WISDOM OF TRUST ( or LACK THEREOF ) Distinguished from LOVE

I love your siggy too.

0 Replies

And I've heard people around here call you a mysogonist- how could that be when you think evidence of femininity is "great"?
But you picked up on that, huh? I have been told (by those who've met me) that on a scale of femininity, I am pretty typically feminine in some aspects of my demeanor and personality- less typically so in others.
But you could have been the judge of that yourself. Remember when Clary suggested that Rod and you and I meet up with her in Bristol...god that was a while ago now, wasn't it? Think of all the hullabaloo we could have avoided if we'd just gone ahead and done that?

But what does me being feminine have to do with anything? Is there some trust issue you'd like to discuss Spendius? What's your level of trust in groups or humanity as an entity? Seeing that you said a couple of posts ago that you found it (trust) to be a boring subject, I'm surprised to see you paying so much attention to it- or me - or anything I have to say for that matter.

PS- I think I've told you several times, I prefer Rebecca.

How about you - do you consider yourself worthy of trust?

0 Replies

let me stress again (again) that i think love can exist without trust.

i also think that trust can build deeper love.

Quote:

That's interesting, because trust or faith in humanity as a whole is what I probably have the least of. I am much more likely to trust or believe in a solitary individual than I am even small groups of two or more like-minded people with a common agenda. I think that there is often a dynamic within even the smallest groups that inspires consensus and cooperation to reach an agreed upon course, that oftentimes has nothing to do with the common good- and is simply more like the common want- and the fact that someone else wants the same thing conspires to create a head of steam or energy to get that - no matter what the cost is to someone else.

and some of what i was getting at in my comparison of vague words like trust and love, are that blind faith and trust aren't the same thing. i think if you had zero trust, you wouldn't be able to get out of bed. i think if you checked behind every corner, you'd lead a relatively unhappy life. but it's complicated.

i think expecting that friends and lovers to treat you well is the way to do it, but i'm talking about earned trust, and tiny bits of faith, rather than unlimited faith, or blind trust. does that help what i said make sense? don't worry, i'm not asking anyone to pretend it does. i think faith and trust are important ingredients, not a meal. you can make things without them, but they might not be as good. of course, you can put too much of an ingredient into almost anything.

0 Replies

Rebecca-

I didn't say that trust was a boring subject. What I meant was that I find it boring when two people, and I'm really speaking about male/female relationships, cease to see each other's perspective.

If someone is going to claim that the traditional role of women is not fundamentally exploitative then all well and good for them. And I hope they are happy. The meat and drink of sexual politics centres around an ironic lack of trust. Just take Cary Grant movies as an example.

In male groups trust is a matter of trial and error but is never taken 100% for granted.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Rebecca-

I didn't say that trust was a boring subject. What I meant was that I find it boring when two people, and I'm really speaking about male/female relationships, cease to see each other's perspective.

If someone is going to claim that the traditional role of women is not fundamentally exploitative then all well and good for them. And I hope they are happy. The meat and drink of sexual politics centres around an ironic lack of trust. Just take Cary Grant movies as an example.

In male groups trust is a matter of trial and error but is never taken 100% for granted.

Spendius- I think we can go straight past irony and over to direct and fundamental contradiction between two of your statements: First you said this:

Quote:

What I meant was that I find it boring when two people, and I'm really speaking about male/female relationships, cease to see each other's perspective.

and then you said this:

Quote:

If someone is going to claim that the traditional role of women is not fundamentally exploitative then all well and good for them.

I'm just wondering how you'll be able to move from feeling exploited, to seeing the perspective of your potential exploiter.

Quote:

The meat and drink of sexual politics centres around an ironic lack of trust. Just take Cary Grant movies as an example.

Those are contrived situations. I don't specifically remember any Cary Grant movies (he was a little before my time) but I do remember some Doris Day- Rock Hudson love fiascos. All those crazy antics and ironic twists and turns were there for effect - they had to have some conflict to resolve.

