quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

Treswank:

Im not sure why people who are pontificating about maturity would stoop to a child's level to insult you but I just wanted to pat you on the back for dealing with that in a pretty damn classy way.  I still disagree with you but Im sure your points are valid in your world, which ultimately is the only place that they have to make sense.  You may change your mind someday, however. 

What can I tell ya?
Fish gotta swim. Pontiffs gotta pontificate.

Sense of humor at the cleaners?

And yeah. I'll give him props for easing off with his silly posturing and trying to speak sensibly once he'd been spoken to. He is still talking like the picture in the encyclopedia next to the heading: "emotional immaturity" though.

I mean he has clearly read some books--and not just that manifesto thing--and he has presumably heard any number of people refer very plainly to their friendships with members of the opposite sex, yet he discounts overwhelming evidence against his view quite out of hand. He does this with his grand claims which seem to amount to "I can't appreciate a female as anything but a sex object and as it is for me and so therefore this is for everyone else except for fathers toward their daughters, and castrati and whomever else fell into his little categorical exceptions.

He doesn't even take into account the exceptions in his own experience. Or was he really hard and panting the whole time his grandmother was teaching him to crochet?

I suspect he'll change his mind one day too. But he'll have to attain a maturational stage which firstly involves the realization that the world does not revolve around him. Secondly it will involve the development of a degree of empathy. Yelling: "Yeah I know just how you feel you feel just like ME because there is hardly any other way to feel," isn't the degree I'm talking about.

Now marie as for your comment: "I'm sure your points are valid in your world, which ultimately is the only place that they have to make sense."

I'll admit to finding this kind of astounding. Do you see this as applying quite generally or just for Tres?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreSwank

I've dedicated the next six-months to going to the gym.  It's been a few weeks now, and my body is starting to fill out like you wouldn't believe.  If I go to bars, I'm going to get severely drunk, and that can't be good for my physique.

And no, I haven't gone on a date in about three weeks.  I've been masturbating for 21 days, and am not worried about the poon-tang situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah


Now marie as for your comment: "I'm sure your points are valid in your world, which ultimately is the only place that they have to make sense."

I'll admit to finding this kind of astounding. Do you see this as applying quite generally or just for Tres?

For everyone, Noah. 

Why do you find my statement astounding? 

You points were/are valid.  Your post to him was brilliant, save for the cheap shots.  I dont agree with him either, but I felt badly that a few here were cutting him up and mocking him.  So I offered a word of support.  I didnt  support his argument, I supported the person.  Theres a big difference. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreSwank

Now, a person like myself would ultimately define a "platonic friendship" as an association that is free from ulterior motives.

quote:

While Mr. Noah might, at least on this message board, extol the virtues of "platonic" friendships between men and women, I think that his profile gives a more lucid view of his stance on intergender "friendships".

That doesn't mean that you and I can't be pals. I mean I adore my girlfriend (not least when I'm exerting myself to make her suddenly and seriously doubt that,) but she isn't the only person to whom I will do things.

I think that there's a really, really, really, good chance that Noah thinks that "platonic" friendships are feasible, as long as the possibility exists that he MAY get a little naughty play sometime in the future.  Yet another man who publicly apotheosizes the idea of platonic friendships (not to mention deriding a person with a different opinion), while his motives are held back like hypocritical snake venom.

quote:

The difference between "emotionally mature" 40-somethings and impetuous 22-year olds is that the abritrary, blanket-generalization making, little son of a bitch is still speaking from a wellspring of primal and unfettered emotional sincerity, while the condescending, deliberate, older fellow has experience and his lithe tongue's Midas touch to transform his bullshit into gold

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah


Do the hypocritical snakes have better venom or something?

Yeah. We get it sport. No matter how much evidence or testimony you get fro me or elsewhere for the fact that people have plenty of non-sex-crazed relationships with the other sex, you will put your fingers in your ears and say "LALALA I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG."

Look. It isn't my opinion that I have platonic relationships with women, son. It is a fact. Should you respect my "opinion" if I state that you are actually a girl, not a boy? It isn't a matter of opininion, is it?

There is something true there in each case and anything which contradicts those truths is false. As several people have been telling you here, men and women have non-sexualized friendships sometimes. Your theory that you know those people better than they know themselves holds as much water as someone's theory that you are girl.

Now please go look up the word "ulterior" (just like I looked up "apotheowhatzit"; I think we all would have understood you better if you had just said "glorify.")

Once you know the definition of ulterior you'll see that it is stupid to suggest that any motive proudly announced on the freaking internet is ulterior.

