|
Kada
Asha'man


Registered: 02/15/05
Posts: 12,394
Loc: Buckeye
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: tyrannicalrex]
#14461640 - 05/16/11 11:40 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I bet I will have a different point of view if my wife cheats on me and takes my kids.
It's all perspective. I'm glad I have the one I have right now. It defines me and makes me the person I am. I didn't mean to take insult to anything here, it just feels insulting because I am on the other side of game board atm. Hopefully I will stay there because I am happier for it.
Thanks man. I hope you do find someone that you can be with forever. Right now it feels great and I hope it stays that way. I wish everyone was as lucky as I feel on the subject.
-------------------- ~The Cultivators Motherload~ "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -Robert A. Heinlein "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness."-Dalai Lama Live long and prosper.
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: yogabunny]
#14461680 - 05/16/11 11:51 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
yogabunny said:
Quote:
Anthony917 said: I think people put labels on their relationships because NOT having a label leaves it open to....anything really.
When you say "this is my girlfriend" it's almost like a sense of ownership, where she is exclusive to you...which is what a relationship is about. If you don't want to call someone you love & sleep with your girlfriend/wife/whatever....then I'd just say you're fuck buddies...
uhhhh i think this mentality is incredibly dangerous. you cannot OWN a person, geez. when has putting a label on a relationship stopped us from going outside the relationship if we feel like doing so. i have SO many friends going through divorces right now due to cheating and affaires.
anyway i think the problem with labels is that we use them to form attachments, and create a false sense of happiness and security.......
The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source. This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness. The gateway to all understanding.
right on sista
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
Kada
Asha'man


Registered: 02/15/05
Posts: 12,394
Loc: Buckeye
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: g00ru]
#14461687 - 05/16/11 11:52 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
I'm all about Taoism and Buddhism, but I didn't find this had any relevance to marriage or love.
“Marriage is three parts love and seven parts forgiveness of sins.”
“Love is of all passions the strongest, for it attacks simultaneously the head, the heart and the senses.”
-Lao Tzu
The man himself had a few things to say about it.
-------------------- ~The Cultivators Motherload~ "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -Robert A. Heinlein "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness."-Dalai Lama Live long and prosper.
Edited by Kada (05/16/11 11:59 AM)
|
g00ru
lit pants tit licker



Registered: 08/09/07
Posts: 21,088
Loc: georgia, us
Last seen: 5 years, 1 month
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: Kada]
#14461711 - 05/16/11 11:58 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Well, when it comes down to it, even our ego is just a label. Our name, our identity, that's just a label we create with thought, a label that we associate with our being. And the ego is, of course, the source of insecurity ("me"). So it would just be a more evolved situation for two people to be free enough of their individual egos to just trust their heart connection and not need to make things "official." Of course marriage has legal benefits so I wouldn't look down on anybody for gettin hitched, but still, I'm speaking from a perspective of what I think would be a better world.
-------------------- check out my music! drowse in prison and your waking will be but loss
|
yogabunny
fancy cat



Registered: 11/01/09
Posts: 11,281
Loc: Nasty Women Get Shit Done
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: Kada]
#14461732 - 05/16/11 12:03 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kada said: Not to me it wouldn't change. It would just confuse everyone else.
I wasn't trying to get defensive at all. I think most people are just ignorant about some things and they have no idea what they are talking about sometimes. Excuse me if my marriage is precious to me and I say so when everyone else is saying it's worthless. Well it's not at all to people who find out what it can really be and hold it in high regard. I would take slams against marriage as an insult if I thought people that were debating against it had any idea of what they were even talking about.
I respectively bow out of this conversation because I don't think anyone speaking against love or marriage has a single idea of what they are talking about and it's useless to remain in such a conversation. It makes me feel REALLY lucky to have met my wife.
Hey, were all allowed to have our own perspectives on things, and we won't all agree with each other. I just don't agree with 99% of the things in this thread.
i have every idea of what i am talking about. i am divorced. two of my best friends are going through divorces right now. my parents are getting divorced after 24 years of marriage.
no one is saying your marriage is worthless, and no one is slamming marriage. people are merely stating their opinion that there might be a different way to practice living and being in love than the socially accepted versions....
--------------------
|
Kada
Asha'man


