10
   

Is it Possible for a Man to be Faithful?

 
 
Subliminal0
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 02:45 pm
@chai2,
That was sarcasm, Chai2. Next case.
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 02:52 pm
@engineer,
Ditto.
0 Replies
 
engineer
 
  4  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:00 pm
@Subliminal0,
Quote:
Most the the A2K members take a question to literal extremes and get upset. Of course I know a man 'can' be faithful, but I was just curious about other's opinions. I hate how every thread turns into a poster explaining themselves instead of having a casual, non-bitchy thread.


And yet you get all bent out of shape and bitchy. I don't see how you expect everyone to take a moment and get a grip when you didn't. My experience is that a few moments of thought taken in framing up the orignal post drives the quality of discussion, at least until a troll strikes. Rather than complaining about the community, take a moment to understand that this train is going down the track you placed it on.
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:15 pm
@engineer,
I'm not bent out of shape. I haven't name-called or been rude. When you point a finger, there are always three pointing back at you. I asked a question with innocent curiosity and everyone 'gets all bent out of shape' about how rude, closed-minded, and narcassistic I am. I do believe A2K members [not all, but some] have growing up left to do. If a post seems rude or 'not on the right track,' all you have to say is to phrase it differently and explain your thoughts on the question like an adult instead of giving someone a sociology lesson on how it was horrid. You can tell me I was bitchy, but your first post was much more condescending than I intend or want to stoop to. I'm not making threads so I can explain myself instead of having a civil conversation. I could have worded it as nicely as I could, but I know I would still have people like you telling me I am doing something wrong or offending someone somehow. I think you just need to bring it down a notch and realize I had no intentions to insult anyone; male, female, white, black, purple. It had no ill intentions. That said, I've explained myself enough and if you still feel the need to continue your tangent, then don't reply. I'd like a conversation, not a one-sided bashing because my syntax isn't up to par with what you wanted.
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 03:29 pm
@Subliminal0,
Asking someone not to respond does not show interest in "having a conversation" and even if you have no intention to insult someone, once you realize you have, you should own it. It really doesn't matter that your intentions are good. Having "someone like me" explain to you what happened to your thread could be very useful if you are interested in not having it happen in the future. If you are "not making threads so you can explain yourself instead of having a civil conversation" then take the time do lay the groundwork for that to happen. It's really not that hard. You are getting decent Internet advice here if you take a moment to actually read it. Finally, this is not a face to face conversation, it is an Internet discussion forum. No matter how polite, how sweet, how erudite you are, you will eventually get flamed. You will eventually take a side on an issue that is against the majority and not everyone who posts will be polite in their engagement. Worse yet, someone will actually prove you wrong and how humbling to have your mistakes in writing for all to see. Been there, done all of that. You rail against the A2K community; I dare you to find better. Trolls exist everywhere. Complaining that people are being mean to you isn't going to further your stated goals.
chai2
 
  3  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 04:05 pm
@Subliminal0,
Subliminal0 wrote:

That was sarcasm, Chai2. Next case.




sarcasm
ur doin' it rong
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 07:45 pm
@Subliminal0,
Subliminal0 wrote:

I love how A2K is full of armchair psychologists who want to base their knowledge on a poster by a single post.

Single post? Count 'em.

Subliminal0 wrote:

Claiming I am insecure, that my insecurities stem from friends with bad experiences,

Then whose experiences other than your friends are you basing your insecurities on?

Subliminal0 wrote:

that I judge entire genders,

You didn't ask if it is possible for PEOPLE to be faithful. You made this about gender.

Subliminal0 wrote:

that I won't care in 5 years, and that I'm likely upset with genetic programming in other areas.

Perhaps your problem with communication is actually other's fault. We must be programmed to misunderstand your noble intellectual pursuits.

Subliminal0 wrote:

My post told you all that?

If your posts left any doubt, your response to criticism has removed all doubt.

Subliminal0 wrote:

That's amazing; you should have your own TV show.

Read a book.

Subliminal0 wrote:

I'm not insecure.

Then you immediately say...

Subliminal0 wrote:

I've been in a faithful relationship for about 3 1/2 years.

Not irony in the traditional sense, but cosmic irony for sure. I assume this has been a relationship with a man? If so, then you believe that your man is faithful I'm sure. This is odd however if you are simply looking for opinions about how you could be wrong about this. So either you are confident that you're right about your man, or you think you may be mistaken.