I have various kinds of friendships with women, as most men do. Some of those relationships, as alluded to in my profile, are ostensibly platonic but with an undercurrent of sexuality. Some are out and out sexual. Some are simply platonic, untinged by sexual considerations. I think that the mere possibility of that is the only point people are asking you to see. But you keep squinching your eyes closed real good.

Whatever.

quote:

The difference between "emotionally mature" 40-somethings and impetuous 22-year olds is that the abritrary, blanket-generalization making, little son of a bitch is still speaking from a wellspring of primal and unfettered emotional sincerity, while the condescending, deliberate, older fellow has experience and his lithe tongue's Midas touch to transform his bullshit into gold

I think marie's gonna be mad at you for calling you a son of a bitch.

And I agree that 22 year olds as well as 3 year olds can speak from a wellspring of primal and unfettered emotional sincerity, kind of. And that may be completely beyond us old guys. I'll defer to your opinion. But no 3 year old can speak from a standpoint of emotional maturity. Some 22 year olds can.

I'm not talking about anyone being perfect, baked to a turn--least of all me. But even a 3 year old can tell the difference between a loaf of bread and a pile of dough. And according to what your're presenting to us here, you're still kinda half-baked in this one area.

Here's the thing, pal. I think you chose a provocative style of presentation in the OP on purpose, that whole bouncing on the sofa display. If that works for you, that's great. But since you're so whiny about being called on it maybe it doesn't really work so well for you. I'll leave you to form your own opinion of that one also.

I no longer suspect that you might be a guy who actually has his shit together on this subject and is spouting this clownish theory with a wink, to rile the adults. I accept that you actually believe what you say and believe with such fervor that you can't see anything else. Or maybe it is your inability to see anything else that spawns the fervor. Chicken and egg. I dunno.

Whether you have your shit together in a hundred other ways, including areas where I may be weak? Hey. I just don't know. But I have some major weaknesses and I wouldn't bet that there is no area where I could learn some useful things from you.

You're a kid. I say that not in virtue of your age. I have friends younger than you who know how to engage in public discourse and who can take as much as they dish out. I say you're a kid because you come on here blabbing your baloney and then bitch and mewl when someone takes you seriously enough to confront your assertions logically and confront your pissy-assedness for what it is.

You're doing what kids do. Don't worry. You'll grow out of it.

Anyway, I'm done with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shivvy
i think it is REALLY hard for blokes and girls to be platonic friends. i'm not saying it can't be done

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah


Now marie as for your comment: "I'm sure your points are valid in your world, which ultimately is the only place that they have to make sense."

I'll admit to finding this kind of astounding. Do you see this as applying quite generally or just for Tres?

For everyone, Noah. 

Why do you find my statement astounding? 

You points were/are valid.  Your post to him was brilliant, save for the cheap shots.  I dont agree with him either, but I felt badly that a few here were cutting him up and mocking him.  So I offered a word of support.  I didnt  support his argument, I supported the person.  Theres a big difference. 

Oh I understood your standing up for Tres. No problem there.

What astounds me is the notion that anyone's points only have to make sense "in their own world"

The newspapers are full of people whose points presumably make sense in their own world. Then they go out and try to apply them to your world and someone gets raped or murdered.

I'm in favor of us all trying to make some sense in common. "We vouchsafe reality for one another" as a brilliant woman first said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TreSwank

Even this guy thinks that they're bullshit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieTooApples to oranges Noah.  We arent talking about crimes of violence, we are talking about interpersonal relationships.  Im not sure how you can analogize a man believing that male/ female platonic friendships are impossible to a man believing that its ok to go out and violate another human being by way of rape or murder. 

As far as relationships, which was what was being discussing here (not murder and law breaking) one's beliefs only have to work in their own world.  He may suffer for it, he may "lose out" for it, he may learn for it, he may change for it, but its his to own, therefore his to choose.  As long as no one is getting murdered of course.  I'll be sure to point that out next time I offer advice. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieTooApples to oranges Noah.  We arent talking about crimes of violence, we are talking about interpersonal relationships.  Im not sure how you can analogize a man believing that male/ female platonic friendships are impossible to a man believing that its ok to go out and violate another human being by way of rape or murder. 

As far as relationships, which was what was being discussing here (not murder and law breaking) one's beliefs only have to work in their own world.  He may suffer for it, he may "lose out" for it, he may learn for it, he may change for it, but its his to own, therefore his to choose.  As long as no one is getting murdered of course.  I'll be sure to point that out next time I offer advice. 

Well that's good. I asked whether you thought this applied quite generally for this very reason.

Well, Im glad I could qualify it for you. 

You didn't specify this detail, which was fair enough. I mean you didn't specify that you meant "... but I only intend that my principle should apply in personal relationships." It might be that most people assumed it as you hoped we would. I didn't. I can be a little dense--just ask my girlfriend.