Registered: 02/15/05
Posts: 12,394
Loc: Buckeye
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: g00ru]
#14461769 - 05/16/11 12:09 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
When two people let go of ego and want to be together, then they can start to know what it means to love. Marriage to me is the essence of that. It's a vow to each other to be one and not separate and always to be together in their struggles. Some people hold that in the highest regard and it's what I live by. To me it's a vow to be faithful and a vow to always think of the other person before your own self. If my wife broke that I would be devastated like I have never been in my life. So far for almost 10 years we have both lived by that and with respect to each other without falter.
That's why I respect marriage so much. It's the foundation of my life that I build everything I am upon.
THAT is true marriage and love imo. It's a very serious subject to me because I hold it so close to my heart.
Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way. I can see how someones point of view could drastically change when their parter breaks their vows or their marriage dissolves. It isn't Marriage that failed tho, it was the person or both persons involved.
-------------------- ~The Cultivators Motherload~ "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -Robert A. Heinlein "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness."-Dalai Lama Live long and prosper.
Edited by Kada (05/16/11 12:14 PM)
|
nglsnv
Becoming



Registered: 08/31/10
Posts: 782
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: g00ru]
#14461915 - 05/16/11 12:41 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
guruu said: In a more awesome world, we'd all be so cool that we'd never have to say "we're in a relationship," it would just work out that way and you'd be with one other person a bunch and have sex with them but you'd both be chill enough never to slap a label on it. What good does the label do? It's just to compensate for insecurity...if two people really are self sufficient in their own lives, then who needs a "relationship" anyways...let things happen according to your natural feelings. I feel like doin shit this way has the potential to create romance that is much more rewarding, because events will work out in a more effortless way without people trying too hard to make the situation what they think it should be.
thoughts?
i agree that relationships would probably turn out better if people were less concerned about defining them.
i feel a lot of people do this because they are worried (insecure) that maybe their relationship won't be as concrete unless they have something to show for it, like a wedding ring, or a bf/gf status on facebook or something. the point they are missing is that the name, or any definition they will come up with is meaningless compared to the relationship itself. i think labels are mainly distractions, and although they are useful for communication, they generally are misleading due to the skewed perceptions people have of a 'typical' relationship through movies and gossip and such.
i'm really bad with names because i don't find them significant.
from my limited relationship experience i've noticed that people looking for a relationship are basically looking for a crutch to lean on when things get too heavy. crutches come in pairs so this works for a lot of people.
Kada, i personally view marriage as a waste of time. of course i don't know anything about legal benefits and serious things like that, all i know is that most marriages seem to stem from materialistic obsessions over things already discussed like labels, rings, ceremonies, etc and subsequently they dissolve because of these obsessions as well. the question i ask about marriage is if two people are in love, why do they need to prove this to other people and themselves? from reading your posts it sounds like you have a healthy marriage because both you and your partner realize the redundancy of labeling your relationship but still realize that the labels can be used to make your life easier and i think thats cool.
|
Kada
Asha'man


Registered: 02/15/05
Posts: 12,394
Loc: Buckeye
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: nglsnv]
#14461942 - 05/16/11 12:47 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- ~The Cultivators Motherload~ "I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." -Robert A. Heinlein "There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness."-Dalai Lama Live long and prosper.
|
Deekay



Registered: 09/07/08
Posts: 3,220
Loc:
Last seen: 2 years, 5 months
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: Kada]
#14462018 - 05/16/11 01:03 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Kada said: It's all perspective. I'm glad I have the one I have right now.
|
Carl Sagan
Time Dilation Analyst