Quote:

In male groups trust is a matter of trial and error but is never taken 100% for granted.

Yes, I guess that's as it should be.
And maybe I'm wrong, but my perception is that men are fundamentally more trusting than women are. Maybe it's the power differential- and by that I mean, they can afford to be- the consequences of misplaced trust are not as dire for men as they are for women.
And I think most women are more trusting of men than they are of other women.

0 Replies

Should I call you aidan or Rebecca?

Rebecca wrote-

Quote:

I'm just wondering how you'll be able to move from feeling exploited, to seeing the perspective of your potential exploiter.

I don't feel exploited. But I do see the perspective of the exploiter. I might say, just to be jocularly ironic, that I see the exploiter creeping up on me with beady eyes thinking I can't see it coming.

I'm not up for what Bill Greenwell referred to as "The last rasping gasp of the mantis's groom".

But I have seen many a man welcome it with open arms. Most of them disappeared without trace. The ones who survived disappeared second time round. More comprehensively too.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Should I call you aidan or Rebecca?

Rebecca wrote-

Quote:
I'm just wondering how you'll be able to move from feeling
exploited, to seeing the perspective of your potential exploiter.

I don't feel exploited. But I do see the perspective of the exploiter. I might say, just to be jocularly ironic, that I see the exploiter creeping up on me with beady eyes thinking I can't see it coming.

I'm not up for what Bill Greenwell referred to as "The last rasping gasp of the mantis's groom".

But I have seen many a man welcome it with open arms. Most of them disappeared without trace. The ones who survived disappeared second time round. More comprehensively too.

you can call me whatever you want. Rebecca is my real name - and I actually kind of like it - and that's what everyone who's ever known me has called me, so I have to say I identify with it much more strongly than I do with Aidan- but since you don't know me, I have no problem with you sticking with Aidan (just please not Becksie- that reminds me of a character out of the Bobbsey Twins -did you guys read those books in England)?

Yeah, women too (welcome marriage with open arms) having little idea of what exactly it entails.

I know exactly what you're saying- I'd never get married again either. Not that there's anything wrong with it for other people - it's just always been a difficult concept for me to embrace fully...I remember I was at a wedding when I was a teenager and these two people lit a single candle from their two separate ones (symbolizing the two becoming one) and I just thought to myself (as my girlfriends oohed and aahed and cried), 'Okay, now, what's that all about?' and 'is that really necessary- can't you just enjoy each other without melding into one entity?'

I think if you thought about it from the woman's point of view- you'd have to agree- she's asked to 'disappear' more fully than the man- right down to adopting a whole new identity.

0 Replies

It depends on what you understand to be love. I love that modern reinterpretation of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo di Caprio and Claire Danes. They are madcap, head over heels in love, and we all know the end of that movie. I daresay neither could be trusted to act in a consistent, rational manner.
That sort of primal love seems to exclude trust to me. Luckily enough (oh, cynical me) this type of love is mostly hormonal and most commonly found in teens. Truly, a much deeper and lasting form of love comes into being if one starts by understanding and communicating with an interesting other person. This takes weeks, perhaps months, but if all goes well, and understanding grows, if personalities click, this deeper kind of love comes to the surface. And that love is based on some of the same principles, and for a large part on the building block itself, as trust.

So, in short : Love most definetely can exist without trust. Lasting relationships however, cannot exist without trust, or love.
As for using the samson and delila story for proving your point about love with no trust... I think it's not a very good example. This story seems quite allegorical to me. Besides, if someone asks you three nights in a row what the secret of your strength is, and tries to deprive you of it three times in a row, without succeeding... And you are stupid enough to then proceed and tell her the real secret of your strength. OH, purlease... then you have got the intellect of a retarded cabbage.

I'd like to point out Maria and Joseph. Theirs was a loving and stable relationship, that endured despite of several trust issues on both sides... what does that teach you?

0 Replies

WISDOM OF TRUST ( or LACK THEREOF ) Distinguished from LOVE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know