Posts by Robert Reyes4

What are the actual perks of monogamy? Honestly, I don't think most of us have the bandwidth to juggle multiple people at once. We barely have enough time or mental energy to focus on just one person.

So, here’s the topic of the day: when parents just can't wrap their heads around the fact that their kid has a completely different personality or temperament than they do—or worse, they start playing favorites because one kid is basically a mini-me while the other is... well, different.
I've seen this play out way too many times.

I’d personally insist on getting my kid into some kind of sport. Doesn't even have to be anything intense, but they definitely need to move.

There’s way too much ground to cover here to pick just one winner.
You guys have already covered a lot of ground, so I'll try to throw in something new. Maybe it's the lack of responsiveness to a baby's needs or that emotional detachment during that first year of life. It leaves the deepest scars, and the kicker is that you can't even remember it happening later on.
Then there's the constant criticism—when parents reject a kid's actual personality because they don't fit some perfect image in their heads, and then dump all that guilt onto the child.
Or simply treating a kid like an object designed to check off the parent's personal ego boxes.

I try to grab drinks or hang out with a friend about once a week. Usually, it’s just grabbing a beer, going for a walk, a quick road trip, or hitting up a museum or something. Honestly, I don't have the bandwidth for much more than that right now. But I do make an effort to keep the momentum going and get something on the calendar every single week.

copperhound12 said:

ruggedraven36 I guess it’s like... what was it that someone said? It's just one of those things where you realize how much we overlook. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like everything is being stripped away until there's nothing left of the actual human experience. Honestly, it's infuriating! You see it everywhere—this constant push toward this hollowed-out way of thinking, and it's just wrong. It's like they want to turn us into machines. It really makes me wonder if anyone actually cares about the soul of things anymore. Or maybe I'm just shouting into the void here. Who knows?
Look, here’s my take on the argument. If we decide to reduce one thing down to another, then that second thing absolutely has to provide a total, complete explanation for the first. There can't be anything left over from the original concept—it has to be entirely negated. It's just that, I guess, we simply didn't realize it until after the fact.

Let's look at an example: Philosophy, at its very core, is nothing more than a profound love for wisdom.I—honestly—if you think about it, things like "love" or "wisdom" aren't some mystical, floating essences; they are physical substances. They are housed right within our neural tubules, governed entirely by biology. And look, biology itself is fundamentally dependent on physics, because that’s the only way you can actually transmit information at a microscopic level. Physics serves as the primal foundation for all other sciences—that's just a logically sound conclusion if you follow the thread. But, I suppose that doesn't mean philosophy or biology don't exist in their own right at the macroscopic level. It’s just that, ultimately, they both begin and end with physics. More specifically: they all trace back to quantum physics.

If you actually believe that everything in existence can just be reduced down to quantum fields, then honestly, any attempt at truthful speech becomes completely meaningless. I mean, think about it—you wouldn't even be able to say, "That’s a flower," unless you were intentionally lying. You'd have to say, "Those are quantum fields." If you follow that logic to its conclusion, the answer to every single question would always be the exact same: "It's just quantum fields." To me, that isn't some profound philosophical breakthrough; it's just incredibly shallow. A flower is a flower. Period.

We find ourselves circling back to these conflicting paradigms once again: the idea that everything is ultimately just matter, and that all matter is nothing more than quantum fields. A flower? It’s just matter. That's the argument, anyway. An elastic loop of floating soft foam. Matter. But that doesn't mean—and I really mean this—that a flower doesn't have the inherent desire to be a flower on a macroscopic level. It just does. I guess... I don't know. It just takes up so much space. Everything is being consumed. It’s overwhelming, really. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but it feels like everything is being swallowed whole. It's just... all-consuming. I suppose I have to say it... if you actually look at the data, we’re talking about quantum fields manifesting in this sort of "flower" configuration. It's... well, it's complicated, I guess. Maybe it's just how the math settles when you push it far enough.

No matter how much you try to reduce a human being down to mere quantum fields, there has to be something irreducible left over if they are actually going to be a flower. That’s why I think Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel was spot on when he wrote in one of his letters: "The greatest joke of all is that things simply are what they are."

I suppose I should just linger right here on that particular mystery: “m...I suppose I should start by saying that maybe, just perhaps, we are all missing the forest for the trees here. It feels like every single discussion lately devolves into this endless, exhausting cycle of stripping things down until there’s nothing left but cold, hard data and hollowed-out logic. Honestly? It’s infuriating. We keep pushing this idea that if we can just quantify everything, we'll finally understand the world. But I am telling you right now—and I mean this with everything I have—reductionism is antihumanism. There. I said it. When you try to reduce the complexity of the human spirit, our struggles, and our very existence into mere equations or biological impulses, you aren't "solving" anything. You're actually destroying the very thing you're trying to study. You're killing the soul of the inquiry. There has to be something irreducible at the core of our being. Something that defies a simple formula. If we continue down this path of treating people like predictable machines, we lose what makes us human in the first place. It’s a dangerous game we’re playing, and frankly, I think we're losing. Maybe I'm being too dramatic, but I can't help feeling that we are sprinting toward a void of our own making.Because it’s just the plain truth—there isn't some grand mystery here to unravel. I mean, seriously, just imagine our entire universe compressed down to the size of a single walnut; even then, you still wouldn't be able to detect that quantum "foam," right? But that doesn't mean it isn't actually there. It exists. Period. Matter. It’s such a fundamental concept, yet I feel like we rarely stop to actually grapple with what it implies about our existence. Is it just a collection of particles bouncing around in a void, or is there something more profound at play? I guess it depends on which philosopher you ask, but I find myself circling back to the idea that how we perceive substance defines how we perceive reality itself. Maybe we’re missing the bigger picture by focusing too much on the physical components and not enough on the essence behind them.It’s all their fault—those quantum physicists and the convoluted theories they’ve forced upon us.

Fine, I get it: everything could theoretically be reduced to physics.
But what good does that do us when our brains can't actually break down all these complex phenomena surrounding us into the movements of elementary particles?
It doesn't help us decide whether to go with the flow or change things bit by bit, or if change is even possible.

ruggedraven36 said:Look, I’m all for the radical, immediate cut from anything fake. If we've finally realized we've been living a lie, how exactly do you "gradually" stop being a fraud? You don't. You just quit.

Hmm, I’ve never been quite that certain about what counts as fake.
I can always see things from a few different angles.

Someone said:
I’m just wondering if you need a clean break or if it’s more about gradual change. If you go for the hard reset, you're basically setting new rules for yourself and you have to stick to them. But the slow way is more about working on yourself, dealing with those old ghosts, and slowly moving up.

Which one works better?

Whatever you can actually handle.
The upside to a clean break is that things change faster—supposedly. I don't really have any experience there.
I'm not exactly built for sudden life pivots, so I guess I'm stuck with the slow route.

feralranger said:Honestly, I don't know; I always found it rather charming when a girlfriend or wife would introduce me that way. In more formal settings, one usually sticks to "boyfriend" or "husband," but I was never once relegated to the vague label of "partner." After all, one can have all sorts of partners, and at one point in my life, between my various athletic and professional pursuits, I managed to juggle six of them simultaneously.

Then you get some 70-year-old guy introducing a woman he's out with as his "girlfriend."
If they're just friends, fine. But if he's doing that in a professional setting? It just feels weird.

feralranger said:So, in your estimation, how and why exactly did this linguistic distortion occur?

We probably need to figure out when the terms "lover" or "mistress" actually started being used in the way they are today—and if they ever meant something else entirely back in the day.

feralranger said:Precisely; quite a lot of people are essentially living through a state of emotional poverty within their marriages or long-term relationships, which has caused the concept of being a "mistress" to become entirely decoupled from the actual marital bond. It’s no wonder we’re seeing such a massive surge in domestic partnerships and prenuptial agreements lately.

If my own relationship is woven together by genuine passion and deep, soulful friendship—that beautiful blend of Eros and Philia—then I certainly refuse to reduce it to a mere "partnership," a "joint venture," or some clinical "cooperative arrangement."

I mean, as a layman, I’ve managed to stumble my way into a few legal skirmishes, including one rather landmark dispute against a particularly arrogant and predatory mega-corporation, but when it comes to matters of the heart, I simply cannot abide reducing love to such transactional terminology.

We're talking about words used to help people understand each other, but meanings tend to drift away from their roots all the time.
In close relationships, we can pretty much make up our own definitions for things.
The reason there isn't a specific word for this is likely because, until recently, living with someone outside of marriage wasn't really the norm once you grew up.

feralranger said:And really, what more can I say? You could certainly call yourselves "cooperators" if you truly wish; at the end of the day, it’s your prerogative. But let’s be honest: the term "partners" possesses absolutely zero romantic flair or poetic resonance—which is precisely why poets tend to avoid it while lawyers embrace it with open arms. That is why I find the word so utterly "pitiful," but goodness knows, if you are satisfied with it, then far be it from me to argue.

I never actually said the word "partner" was okay.
My point is, there just isn't a right word for this.

feralranger said:I cannot be held responsible for the general public's tendency to misuse the word love and its various derivatives, nor do I intend to embrace this modern trend of reducing everything to mere "partnerships," drafting prenuptial agreements, and so forth. If that was the implication, then quite simply—it is not.

However, I did mention that one always retains the options of saying "my boyfriend" or "my husband."

Look, I already explained why neither of those terms really works for me.

feralranger said:"It isn't," you say, but by what metric? Love and affairs are hardly things one should feel compelled to hide in shame; rather, they are experiences that ought to persist, provided the connection is genuine.

That being said, I follow your logic... and one could certainly opt for safer terms like "my boyfriend" or "my husband," regardless of how formal the situation dictates.

Personally, I find myself unable to reach for the clinical label of "partner" when describing someone I truly love, for the exact same intuitive and connotative reasons that would prevent any decent poet from ever touching that word.

It's just that, usually, calling someone a "lover" implies a relationship centered mostly on sex and romance, without much else involving shared life or daily activities.

feralranger said:"It isn't," you say, but by what metric? Love and affairs are hardly things one should feel compelled to hide in shame; rather, they are experiences that ought to persist, provided the connection is genuine.

That being said, I follow your logic... and one could certainly opt for safer terms like "my boyfriend" or "my husband," regardless of how formal the situation dictates.

Personally, I find myself unable to reach for the clinical label of "partner" when describing someone I truly love, for the exact same intuitive and connotative reasons that would prevent any decent poet from ever touching that word.

It feels wrong to call someone my husband if they aren't, but calling an adult "my girlfriend" or "my boyfriend" sounds pretty ridiculous too. You just end up stuck not knowing what to say.

feralranger said:Even back when I was married, my dear wife would occasionally introduce me as her lover, and I would do the same for her. 😍

I mean, we were business associates and tennis partners for a stretch, but she never saw fit to degrade our bond with such terminology, nor did I. And certainly, I wouldn't refer to my current girlfriend as merely a "partner."

But there is a prevailing trend here; people are drafting prenuptial agreements left and right, and the whole concept of romance is—quite literally and figuratively—devolving into a mere partnership rather than being rooted in love.

Of course, this pervasive trend isn't exactly "romantic," but that is precisely the topic of the day...

I’m talking about more formal situations.
Like telling a delivery driver I won't be home, but my... lover will pick up the laundry.

The whole lover/mistress thing doesn't even accurately describe the nature of the relationship; it’s just socially awkward to use those terms when you aren't talking to someone close to you.

feralranger said:There certainly is—provided it actually applies to your specific situation. One might call themselves a lover or a friend, assuming that is indeed what you are to one another; if your bond is fueled by genuine passion and deep affection rather than mere transactional calculation or shared assets.

Look, if you bring someone up in conversation and say, "Oh, my mistress is this and that..." I don't know. Calling someone a "mistress" implies something else entirely.
And saying "friend" just sounds like you're trying to hide what's actually going on between you.
Honestly, neither works for me. In fact, none of the words feel right. Sometimes I genuinely have no clue how to put it into words.
I'm talking about those moments when you mention someone you're seeing to someone you aren't particularly close with.

I’m honestly stumped on what to call someone you’re seeing when you aren't married and you're definitely not in your twenties.
Calling them "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" feels a little juvenile at this stage of life. That's basically why the word "partner" became the go-to.
Is there anything out there that actually sounds better?

silverwolf88 said:Why is it that so many women are obsessed with vaginas?

No clue. I can't exactly speak for them.
But you're more than welcome to speak for yourself.

silverwolf88 said:Even if she was stunning—like, model-tier face and body—I still wouldn't deal with someone trying to lowball me just so I could eventually get a hookup with a trans woman. I’m not into being sexually manipulated by women. Honestly, I'd rather just skip the sex entirely.

So, what's with the obsession with trans women?