Yeah, I must admit that I just assumed that most people would understand that my comment was made in the context of the OP's topic, and not a generalized statement carrying the meaning that we should all just go out and haphazardly pursue our beliefs without considering things like violence and laws of society.  Again, Im glad I could clear this up for you.

When I asked a clarifying question and addressed you on the basis of your answer to it, you had a certain sort of reaction because your unstated particular specifications weren't automatically understood. It might be a lot to ask a wide range of people of very different backgrounds and inclinations to read between your lines with such precision. But that's your call.

Well, you're half correct. Yes, I had a certain reaction, but I can assure you it had nothing to do with my specifications not being automatically understood.  Let me clear it up for you.  It had to do with you knowing exactly how my specifications were meant, but choosing to be antagonstic to further exacerbate a debate, instead of just conceding to understanding my point.   But lets face it, that *is* what you do best.  Which I actually like, but thats a whole other topic.
 
I chose lurid examples to make the point stand out. That was obviously a mistake on my part. I seem to have hidden my point instead.

Yes, you choose lurid examples which I notice is a pattern for you.  You like to pull a single sentence away from its contextual purpose,  put your own spin on it and throw it back out there as a completely different animal in order to support your own argument.  Its cute at first,  but then it sorta gets old too.  

If you meant to limit your scope to relationships, well that's good. Let's talk about your principle that--in relationships--the only thing that matters about your view is that it makes sense "in your world."

My "prinicipal" (the statement about our points only having to be valid to us) does not apply to being  in relationships, but applies rather to choosing relationships.  Again let me help to re-focus your attention back on the context of the OP. It was said in reference to Treswank's belief that male/female platanic relationships are unecessary and impossible.  It was not said after someone posted about being in a relastionship in which there was a conflict. Had that been the case, of course I wouldnt have stated that his points were the only ones that mattered.  In choosing his relationships, his points (beliefs) are the only ones that matter, when in a relationship, that of course would not be the case.  Again, the most fundamental of points seems to elude you. 
 
Various kinds and degrees of abuse are so regrettably common within relationships. I really think that some of the people who do awful things to their partners un-consensually may have a view like yours: "Well it makes sense in my world and that's all that matters, bitch ..."

I think I addressed this in my above paragraph.  Again, youre reaching for those, as you call them...."lurid" examples. 

To paraphrase you (and I'm not making any reference to the OP but to the hypothetical person who abides by your notion that it only matters if it makes sense in your own world:

In reference to your statement above that Ive taken the liberty to highligh in blue...all I can say is ...Exactly!

His partner may suffer for it, his partner may "lose out" for it. His unmentionables may too. They all may learn hard lessons from it from it but is it really his right to impose that lesson on them that way, just because it made sense in his world? His partner may change for it, and the change might be for the better or the change might be her emotional or physical crippling.
 
Those would be your words, not mine. But you already know that.

And really, your sarcastic comment (that wasn't a dig; sarcasm properly applied is a legitimate conversational gambit) about "as long as no one is getting murdered" glosses over the sad statistical fact that it is precisely within relationships that so many people do get murdered. It isn't apples and oranges at all. Lurid as murder may be to mention it is very close to the heart of the matter

Murder is "close to the heart of the matter"  of a 22 year old thinking that he doesnt need or want platonic male/female relationships in his life?  Im not sure where the fuck that came from.  Im not sure I even want to look underneath that rock.

I'd draw the line of the value of your stated ethos well before murder, well before any abuse results from it. I think that considering whether one's views would make any sense to anyone else is just a real good thing to do to promote a healthy life and healthy relationships.

I agree. But we werent talking about promoting a relationship. we were talking about his not wanting a relationship.  If you want to talk about the promotion and healthy life of a relationship, I would happily indulge you. In fact, I would welcome it.

In the end you don't have to conform. Society and/or your partner may be in the wrong for going the opposite way. Still I think it is unwise just devalue the question of whether anyone else can make even make sense of our view of the world. I think we would do this kind of devaluing at our peril and at the peril of those whose lives we touch.
 
Or whose lives we choose not to touch, which, one more time, is a person's own prerogative and is what the OP was about.

I hope I've made my point clearer, and that you'll consider it.

I've done more than consider it.  Ive taken the time to respond to it and Ive enjoyed it. (if you can believe that)

For all I know we didn't start out very apart but that we're describing similar things differently. I'm listening if you'd care to comment.

Im touched.

Oh, and I'm flattered that you have come around to my view that after a certain point ridicule becomes an appropriate response to the ridiculous.

Aww....whatsamatter??  Sense of humor gone to the cleaners???

Edited for a typo.