Posts by Sandra Parker3

Angela Rogers2 will probably have an opinion on that since she loves over-rationalizing everything, but whatever 🙂

nimblepilot29 said:Perhaps this could be interpreted as me suggesting that primal drives are at play here—or at least, that they play a much more significant role than we might initially assume...

I honestly couldn't say...

When I really sit down to contemplate the concept of appeal—taking it broadly, perhaps even through the lens of fine art—it strikes me that one's upbringing is truly the fundamental key to what we find attractive...

Perhaps it’s a little bit of everything when it comes to human relationships, though I suppose that really depends on what one is ultimately looking for out of life—whether you're seeking something fleeting, something lasting, or anything in between...
It really comes down to whether we are looking at the consequence of what was intended, or if we are dissecting the root cause—be it a deliberate, rational choice or an entirely irrational failure to act...

Man, you're really throwing me for a loop now.

Maybe you actually have a point. Our reactions are definitely driven more by instinct than we care to admit.
But why do we feel this desperate need to wrap everything up in some neat, rational package? Is that just our way of distancing ourselves from who we really are? And for what? Why do we try so hard to mask those primal urges behind logic when they're the very things driving our behavior and decisions in the first place?

It’s not really a "mix," I wouldn't go with that word—it doesn't actually mean anything.

So, what would you call it?

I don’t know, I’ve just never really been someone who finds people attractive purely on a sexual level, totally isolated from everything else going on in their head.
Even those feelings of "crushing" on someone always felt way too intense for me.
Sometimes one side takes the lead and sometimes the other does, but at the end of the day, I just can't seem to untangle raw instinct from actual logic.

I'm not talking about some kind of clean break or a sharp division, if that's what you mean.

Not really. Just my two cents.
You have to account for the rational side of things.
Marriages—or domestic partnerships, if you prefer—aren't arranged like they used to be, but those kinds of agreements are becoming more common again.
Honestly, I’m not entirely sure how much impact they actually have.

The whole internal structure of marriage and relationships is shifting, and it’s hard to say who’s actually keeping up with the changes 🤷

Not at all. Not now.

Later... once you finally come to your senses... yeah.
Then you can try fixing the mess you made just because you enjoyed that little rush.

That’s exactly what the primal brain is capable of doing.🙄

nimblepilot29 said:The robot in the avatar. That's what I meant 😁

I'm not even sure myself, really 😉
I'm just wondering... about myself and everyone else.

And if genetics is everything, then mastering grammar doesn't even matter; everything would already be set in stone, which isn't exactly a comforting thought. It would mean I could write perfectly, but if I don't have the right genes, it won't mean a thing. That's just how I see it...

Unless we're talking about an incurable genetic disorder or something similar, things like grammar and education actually make a massive difference.
Because you aren't going to inherit perfect spelling through your DNA.
Sure, you might have certain predispositions, but everything else comes down to a huge mix of factors—and you're one of those factors. 😉

Chloe Barnes8 said:Times change, and so do the standards for what’s considered okay or even expected when it comes to gender roles... if those roles even need to exist at all, really...

Just a few decades ago, if a woman acted assertive, most psychologists or psychiatrists back then would have probably flagged it as being way too aggressive, maybe even "masculine," whereas today it's just a totally normal part of our social code... like...☕

And honestly, the same goes for men too... being a "macho man" isn't exactly an adaptive way to live, I don't think. It feels like psychology and counseling have actually made some strides here, really pushing for better communication and understanding needs between the genders...

If you were hitting a wall in your marriage or your relationship, would you immediately think about reaching out to a professional?
The real question is, how much faith would you actually have in someone being able to fix things for you?

Not really. I can't quite put my finger on why.
I'm perfectly capable of walking away on my own, but doing it with him? No way.
I'd just end up being difficult 🤷
Maybe I'll figure out what's actually going on in my head and let you know then.

And what is it with you always... dancing around the subject... never saying anything concrete, or maybe it's just me? 😕

She's 🙂

They leaned a little too hard into genetics, so watching some guy's complete lack of literacy was actually a nice little breather. 😉

@ rustymaker5,
We can make things work together. These connections are informal by nature because the old way of doing things—all those rigid, formal structures—is basically dead and gone. All that trouble usually starts the moment you sign some official paperwork... nothing lasts forever. You can work on evolving while you're living life together. Once a relationship is set, it isn't carved in stone; if anything, I think radical changes are necessary as time goes on. Even then, there's no guarantee it'll last. As long as it's going, it's going....

Regarding parenting, it’s not just up to moms. People say that all the time, but really, anyone who happens to be around ends up shaping a kid, and eventually, you end up having to raise yourself anyway... so no, it's not a woman's job to fix men.
We all change through our interactions with others, whether it's due to genetics or just social circumstances.
Right now, it's about looking out for ourselves and choosing people based on our own standards. There's no need to rush into a commitment or jump to conclusions...
🙂

Yeah, I’m doing everything exactly the same way, and then Find Threads Started by User...
It keeps pulling up things like all my posts for topics that I started >🤷 😕>
Instead of just giving me the thread titles 😢

EDIT:

I finally figured out what was going wrong.

On top of all that, you also have to:

Over on the bottom left, in that little box labeled "Show Results as" you have to select "Threads" .... 😵 😵>
Then it actually lists just the threads.

God, I love it when I actually outsmart these people..... 😉

Chloe Barnes8 said:And honestly, women want to sleep with other guys again, too... just being totally real here.🙂

Every single time I'm hanging out here this late, we always circle back to the exact same topic: that 😁

Is that supposed to mean something 🤷 🎉

mistybison said:It’s possible that men might crave physical intimacy with someone new after being in a long-term relationship, but women certainly experience a desire to fall in love all over again with a different partner. 😉 Let's be honest. 😁

That whole theory about intuitive versus primal differences between men and women is total garbage... oh wait, I was thinking of you, ten, you absolute animal... yeah, I know, my bad. 🙄 😉

Chloe Barnes8 said:🤣 🤣 🤣

Yeah... he actually claims it's just in his DNA...

Sure, if anyone's actually buying that nonsense anymore.🙄

Angela Rogers2 said:I’m obviously talking about cattle😉—though I guess that's how most guys today operate. They just wrap their behavior in some pathetic little rationalization to make themselves feel better. It's always something like:
- I was just drunk
- I'm just a jerk
- Women are untrustworthy, so it's just a matter of opportunity
- I'm not looking for anything serious
and so on... 😁

No, my point was actually about that whole "intuitive" and "instinctive" thing.

Then it’s not just cattle 🙄
But fine, I think I get what you were getting at now............

Hold on a second... cattle, superhumans...?
What's the middle ground? Just curious about your terminology here 😉

Angela Rogers2 said:Not really... I mean, genetically speaking, we're pretty much cut from the same cloth since we belong to the same species. Under certain conditions, our behavior is bound to follow similar patterns. Kids are probably the best way to measure this; physically, they can often look quite androgynous. You know how it goes—you look at a baby and go, "Oh my god, so cute!" and then the mother gives you this dark look and tells you it's actually a boy 😁
. On the other hand, our sexual development is driven by sexual instinct, which, let's face it, still dictates a huge chunk of our lives. Of course, plenty of people in their later years end up sublimating that drive into something asexual, yet productive. But men and women are definitely different because they're guided by different biological impulses.
For instance, promiscuity is less common among women, partly because she's socially conditioned toward family life, but also because she’s biologically wired to care for offspring. So, she intuitively—and logically—seeks out the best possible partner to raise children with
. Men, meanwhile, instinctively seek out more partners because, from an evolutionary standpoint, fertilizing more females increases the chances of his genes surviving. That same logic explains the protective instinct toward offspring, providing for a family, and that general animosity toward other males
. In my opinion, the real kicker—the whole mess, really—is that as humans, we’ve held onto so much pure animalistic, instinctive behavior, even though we’ve tried to "humanize" it by acknowledging these differences. Civilization developed relatively quickly, from an evolutionary perspective, specifically to weed out or adapt these behaviors, concluding that they aren't necessary since, well, we're supposed to be civilized people
.

Are you actually talking about people here, or just some transitional stage of animal evolution?😕

rustymaker5 said:I was reading "The DNA of Success" by Jacko Zufelt recently, and he makes this pretty interesting argument regarding romantic partnerships... He suggests that men and women process love in fundamentally different ways (well, obviously we know that part). According to him, the primary way a woman shows love to a man—and helps him actually connect with his own emotions—is by showing appreciation for what he does. It’s about sending that message that his actions matter, that they are valued, and being quick to forgive when he slips up, while accepting him exactly as he is. This, according to Zufelt, is crucial for a man to establish an emotional connection and tap into those internal compasses needed to guide his own behavior.
If he feels criticized or if there's constant pressure to change, a man will naturally resist... and when that resistance finally breaks, he might spiral, turning to things like alcoholism, for example...

Women, on the other hand, tend to need to manage their own feelings... A woman's soul needs to feel supported so she can freely express her emotions, her desires, and her needs without hesitation.
A man shouldn't try to manipulate a woman's feelings or push her toward feeling something else entirely. If she's feeling down, scared, or angry, he shouldn't be critiquing those reactions.

According to Zufelt, following this would basically be the blueprint for a successful marriage.
When I sit back and really think about it, there might be some truth to that... maybe if people actually tried it, marriage counseling wouldn't even be necessary in the first place... 🤷

It’s a simplified view, sure, but you can't deny there's some logic there.
But let's assume everyone actually knows what they need and takes the time to "notify" their partner who doesn't.
Whether the breakdown happens during the sending, the receiving, the processing, or just how the message is reacted to... it almost doesn't matter. When any of those links snap, we just shrug and call it a "communication breakdown."

Angela Rogers2 said:Actually, I was going to say you did your makeup, but you clearly didn't 😛

@Enchi, as for me, it's meh. People don't really want to hear about psychology anymore 😁. A few times now, a friend of mine got pissed at me because, right in the middle of a conversation, I told him his whole argument was just pure negation and there was no point in explaining it further since he wouldn't listen anyway... so he got annoyed and threatened to burn all those stupid books I read. Then he crossed his arms, and I just told him, "Look how defensive you're being—that means I'm right." So then he basically told me to get lost. Doesn't matter what I say, I say it, and that's that. Honestly, having knowledge in this field has made it much easier for me to wrap my head around people—why they act the way they do and why herd mentality always seems to put the crowd on a lower mental level than an individual thinking for themselves. 🙂

😛 you ...........
If that's how you see it, then fine, but I don't—I just think a little change is enough.
I'm actually really happy with it... (this guy should probably be talking to me like I'm some kind of princess...)
You're totally missing the subtle stuff. You just make these blunt comments, just like you did with that friend of yours 😁

And even if this change is exactly what it looks like, it still says something 😉

@ Enchi, just because you don't bring up spirituality or religion when you're out with friends doesn't mean it isn't part of who you are—it's just expressed through other things there.
It just means... don't take everything here literally... try using a little creativity when decoding the "signals" we're "sending" 🙂

Kate Perez31 said:I’d just suggest adding a pro search option—you know, search by username, find threads, and all that good stuff. 👍

.

But it just pulls up every single thread starter instead...

Is there any way to fix this? 😕 🙂