Profile
Search
Register
Log in
bullocks
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Hall of Fame

Author Message
ecapataz



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: Bonn, Germany
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:

How do you figure? This conclusion assumes that the cheater is only acting out of sexual needs and precludes the possibility of anything else. Perhaps the person is cheating because they desire sexual intimacy but their partner does not provide it. Why don't they just end the relationship and enter into a different one? Because esteem and self-actualization come after sexual intimacy, and breaking up can be tricky and hard. Not every cheater is an asshole with nothing but sex on their mind.

Furthermore, to assume that the average person has stagnated at the beginning stages of human emotional development is absurd. Digression occurs, but stagnation is typically limited to mental illness or retardation. Two more things need to be said about the hierarchy pyramid: Maslow clearly separates the bottom layer as physiological while the four layers above are emotional, but that hardly means that there is a mutual exclusivity between the two. Sex can be emotionless, I think, but this is far from normative.

I'm defending cheaters, but I think the cheater as most base is a gross oversimplification.


Cheating is a selfish act. Not ending a relationship and cheating because of unfulfillment is immature and disrespectful. If sex is emotionless by the cheater than then there is no concept of intimacy.

A little consideration goes a long way in relationships.
Post Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:27 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Dr Sagacious



Joined: 01 Mar 2009
Posts: 1843
Location: Redford
 Reply with quote  

I may have seen the pyramid before. I really can't recall. I know what an Ego is, pooface. It's nothing like it. But then again, I may have seen it before and had it wiped from the depths of my memory.

Still, it's fucking dumb applied to cheaters. Doesn't make sense.
Post Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:43 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Cheating can also fall in the top of the pyramid under the headings of "creativity" and "spontaneity."
Post Wed Aug 24, 2011 4:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
Cheating can also fall in the top of the pyramid under the headings of "creativity" and "spontaneity."


All depends on if, at the time, you consider it to endanger the safety of your family (speaking in terms of like your family "unit", the relationship with your partner, etc.). The pyramid sort of works if you don't consider things like "morals", or "beliefs" or even simple choice at the higher levels.

It's one of those things that works 100% of the time, some of the time.
Post Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:10 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
ecapataz



Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 1960
Location: Bonn, Germany
 Reply with quote  

Dr Sagacious wrote:
I may have seen the pyramid before. I really can't recall. I know what an Ego is, pooface. It's nothing like it. But then again, I may have seen it before and had it wiped from the depths of my memory.

Still, it's fucking dumb applied to cheaters. Doesn't make sense.


It does make sense.
Post Wed Aug 24, 2011 5:23 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

ecapataz wrote:
Captiv8 wrote:

How do you figure? This conclusion assumes that the cheater is only acting out of sexual needs and precludes the possibility of anything else. Perhaps the person is cheating because they desire sexual intimacy but their partner does not provide it. Why don't they just end the relationship and enter into a different one? Because esteem and self-actualization come after sexual intimacy, and breaking up can be tricky and hard. Not every cheater is an asshole with nothing but sex on their mind.

Furthermore, to assume that the average person has stagnated at the beginning stages of human emotional development is absurd. Digression occurs, but stagnation is typically limited to mental illness or retardation. Two more things need to be said about the hierarchy pyramid: Maslow clearly separates the bottom layer as physiological while the four layers above are emotional, but that hardly means that there is a mutual exclusivity between the two. Sex can be emotionless, I think, but this is far from normative.

I'm defending cheaters, but I think the cheater as most base is a gross oversimplification.


Cheating is a selfish act. Not ending a relationship and cheating because of unfulfillment is immature and disrespectful. If sex is emotionless by the cheater than then there is no concept of intimacy.

A little consideration goes a long way in relationships.


Sure, but you're assuming that everyone is well-balance, mature, and perfectly familiar with what to do in a relationship when the reality is quite different. Nobody is perfect, and as such many relationships exist when they shouldn't and go on longer than they should. That's simply the way it is.