Registered: 04/19/11
Posts: 922
Loc: Myco-tek.org
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: g00ru]
#14462152 - 05/16/11 01:34 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
guruu said: Well, when it comes down to it, even our ego is just a label. Our name, our identity, that's just a label we create with thought, a label that we associate with our being. And the ego is, of course, the source of insecurity ("me"). So it would just be a more evolved situation for two people to be free enough of their individual egos to just trust their heart connection and not need to make things "official." Of course marriage has legal benefits so I wouldn't look down on anybody for gettin hitched, but still, I'm speaking from a perspective of what I think would be a better world.
NO NO NO don't take the discussion some where else. This all started with your statement that "People feel the need to label relationships because they are insecure"
Which to my rebuttal was, and still is "your just as insecure as everyone else, and your statement above confirms that". Your inability to define a relationship you have with someone is in and of itself an insecurity about being in a committed relationship. And that is fine. No one is judging you on that. But you cannot call one who wishes to define a relationship insecure. That is where im calling you out 
Quote:
So it would just be a more evolved situation for two people to be free enough of their individual egos to just trust their heart connection and not need to make things "official."
Wow, I would love to know what country you live in? Where I live in the U.S. EVERYTHING is egotistically driven. Just turn on the TV. This is not all bad. Being driven by ones ego has given science great contributions. Its the underlying reasons why we desire to accomplish tasks or further our agenda. This type of understanding only comes with serious self awareness and examination. On the contrary I do not judge people who chose to live a vapid existence. But in my opinion to many people living like this is not a healthy society.
To start your statement with "So it would just be a more evolved situation" is very arrogant and pompous of you. You are essentially saying that your idea's are of greater intellectual or societal importance.
-------------------- “Sacred cows make the best hamburger” Mark Twain Independant Research Foundation
Edited by Carl Sagan (05/16/11 02:17 PM)
|
Carl Sagan
Time Dilation Analyst


Registered: 04/19/11
Posts: 922
Loc: Myco-tek.org
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: yogabunny]
#14462197 - 05/16/11 01:45 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
yogabunny said:
Quote:
Kada said: Not to me it wouldn't change. It would just confuse everyone else.
I wasn't trying to get defensive at all. I think most people are just ignorant about some things and they have no idea what they are talking about sometimes. Excuse me if my marriage is precious to me and I say so when everyone else is saying it's worthless. Well it's not at all to people who find out what it can really be and hold it in high regard. I would take slams against marriage as an insult if I thought people that were debating against it had any idea of what they were even talking about.
I respectively bow out of this conversation because I don't think anyone speaking against love or marriage has a single idea of what they are talking about and it's useless to remain in such a conversation. It makes me feel REALLY lucky to have met my wife.
Hey, were all allowed to have our own perspectives on things, and we won't all agree with each other. I just don't agree with 99% of the things in this thread.
i have every idea of what i am talking about. i am divorced. two of my best friends are going through divorces right now. my parents are getting divorced after 24 years of marriage.
no one is saying your marriage is worthless, and no one is slamming marriage. people are merely stating their opinion that there might be a different way to practice living and being in love than the socially accepted versions....
Wow you guys/girls need to keep the discussion on the subject of "relationships are based inherently in insecurity" You're going all over the place here. The areas of Love and Society are highly subjective. While we can define the "what" of love in neuroscience the "how" and "why" are up for much debate.
-------------------- “Sacred cows make the best hamburger” Mark Twain Independant Research Foundation
|
Carl Sagan
Time Dilation Analyst


Registered: 04/19/11
Posts: 922
Loc: Myco-tek.org
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: nglsnv]
#14462242 - 05/16/11 02:00 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Professor Tibbs said:
Quote:
guruu said: In a more awesome world, we'd all be so cool that we'd never have to say "we're in a relationship," it would just work out that way and you'd be with one other person a bunch and have sex with them but you'd both be chill enough never to slap a label on it. What good does the label do? It's just to compensate for insecurity...if two people really are self sufficient in their own lives, then who needs a "relationship" anyways...let things happen according to your natural feelings. I feel like doin shit this way has the potential to create romance that is much more rewarding, because events will work out in a more effortless way without people trying too hard to make the situation what they think it should be.
thoughts?
i agree that relationships would probably turn out better if people were less concerned about defining them.
i feel a lot of people do this because they are worried (insecure) that maybe their relationship won't be as concrete unless they have something to show for it, like a wedding ring, or a bf/gf status on facebook or something. the point they are missing is that the name, or any definition they will come up with is meaningless compared to the relationship itself. i think labels are mainly distractions, and although they are useful for communication, they generally are misleading due to the skewed perceptions people have of a 'typical' relationship through movies and gossip and such.
i'm really bad with names because i don't find them significant.
from my limited relationship experience i've noticed that people looking for a relationship are basically looking for a crutch to lean on when things get too heavy. crutches come in pairs so this works for a lot of people.
Kada, i personally view marriage as a waste of time. of course i don't know anything about legal benefits and serious things like that, all i know is that most marriages seem to stem from materialistic obsessions over things already discussed like labels, rings, ceremonies, etc and subsequently they dissolve because of these obsessions as well. the question i ask about marriage is if two people are in love, why do they need to prove this to other people and themselves? from reading your posts it sounds like you have a healthy marriage because both you and your partner realize the redundancy of labeling your relationship but still realize that the labels can be used to make your life easier and i think thats cool.
Good post from an observant, and personal perspective. But to make statements like
this: "from my limited relationship experience i've noticed that people looking for a
relationship are basically looking for a crutch to lean on when things get too heavy.
crutches come in pairs so this works for a lot of people." The whole proplem with
making a statement like that, is you do not have enough data to support it. The statment
started with "from my limited experience" Experience is the best teacher my friend,
and the more you gain the wider your perspective will become.
-------------------- “Sacred cows make the best hamburger” Mark Twain Independant Research Foundation
Edited by Carl Sagan (05/16/11 02:34 PM)
|
Mr. Gal
Stranger

Registered: 03/29/11
Posts: 10
Loc: In between
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: Carl Sagan] 1
#14462350 - 05/16/11 02:18 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Labels are way to communicate. When I first met my boyfriend, we were just hanging out and having sex. After a month or so, we decided that we were going to be "exclusive". A bit later, we decided that we love one another. Now, we are boyfriends because we decided that we want to call each other that. It doesn't imply ownership that he's my boyfriend, it tells one another that we care enough about each other to forsake physical relationships with other people. Our mutual love is what made our relationship, we didn't just decide to be in a relationship and then start pretending to love each other.
Of course, I do completely agree that some people are completely off base and confused when pursuing relationships. I just don't think relationships are simple enough to call them all just "labels".
|
Shroomism
Space Travellin



Registered: 02/13/00
Posts: 66,015
Loc: 9th Dimension
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: g00ru]
#14462379 - 05/16/11 02:24 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Very interesting theory.
--------------------
|
nglsnv
Becoming



Registered: 08/31/10
Posts: 782
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: Carl Sagan]
#14462409 - 05/16/11 02:30 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Carl Sagan said: Experience is the best teacher my friend,
and the more you gain the wider your perspective will become. 
|
Carl Sagan
Time Dilation Analyst


Registered: 04/19/11
Posts: 922
Loc: Myco-tek.org
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: Mr. Gal]
#14462420 - 05/16/11 02:32 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Gal said: Labels are way to communicate. When I first met my boyfriend, we were just hanging out and having sex. After a month or so, we decided that we were going to be "exclusive". A bit later, we decided that we love one another. Now, we are boyfriends because we decided that we want to call each other that. It doesn't imply ownership that he's my boyfriend, it tells one another that we care enough about each other to forsake physical relationships with other people. Our mutual love is what made our relationship, we didn't just decide to be in a relationship and then start pretending to love each other.
Of course, I do completely agree that some people are completely off base and confused when pursuing relationships. I just don't think relationships are simple enough to call them all just "labels".
Thank You, labels are nothing more than human's using language to define the world around us. While I will concede that language is not the all encompassing form of communication it's the best thing we have going, and has been serving us well for thousands of years. If someone defining their environment with language makes you feel insecure about your understanding of your environment... well I can't help you there.
-------------------- “Sacred cows make the best hamburger” Mark Twain Independant Research Foundation
|
Mr. Gal
Stranger

Registered: 03/29/11
Posts: 10
Loc: In between
Last seen: 12 years, 6 months
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: nglsnv]
#14462429 - 05/16/11 02:33 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Professor Tibbs said:
Quote:
Carl Sagan said: Experience is the best teacher my friend,
and the more you gain the wider your perspective will become. 

Totally this. People don't really share with others what makes their romantic relationships so special to them, because it's so complicated. Live and love with an open mind, hopefully it will all make sense some day.
|
Anthony917
why dont we do it in the road



Registered: 05/14/09
Posts: 3,243
Loc: Earth
Last seen: 12 years, 2 months
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: yogabunny]
#14464733 - 05/16/11 09:00 PM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
yogabunny said:
Quote:
Anthony917 said: I think people put labels on their relationships because NOT having a label leaves it open to....anything really.
When you say "this is my girlfriend" it's almost like a sense of ownership, where she is exclusive to you...which is what a relationship is about. If you don't want to call someone you love & sleep with your girlfriend/wife/whatever....then I'd just say you're fuck buddies...
uhhhh i think this mentality is incredibly dangerous. you cannot OWN a person, geez. when has putting a label on a relationship stopped us from going outside the relationship if we feel like doing so. i have SO many friends going through divorces right now due to cheating and affaires.
anyway i think the problem with labels is that we use them to form attachments, and create a false sense of happiness and security.......
The tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal Name.
The unnamable is the eternally real. Naming is the origin of all particular things.
Free from desire, you realize the mystery. Caught in desire, you see only the manifestations.
Yet mystery and manifestations arise from the same source. This source is called darkness.
Darkness within darkness. The gateway to all understanding.
hey, I didn't mean that I feel a sense of ownership, but that people in general do. That way, they can designate..this is MY girlfriend. As in, she is off limits to YOU because she is currently MINE. Except, it doesn't actually work like that and I know that no one can be owned...I was just tryna make a point. I agree, it is dangerous thinking, and probably a lot of the reason why people DO cheat...because they feel like they have less freedom while in a relationship.
-------------------- Prisoner#1 said: I got my ass kicked by a 9yo when I was 17 Trippin? Click Me
What is life? I'm tired of life...
|
faceyneck
Legitimate Philosopher



Registered: 06/14/06
Posts: 2,421
Loc: upper body area
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: Carl Sagan]
#14466029 - 05/17/11 01:52 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It seems this thread has moved past the petty stuff by now, but I'm not 100% on that. As such, I'll try to make explicit what I think the real issue it here, though it may not have been made clear earlier.
Several posts in here (which shall remain nameless; without 'label' ) suggest to me people have been talking past each other, because the term 'label' has more than one connotation, and also more than one denotation.
The two that seem to be used interchangeably without being fungible here I think are:
1. a descriptive or identifying word or phrase.
2. An adhesive stamp. (...do keep in mind things can be adhered to via concept and opinion, not simply as paper and glue.)
Definition 1 is using a label to describe the world around you. Definition 2 is using a label to define the world around you. You'll see where I'm going with this soon.
The connotations for 2 are that the label is being used to compensate for something; "He is important to me because he is my boyfriend." In that sentence, we see the label being used to define the relationship, calling into question whether or not this hypothetical person has real justifications for his or her love, as presented. I think this is a very inconspicuous example of what the original poster's qualm was.
In definition 1, an unfortunate effect of language is its inherent alienation; we cannot describe things out in the world without labels, which tacitly separate us from the world, at least in the realm of concepts. Here we see an explication of another issue the original poster has with labeling, using a different denotation of the term 'label.' I think this should not need further explaining, but let me know it it's unclear - I assume we're not all philosophers, and that's okay. 
I think we can agree here; the real rub is in the reificating use of the term 'label.' In other words; when we use labels both to describe and define something simultaneously.
-------------------- Anything posted here, is total bullshit. My Meyers-Briggs Personality: INTJ New growers, or anyone else just needing help; I'm always glad to help right here.
We give cultivation advice here. AMU Q & A - We're glad to help My Doggy Door Greenhouse! First Ever Shmuvbox Tek! Do Manure Right!
|
pouihi
Mary Jane Doe



Registered: 01/04/11
Posts: 2,384
Last seen: 1 year, 9 months
|
Re: relationships are based inherently in insecurity [Re: Anthony917]
#14466309 - 05/17/11 05:02 AM (12 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anthony917 said: When you say "this is my girlfriend" it's almost like a sense of ownership, where she is exclusive to you...which is what a relationship is about.
So when you refer to someone as your buddy, relative, co-worker or whatever relationship you have you them that implies ownership??
My bf and I started hanging out, getting to know each other, no one ever asked each other if you wanted to be bf/gf, and we actually never spoke about it, we just let things roll naturally, we've been together for almost two years now and of course if he is referring to me with someone who doesn't know me or vice versa we say my gf/bf because eventually it's what our relationship has evolved to. Just as we don't go saying "I love you"s, it's just not our thing, and relationships can be more about demonstrating that saying. I had relationships with people who probably said that everyday and it didn't mean anything (for what they ended up showing).
I don't own him nor he owns me that's stupid.
If you don't feel comfortable with being with someone and calling them gf you shouldn't do that. But it's also stupid to criticize people just because they fell comfortable enough doing it, that in itself is labeling.
--------------------
"If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite."
|
|