had applied for a position in Berlin of Princeton, before he made his theories public, he would have been rejected immediately. Meaning in a job is important. But like I wrote in my previous post, an office job is not automatically mental happiness, to put it even more bluntly. There are people who hate these jobs (watching work-place comedies actually inspires horror in them ), and prefer the mentally "less challenging" jobs. So that when they come home, they are not mentally drained, and can use most of the evening and the night in a for them meaningful way. Instead of socializing with people they don't really like (but having to pretend that they do), they can pursue what they prefer. It is possible for some people that jobs who would qualify for that end, barely exist. Try studying mysticism of the 13th century in a professional way. The history of chess, and the evolving rules of chess. The Basque language in ancient times. Especially if you lack the supposedly necessary professional qualifications, or lack the managerial skills to write thousands of requests, spend time socializing / networking in academic circles. People can have the strangest interests. So it is absolutely not limited to the academic field. Some people wait until they retire to start these projects. Other people prefer starting sooner on these projects. Not everyone has the opportunity to get a well-paid job to do what they really want to do. And why should mentally interesting people drive themselves insane in situations they abhor?
Outcast Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 And why should mentally interesting people drive themselves insane in situations they abhor? Exactly. Einstein didn't spend his whole life in a menial job. I have seen a show about geniuses which showed a couple of them who did have menial jobs precisely so they can develop their ideas but obviously people like that would be the exception - a *very* rare exception. And I did say Certainly very bright people might take low-end jobs in the interim
loony Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 These people are exceptions, they are not the norm. I know, you're not supposed to generalize, but sometimes you save quite a lot of time with it. I won't say that everybody who flips superburgers is mentally lazy, but I will also hardly assume that they are all potential geniuses who are waiting for their coming out as the next Einstein or Kafka.
d'Arthez Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by loony I know, you're not supposed to generalize, but sometimes you save quite a lot of time with it. I won't say that everybody who flips superburgers is mentally lazy, but I will also hardly assume that they are all potential geniuses who are waiting for their coming out as the next Einstein or Kafka. But the same is true of those who are considered "mentally" challenged, loony. How many millions of people have worked for years flipping burgers? How many millions of people have worked in an office job? How many geniuses arose from each? A very limited number, from both. But the very bright people are exceptions themselves. Let's assume that IQ actually measures intelligence. In terms of IQ very bright starts around an IQ of 125-130. That means that 3-5% of the general population qualifies. To be a genius you need an IQ of 150 or above. Only 429 out of every 1,000,000 people would qualify for that, assuming a perfect normal distribution. If we take 125, as the mark for "very bright", it means that out of every 110 very bright people, only 1 is a genius. You can be completely dull, and still hold a high position. If you are familiar with the workings of workplace politics, you know that this is one of the logical results. You can be completely dull and flip burgers. The only way to find out, is to get to know the person a bit better. Originally posted by Outcast How could someone who has an active mind and imagination be satisfied with doing something so mundane for the long term? I answered that question. Someone in a "mundane" job could ask the counter-question: How can someone be satisfied with doing something as idiotic as working in marketing for the long term? For the Army? For the NRA? For the NAACP? Just because you may have appreciation for one of these jobs, does not mean that everyone thinks the same about these jobs and these institutions and organizations. And the people in these jobs. I can't imagine that would make for an interesting partner. Because you imagine something, it is not necessarily true.
Outcast Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 How can someone be satisfied with doing something as idiotic as working in marketing for the long term? For the Army? For the NRA? For the NAACP? Just because you may have appreciation for one of these jobs, does not mean that everyone thinks the same about these jobs and these institutions and organizations. And the people in these jobs. And that you happen to consider them 'idiotic' doesn't mean they are. The point is that all of those jobs require more thought, planning, preparation, and creativity than does flipping burgers. They may not require genius-level comprehension or analysis but at the very least they do allow someone to use more talents and at best they will generate information and issues that can be discussed by the couple. You don't see me doing any of those jobs you mentioned; I agree they wouldn't be pleasant however there are tens of thousands of occupations and many of them offer at least some opportunity for creativity and stimulation. Besides, working at a menial job doesn't provide you with enough cash to expand your knowledge or interests either. It's pretty hard to save enough money to travel if you're scraping by on minimum wage. So not only is your job not enlightening, but you aren't earning enough to afford yourself opportunities for some sort of intellectual growth.
loony Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez But the same is true of those who are considered "mentally" challenged, loony. How many millions of people have worked for years flipping burgers? How many millions of people have worked in an office job? How many geniuses arose from each? A very limited number, from both. Well, I thought we had started with the premise that the guy flipping burgers was doing it as a long-term job. If it's just temporary, then it would depend on the person. The only way to find out, is to get to know the person a bit better. Do you know how long it took me to develop this attitude and now I'm supposed to treat people suddenly nicely?
loony Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez But the same is true of those who are considered "mentally" challenged, loony. How many millions of people have worked for years flipping burgers? How many millions of people have worked in an office job? How many geniuses arose from each? A very limited number, from both. Well, I thought we had started with the premise that the guy flipping burgers was doing it as a long-term job. If it's just temporary, then it would depend on the person. The only way to find out, is to get to know the person a bit better. Do you know how long it took me to develop this attitude and now I'm supposed to treat people suddenly nicely?
loony Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by Outcast Besides, working at a menial job doesn't provide you with enough cash to expand your knowledge or interests either. It's pretty hard to save enough money to travel if you're scraping by on minimum wage. So not only is your job not enlightening, but you aren't earning enough to afford yourself opportunities for some sort of intellectual growth. That's really a good point. Pssssst, I just realized, we are completely off-topic.
d'Arthez Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 Originally posted by Outcast And that you happen to consider them 'idiotic' doesn't mean they are. I wrote, in your native language I presume: "Someone in a "mundane" job could ask the counter-question:" If you read this language properly, you would see that I am not making any statement on the perceived iditiocy of working for the organizations I mentioned. They may not require genius-level comprehension or analysis but at the very least they do allow someone to use more talents and at best they will generate information and issues that can be discussed by the couple. People have different priorities. And people may detest the idea of bringing their professional life to home. It shapes their private life, and even if you have the best of jobs enough is enough. And to discuss marketing policies of your respective companies, while at the same time addressing the real relationship issues, is something some people don't prefer. You can't use marketing tactics to make a relationship work. People have many talents. And if they are lucky they can get payment for using one of the talents they value. You don't see me doing any of those jobs you mentioned; I agree they wouldn't be pleasant however there are tens of thousands of occupations and many of them offer at least some opportunity for creativity and stimulation. Creativity can't be ordered from 8-5. And creativity can apply to almost anything. From the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction to the experience of the beauty of the world when taking a casual stroll. For the first you can get a job. For the last you can't. And what are you supposed to do in the latter case? Besides, working at a menial job doesn't provide you with enough cash to expand your knowledge or interests either. It's pretty hard to save enough money to travel if you're scraping by on minimum wage. So not only is your job not enlightening, but you aren't earning enough to afford yourself opportunities for some sort of intellectual growth. Not everyone needs a TV, a car, a brand new PC, and whatever more that are considered primary needs. Not everyone needs to dine outdoors at least twice a week. Not everyone needs a huge place to live. If you are single your needs are much more limited than in other situations. Studying in a public library is not extremely expensive. Making a stroll is not expensive, although certain parts of the country will not be very suitable for that.
Outcast Posted July 28, 2005 Posted July 28, 2005 And people may detest the idea of bringing their professional life to home. So they decide to work as burger-flippers? Pssssst, I just realized, we are completely off-topic Nah. This part is about whether you consider burger-flippers attractive AND good long-term relationship choices. Apparently, they're all Shakespeares-in-retreat. Who knew?