The bottom line is that you bring up the hierarchy of needs, which indicates a spectrum of how people develop over time, and what the seek to attain above all else. Food, water, shelter, air, balance, and excretion, those all all necessities that people absolutely need to survive (maybe not balance, but it certainly helps), but sex is optional to personally surviving. It is, in fact, not a need at all, but a want, at least for humans. With this in mind merely having sex at all is inherently selfish because we're not speaking in biological terms. Thus, if all sex is selfish than discussions of selfishness become moot because there is no variance or variable.

Even if this weren't the case, a cheater (A) hurts the cheatee (B) (assuming they find out) but may form a positive and rewarding relationship between A and C that could lead to something more fulfilling. A then says to B "it's not working out/there's somebody else/I hate you/whatever" and moves up the hierarchical ladder because C is more emotionally fulfilling.

Finally, there seems to be an assumption here that cheating = sex, and that is definitely not true. There are gradations of cheating that climax (no pun intended) with sex, but they certainly don't have to. The point here is that there is, as with most things, a gray area that needs to be considered beyond black and white distinctions.
Post Wed Aug 24, 2011 6:37 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
remind



Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 2202
Location: NJ
 Reply with quote  

Captiv8 wrote:
remind wrote:
I think Captiv8 is addicted to porn addicts. Or images of them. Or the feeling associated with images of them. Yeah.


I don't want to jump to conclusions so I'll ask: have you ever dealt with a serious addict of any kind? I don't mean the "maybe this guy has a problem" kind, but the needle in the eye/abuse their own kids for drug money kind? Have you ever sat through a Alcoholics, Narcotics, or Sex Addicts Anonymous meeting and heard the fucking horror stories some of these people have? Have you wanted your chosen substance so bad you committed be willing to commit a crime for it? Have you ever had to tell your family you had a big problem you've been hiding for years and had to endure the shame and guilt? Have you had to endure the ridicule of your peers? I have and it still hurts almost four years later, and will probably continue to hurt to some degree for a long, long time. Addiction, recovery, and staying on the straight and narrow isn't a fucking joke.


Really, man? I wasn't making a joke about addiction nor your past struggles. I was attempting to point out (yes, jokingly and within the context of your previous post) that you always chime in on the matter (porn) whenever it's brought up. That's all. Maybe I'm an asshole. But yeah I thought you didn't want to jump to conclusions? <3
Post Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:13 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Maslow's hierarchy of penis is more like.

Just saying. His little life plan goes up in one direction a little too much to be full of any thing so valuable as self-actualization(whatever that's supposed to mean). I see that, and my reaction is "it's missing like...half there".
Post Wed Aug 24, 2011 10:36 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
icarus502
kung-pwn master


Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 11290
Location: ann arbor
 Reply with quote  

Again, I would say that people who are unfettered by the logic that intimacy and love are subject to some kind of quasi-capitalist notion of scarcity would be something closer to Maslow's definition of self-actualized than those who think the opposite. Particularly so if the former acts without deception. A first step to self-actualization is killing the pope in your head.
Post Thu Aug 25, 2011 6:15 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

icarus502 wrote:
Again, I would say that people who are unfettered by the logic that intimacy and love are subject to some kind of quasi-capitalist notion of scarcity would be something closer to Maslow's definition of self-actualized than those who think the opposite. Particularly so if the former acts without deception. A first step to self-actualization is killing the pope in your head.


There is some weird perception that if you are having sex with someone other than your "monogamous partner" then you are cheating, aside from the fact that he/she may encourage or approve, or join in. Apparently most have not heard of a couple in a healthy relationship having a threesome for some spice in the bedroom? Or is it just a "pope in your head" scenario evokes the trained response?
Post Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:19 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8547
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

remind wrote:
Captiv8 wrote:
remind wrote:
I think Captiv8 is addicted to porn addicts. Or images of them. Or the feeling associated with images of them. Yeah.