What's that called? Insecurity.

Subliminal0 wrote:

I'm not using my friends' relationships as a basis for all male actions

Whose relationships are you using?

Subliminal0 wrote:

and I'm not trying to be sexist.

I'm not concerned with what your trying to do.

Subliminal0 wrote:

I'm not complaining and I do in fact have faith in the opposite gender.

Yet you're looking for some opinion contrary to this?

Subliminal0 wrote:

I'm not attacking genetics or choices, either.

You literally proposed that men are genetically programmed to leave their partners every four years.

Don't introduce ideas you aren't willing to defend.

Subliminal0 wrote:

I was just curious about others' experiences/thoughts.

Looks like you got exactly what you asked for.

Subliminal0 wrote:

That hardly makes me narcassistic or childish,

If you think that any amount of experience or thinking will ever converge on a rational opinion that men can't be faithful, you are childish.

Subliminal0 wrote:

and that also doesn't mean I'm projectng my insecurities onto other people. I would have to have them first, and I don't.

That's twice you've felt it necessary to tell me about your security.

Subliminal0 wrote:

A2K just gets worse every day.

You have no idea. No really, you don't.

A
R
T
Subliminal0
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 11:31 pm
@engineer,
I'm open to having conversation, not explaining myself to a stranger who believes by a post that they have me all figured out. This isn't a civil conversation. It's more of a one-sided argument that's going nowhere. The fact is I stated I had no bad intentions, aka, I did not mean to offend anyone. I don't feel the need to apologize to someone who has willingly clicked on my thread, wasted their time replying to my thread, and was further upset by me not apologizing for their offended feelings. If you feel offended, don't feel the need to righteously set me straight or tell me of your feelings. I really don't care about the feelings of a stranger. I tried to be polite - 'owning it' by saying I didn't mean to offend - but I have no inward desire or morals to continue being polite after you were rude.

If I have to tiptoe through the tulips to have a conversation, A2K just doesn't meet the bar. You expecting me to change my personality to a timid, specific person just to please how you feel a thread should be written is ridiculous. I don't mind being proven wrong. I actually enjoy the challenge of others who can outsmart me. Arguing over your hurt senses isn't really a challenge or proving me wrong. All it tells me is you're sensitive to anything remotely negative about males and you feel an insatiable need to put your foot in the door. I don't mind trolls in general. I mind when people try to be condescending over something so little as rewording a question. Really, if the question upsets you enough to feel you need to comment, then you should take ten minutes away from lounging on A2K and do something. Go for a jog, go find a couple hobbies, and then come back to it. It's, as you say, the internet after all. It's not 'srs bsns.' Calm down.

The dA community is mainly 10x more helpful on relevant information. I'm just not going to let flamers 'like you' make conversations with civils less enjoyable on A2K. I'll post when I want, how I want, directed at whoever I want as long as it pleases me. I don't need your approval.
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Dec, 2010 11:41 pm
@failures art,
Regardless of one post or ten posts, a person cannot read my life story.

I don't have insecurities. I'm basing what I've heard on statistics, people, hear say, friends, and basically any source I've ever encountered.

It was a question, not an attack. I could ask if it were likely a woman is faithful, but seeing as I am not a homosexual.. it really wouldn't interest me.

Yes, it is all your fault! How could you not understand how intellectual I am?

I take criticism well when it is by someone who knows me well. Criticising someone over the internet sounds.. well, dumb.

I love reading books. Well, poetry more.

If talking about men being faithful makes me insecure about my relationship, then I guess talking about homeowner's insurance means I own a home? Or that if I talk about homosexuals I am having homosexual urges? Yeah, that makes complete sense. I see the light! Very Happy

I have faith in both genders, but that doesn't mean males or females are without fault.

I said that I have heard that, not that it is true or that I am sure it is true. If I said it was 100% true and I agree, then I would defend it.

I know men 'CAN' be faithful, as I am in a faithful relationship right now. Here you will say, 'then why ask?' and I will say: because I am curious on other people's experiences/thoughts on how often a man is faithful.
spidergal
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 01:17 am
Take a chill pill, Subliminal.

<<chimpanzee grin>>
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 06:15 am
@Subliminal0,
OK! I was with you and you almost had me convinced. However, this is where the fly is in the ointment. You said, "I have NO insecurities." 'There's no person I've ever seen that has no insecurities. I won't deign to discuss the part where you asked FOA about how he/she could not understand how intellectual you are. That part alone speaks volumes.

Take a look around A2K around AGAIN and try to better understand this venue a bit better with a less jaundiced eye. Understand it's dynamics. For People critique topcis as well as criticize people (bwtter or worse) all of the time. Those who are thin-skinned and have a few insecurities, allow such criticism to get under the skin. Deny that and you do so at your own detriment.

You're a pretty good debater '(knowing you may want to go into Law some day) but you need to understand people a bit better. Yes you are bright BUT you are trying to match wits and maturity with people who are your seniors maturity-wise and in a few cases either more intelligfent or better at the fine art of debate.

IMHO the bottom line here is the title of your discussion and the tone is inflammatory and intended to be so, whether or not you have awareness of it. I've seen (and participated with you on) a few of your other threads. You are head and shoulders ahead of other people your age - surprisingly so. But when you kick a bees nest, sometimes you will get stung when you stand around. I sense a desitre to prove yourself and match wits with people who are your seniors. I know you reject it, but you keep proving that very point.

What you have here is an interesting and, YES, inflammatory topic. Congrats on doing that. You DO match up well with others and you DO defend your point pretty well but understand the dynamic and flaws in your defense a bit more objectively.
vikorr
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 06:36 am
Create, rather than react?

Create something and enhance it with your emotions. Or react to our emotions with largely automated responses.

Perhaps that is where this conversation is going.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 06:39 am
@Subliminal0,
Also, I have some difficulty grasping the part in your reply where you won't comment on whether or not women are faithful because you're not a homosexual and it doesn't interest you. The very issue that some people here want to discuss here is the gender issue and men and women's faithfulness. However, I saw no one here ask or want to discuss whether or not your gay. I'm a bit unclear why you bring up your sexual preference?

If you write that you know men 'CAN' be faithful, then by virtue of titling the topic as you did, a huge amount of people seeing that discussion title will repsond as though you want to challenge that belief. However, if, as an example, you titled the discusssion, "I know most men äre faithful but what about the ones who can't be?", personally, I'd find more credibility and less of an inflammatory tone.

Bottom lines is this: if your intent was to stir up debate, you succeed. However if it was to match debating skills, on some points you fall a bit short.
engineer
 
  5  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 07:53 am
@Subliminal0,
Subliminal0 wrote:

I tried to be polite - 'owning it' by saying I didn't mean to offend - but I have no inward desire or morals to continue being polite after you were rude.

This is where the great humor in this thread is. You can look through my posts and I think a neutral observer would find trouble finding where I was rude. On the other hand, you have been somewhat rude and condesending, but that's not particularily atypical here and I take no offense. You wanted to know why your thread headed downhill and I told you. In fact, several people have told you. But of course it's everyone else's fault.

Subliminal0 wrote:
If I have to tiptoe through the tulips to have a conversation, A2K just doesn't meet the bar. You expecting me to change my personality to a timid, specific person just to please how you feel a thread should be written is ridiculous.

You'll find difficulty finding anyone suggesting that you change anything other than to put some thought into your post titles if you want to have a certain type of conversation. My preference is that you be yourself, but that you grow a thicker skin. As I mentioned earlier, you will be flamed and if your reaction in this thread is any indication, you aren't ready for that. I'm sure you will deny that, but actions speak louder than words.

Subliminal0 wrote:
Arguing over your hurt senses isn't really a challenge or proving me wrong.

Then by all means stop arguing over your hurt senses.

Subliminal0 wrote:
Really, if the question upsets you enough to feel you need to comment, then you should take ten minutes away from lounging on A2K and do something. Go for a jog, go find a couple hobbies, and then come back to it. It's, as you say, the internet after all. It's not 'srs bsns.' Calm down.

Rolling Eyes One of us is expending a lot of emotional units here, but it's not me. You asked why no one was loving on your thread. I explained it to you. You're welcome.

Subliminal0 wrote:
I'll post when I want, how I want, directed at whoever I want as long as it pleases me. I don't need your approval.

Good, at least you got that part right.
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 11:23 am
@Ragman,
I don't have insecurities in the faithfulness of who I'm with. That was what we were talking about, wasn't it? Aw, Ragman. I was joking with FOA. I'm not taking the stance that I am intellectual or that men are programmed wrong. His sarcastic statement about that just provoked me to make one back. I don't think of myself as smarter than anyone. I know I have room to learn - a lot of room.

I've taken Psychology and I do understand people. I don't see the need to put to use anything over the internet, no offense. I don't have any interest in analyzing and understanding people on A2K. I understand how he, or others, could be upset about my post. I said I didn't mean to be offensive, meaning it wasn't meant to be taken negatively or rudely on any level, but his persistance supports that he's only listening to himself. Once I said I never meant to be rude, all he had to realize was that it wasn't directed at anyone and he could move on. But he didn't. I don't feel I'm wrong at this point. Had he let it go and moved on, I likely would have apologized. I'm not going to give him respect after he disrespected me. You have to give it to get it, and being an elder doesn't demand it. I'm not going to be nice because he's been around a few (or more) decades.

I didn't thoroughly think through how to word my post. In any other forum, no one that I know would blow it out of proportion like so. Like I said, I understand how they feel. After I've said that it wasn't meant to be negative - and this is the internet of all places - they could go on their merry way. It doesn't have to be as complicated as everyone is trying to make it. I like conversation and the challenge. I've said that again and again. I wouldn't exactly call it a desire to prove myself against my seniors because I do it with friends and others my own age. It's just how I am.

The only thing I'm guilty of is not picking wiser words. The next time around, I could do that better. If I could edit my thread, I would have no problem adjusting my syntax to make everyone happy. Seeing as I can't edit it, poking fun at me is similar to beating a dead horse. He can complain as much as he likes, but I can't change the posted thread and he's going to have to live with it.
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 11:27 am
@Ragman,
They want to make this out to be a sexist post, as in I'm only pointing out men's flaws in the loyalty department. I would have no problem putting women under the microscope also, but it's pointless to me because I have no interest in how faithful a woman is likely to be. I am not dating a female and it doesn't pertain to me.

Like I said, I am guilty of not thinking through my word choice. Next time I'll be more careful. I don't mind others being able to debate better. Afterall, they're not 17 and I don't really feel defeated in any sense. It's a topic. No harm done.
0 Replies
 
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 11:31 am
@engineer,
I told Ragman this and I'll tell you too if I haven't already: I'm aware I could have worded it differently. That's all. No harm intended and no harm done. Thanks for taking the time to respond.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 12:23 pm
@Subliminal0,
Subliminal0 wrote:
I've taken Psychology and I do understand people.
Subliminal0 wrote:
I understand how he, or others, could be upset about my post.
Subliminal0 wrote:
Like I said, I understand how they feel.

If you truly understood, then the reasons for the objections to your rhetoric would be obvious. Yet you defend them, as if it's for others to understand--not you.

Subliminal0 wrote:

I like conversation and the challenge.

...as long as it is on your terms.

Subliminal0 wrote:

The only thing I'm guilty of is not picking wiser words.

Words. As you've so thoroughly noted, this is the internet. However, it is not so different in the corporeal realm is it? What makes you believe so adamantly that your conversations here should be any different?

We can pay with any words we choose. Wise words are of the highest value. Words are our only currency here. Invest wisely.

Subliminal0 wrote:

I don't have insecurities in the faithfulness of who I'm with.
Subliminal0 wrote:

They want to make this out to be a sexist post, as in I'm only pointing out men's flaws in the loyalty department. I would have no problem putting women under the microscope also, but it's pointless to me because I have no interest in how faithful a woman is likely to be. I am not dating a female and it doesn't pertain to me.

So the topic is only of interest to you because you date a man? Why would it interest you? After all, you have no insecurities.

I find your logic additionally interesting that you are so uninterested in pursuing the topic gender neutral simply because you don't date women. I suppose only people who date men should be interested as you are? According to you "it's pointless." Pointless that is unless the issues of the "loyalty department" are not a part of some gender binary.

You don't seem very interested in the topic at all. Of course, who am I to tell you, the understander, anything. You took psychology.

Wizards amongst us.

A
R
T
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 12:30 pm
Anyone who has to ask does not deserve to be loved.
Subliminal0
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Dec, 2010 02:00 pm
@failures art,
Thanks for your input, failures art. While the topic of a woman's loyalty doesn't interest me, it may interest others regardless if they're dating a female or not. It may interest you, for example. It just doesn't interest me. Scoffing at classes I have taken just because I don't feel the need to apply them to people on the internet is hardly mature. But who knows, maybe you me all figured out. Thanks again.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/02/2022 at 06:12:09