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Originally posted by Outcast Apparently, they're all Shakespeares-in-retreat. Who knew? Shall I compare thee to a summer's barbecue? Thou art more lovely and better with dill pickle Strong winds do shake the darling budweisers And a McDonald's franchise hath all too short a date...
d'Arthez Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Originally posted by Outcast So they decide to work as burger-flippers? No. But it may be one of the considerations. Physical appearance of a candidate may influence the party you vote. It does not mean that you vote solely on the basis of physical appearance of a candidate. Apparently you must be a genius to comprehend that. This part is about whether you consider burger-flippers attractive AND good long-term relationship choices. Apparently, they're all Shakespeares-in-retreat. Who knew? Apparently you are trying to prove the point of the burger-flipper. Cannot say that you have been completely unsuccesful though.
loony Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez Not everyone needs a TV, a car, a brand new PC, and whatever more that are considered primary needs. Not everyone needs to dine outdoors at least twice a week. Not everyone needs a huge place to live. If you are single your needs are much more limited than in other situations. Studying in a public library is not extremely expensive. Making a stroll is not expensive, although certain parts of the country will not be very suitable for that. If you're just taking care of one person then maybe it's enough, but when you have kids you might strive for more than minimum wages. It's true that not every relationship has to end in marriage, but would anybody go into a relationship knowing that he very likely is not interested in this person for long-term relationship?
Outcast Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Shall I compare thee to a summer's barbecue? Thou art more lovely and better with dill pickle Strong winds do shake the darling budweisers And a McDonald's franchise hath all too short a date...
Shana Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 My guys a quite attractive in my eyes. He is beautiful inside & out and I know some would not think he is "hot" but they don't have to, only I do.. Physical and mental attractiveness plays a part in every relationship, you have to at least like the guy on the outs .. that is usually what starts a relationship to begin with .. then the mental part combines that into what you do like about the person.
ReluctantRomeo Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Originally posted by loony If you're just taking care of one person then maybe it's enough, but when you have kids you might strive for more than minimum wages. It's true that not every relationship has to end in marriage, but would anybody go into a relationship knowing that he very likely is not interested in this person for long-term relationship? Money makes life way easier. So does a drive to do things. Since finance and things that need doing are 2 of the main bones of contention in marriage, why not avoid them both by looking for someone who has drive and ambition? Have I really become this cynical?
d'Arthez Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 RR, you can be ambitious without having career prospects, making little money but pursuing your ambitions, and you can totally lack ambition, and make $250K a year. Which of the two would you prefer, if you had to choose?
scratch Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 Originally posted by d'Arthez RR, you can be ambitious without having career prospects, making little money but pursuing your ambitions, and you can totally lack ambition, and make $250K a year. Which of the two would you prefer, if you had to choose? Where is the utility in taking two characteristics that are very highly correlated, placing them in an inverse and then ranking them? This hypothetical is just intellectual masturbation. Not all women who are 6 months pregnant are going to have babies, but enough of them are that if a girl I know is 6 months along, I may spring for some footy pajamas and a rattle. Hopefully you're not appalled by my presumptiveness.
d'Arthez Posted July 29, 2005 Posted July 29, 2005 As I explained earlier, not everyone is ambitious in the fields of Corporate Law or in top managerial positions of the biggest companies in the country. And you can be ambitious in fields that barely allow you to make a living. Shocking concept to some people, I know. Some men may desire to be pornstars, but it does not mean that they will be. In order to get the rewards they would get in what is a legitimate job, they need to pursue other things so that they will be able to get close to the desired result. Rocket science? No. And some people may be passionate about improving the position of minority women in rural areas of say Mozambique. Chances that you will find a wellpaying job with that end are zero. Would you call that person ambitionless? No. You'd just have an ambition, that is even harder to attain. You may have ambitions, as I stated above, that cannot be attained professionally. Absurd concept to some, I know. But why should that person work in a well-paying job to prove that he or she is "full of ambition", when that person does not give a thing about the whole place of employment.
Recommended Posts