I don't want to jump to conclusions so I'll ask: have you ever dealt with a serious addict of any kind? I don't mean the "maybe this guy has a problem" kind, but the needle in the eye/abuse their own kids for drug money kind? Have you ever sat through a Alcoholics, Narcotics, or Sex Addicts Anonymous meeting and heard the fucking horror stories some of these people have? Have you wanted your chosen substance so bad you committed be willing to commit a crime for it? Have you ever had to tell your family you had a big problem you've been hiding for years and had to endure the shame and guilt? Have you had to endure the ridicule of your peers? I have and it still hurts almost four years later, and will probably continue to hurt to some degree for a long, long time. Addiction, recovery, and staying on the straight and narrow isn't a fucking joke.


Really, man? I wasn't making a joke about addiction nor your past struggles. I was attempting to point out (yes, jokingly and within the context of your previous post) that you always chime in on the matter (porn) whenever it's brought up. That's all. Maybe I'm an asshole. But yeah I thought you didn't want to jump to conclusions? <3


I took your post as a personal affront, whether you meant it that way or not, so my response was decidedly reactionary. I didn't want to jump to conclusions, however, about your own experiences with any of the things I mentioned.
Post Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:07 am
 View user's profile Send private message
remind



Joined: 22 Jun 2008
Posts: 2202
Location: NJ
 Reply with quote  

Yet you still did jump to conclusions with all those questions, as you felt the need to define addiction for my unknowing brain. You also jumped to the conclusion that I was attacking you. It's all good, dude.

Mack daddy make ya...
Post Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:22 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

jakethesnake wrote:
icarus502 wrote:
Again, I would say that people who are unfettered by the logic that intimacy and love are subject to some kind of quasi-capitalist notion of scarcity would be something closer to Maslow's definition of self-actualized than those who think the opposite. Particularly so if the former acts without deception. A first step to self-actualization is killing the pope in your head.


There is some weird perception that if you are having sex with someone other than your "monogamous partner" then you are cheating, aside from the fact that he/she may encourage or approve, or join in. Apparently most have not heard of a couple in a healthy relationship having a threesome for some spice in the bedroom? Or is it just a "pope in your head" scenario evokes the trained response?
I think this perception comes largely from the fact that relationship therapists have seen many instances where open relationships and occasional threesomes have led to intense feelings of jealousy and resentment. At least that's what I remember Dr. Drew saying on love line when I was in high school.

It's not something that I think I could live with. Whether it's shitty socialization or my own insecurities, it's still there and I couldn't get the idea of some guy fucking my lady and coming inside her out of my head. I doubt I'll ever be that self actualized.

Monogamy is one of those biologically ignorant practices that I've just come to accept.
Post Thu Aug 25, 2011 11:26 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
jakethesnake
guy who cried about wrestling being real


Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 6311
Location: airstrip one
 Reply with quote  

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. If you have issues with your partner being with another person, so be it.

What doesn't work for you may work for someone else. You can't look at this kind of chart and say "Well this is what I believe and since someone else doesn't believe that then this pyramid doesn't work or I won't become 'self-actualized' ". To become "self-actualized" you adhere to your own rules, not another persons, literally to "actualize" your potential as an organism. It's not about predicting how you would react to a rules standard put forth by religion, "common sense", "common practice", another person, etc. At least, theoretically.

That's the entire point of the theory. Which is again, 60+ years old and showing signs of age. For comparison, it was released the same year people (Fermi) had just figured out how to make a nuclear reaction. The internet (ARPANET) was 30 years away still.
Post Thu Aug 25, 2011 12:49 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19373
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

icarus502 wrote:
A first step to self-actualization is killing the pope in your head.


That reminded me of this, which I read at an impressionable age:
Post Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:00 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 18, 19, 20  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Sat Nov 22, 2014 7:05 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon