Posts by feralranger

One should never act without a foundation. Even mantissa frequently holds opposing views, yet she doesn't carry herself like some frantic, jumping shrew. Instead, she understands that one person might find a certain way of responding insulting, while another might find an entirely different approach equally offensive.

Furthermore, if someone feels "offended" by the truth, that is quite simply not my concern. The server maintains a record of all entries, preserved in their exact chronological order. It remains perfectly clear who entered this discussion fueled by nothing but pure contempt, and who—quite rightfully—brought a self-important, condescending woman back down to earth.

Carol Fisher said:I honestly cannot fathom how anyone finds the energy to even respond to these endless soliloquies from feralranger. He’s like that faint, grating hiss of a radiator in an old apartment—just a constant, irritating background noise. It’s always the same loop: "Eros, philia... I am a photographer... a mistress, not a partner! Subterfuge, overthinking..." He cycles through the same half-dozen concepts across dozens of posts, attempting to convince this entire forum of his sheer nonsense. You can't reason with him because he firmly believes he is the sole authority on defining love itself. So, there you have it.

I would truly love to see the expressions on the faces of his interlocutors when he introduces his girlfriend as both a mistress and a friend. Epic. 🤣

TinyBulbMan wrote a brilliant post on the topic of the day, and I find myself in total agreement with his assessment.

Poor Carol Fisher, by resorting to
petty insults and a blatant ad hominem😬 attack, has effectively revealed her own emptiness.

George Rivera3 said:Maybe that was just a fetish for you, but nobody else gives a damn. It's too much information, you know? Why on earth would someone working at Chase or an engineer, or even your own friends, care whether or not you're good in bed?

As I have pointed out on more than one occasion—though clearly, my insights fall on deaf ears—in any somewhat formal setting, one typically refers to their partner as my girlfriend, wife, or boyfriend, husband, depending on the context...

And yet, I inevitably find myself being accused of "repeating myself." To those who actually pay attention, I never repeat anything. There is simply no necessity for it.

George Rivera3 said:Fine then, from now on you can call me "your little flame" in front of everyone, even right in front of the boss. Try being romantic for once in your life!...😠

Honestly, you remind me of Zekanović. You're essentially the female version of the exact same phenomenon.

By the way, if anyone happens to be in the mood for something aesthetically pleasing—something that carries a certain heavy sense of "romance" within its frames—I would suggest heading over to YouTube to catch that documentary featuring Elvis Presley regarding David Bowie. (The title of the doc is for two chests of glory).

I am certainly not taking offense, as they aren't exactly ignorant. In fact, if my dear wife—or anyone I’ve been married to, for that matter—were to speak of me in such terms, I would actually be quite pleased to hear it rather than insulted. There is absolutely no shame in being a skilled lover; one can only feel pity for those couples where an affair has spiraled out of control, leaving them with nothing but a hollow partnership, a mere business arrangement, or some other cold cooperation once the passion has evaporated.

Robert Reyes4 said: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.

He could introduce her as his wife, the love of his life, or honestly, whatever he wants—as long as he doesn't diminish her to something that sounds like a casual fling you could find by the dozen. Especially if they are actually signing contracts or closing business deals together at that very moment.

To my mind, the word "partner" conveys absolutely nothing about the actual nature of a relationship. Are you playing tennis together? A duo in a game of Bridge? Do you run a startup together? It’s entirely ambiguous. 🤷

On the scale of being informative, it hits zero, and if we're talking about "romance" or poetic flair, it plunges well below freezing. In this specific context, the word is just completely out of place.

Robert Reyes4 said:I never actually claimed that "lover" and "friend" aren't accurate descriptors for that kind of relationship; my point was simply that neither term is particularly suitable when you're trying to introduce the situation to a complete stranger, largely because our language lacks a single, elegant word for it.
As far as I'm aware, anyway.
It seems we are discussing two entirely different things here.

Perhaps we should just mash those two words together since using both feels so dreadfully impractical; instead of calling for a washing machine, I’ll just have my lover-friend Mantis handle it—call him an "enthusiast" or a "companion," whatever sounds less ridiculous to you.

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.

Robert Reyes4 said: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.

Is your boyfriend or husband—and I shall refrain from using the word "partner," if you please 😁—actually a good lover and a true friend to you? Because if he is, what could possibly be more important than all that (Eros and Philia), other than splitting the rent and paying off the mortgage?

Drew Ross2 said:Well, you are stuck—that's why we're wasting time debating idiots instead of staying on topic. 😁

Look at this, what you're saying... it's all "eroticism this," "philia that," I'm the aristocrat while you commoners have no clue what love actually is. That's how your post reads to me. 😳

I honestly have no idea who you are or what your deal is, but I am perfectly capable of defending my own points. If you find that problematic, then that is entirely your burden to bear. If you had something relevant to contribute to the actual topic, you could have simply said it, couldn't you? Rather than attempting to manufacture a sentence that nobody actually uttered, just so you can argue with your own fabrication and toss out a facepalm emoji.

Robert Reyes4 said: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.

I must ask: is your boyfriend—or husband (though I shall refrain from using the rather sterile term "partner," if you'll permit me 😁)—actually a good lover and a true friend to you? And if he satisfies those requirements, what could possibly exist "above" that level of connection (eros and philia)? Splitting the rent and paying off the mortgage?

Drew Ross2 said:Maybe not, but you seem stuck on this whole 'partner' thing like some kind of simpleton. You're suggesting people are romantically destitute if they tell a plumber, "Oh, my partner might get back to you," 😁

Of course, I don't fall into that category of the needy. I tell the plumber: if the king of my universe, the apple of my eye, and my sexual God feels like reaching out, he will. 😁

I haven't "clung" to anything out of sheer stupidity; rather, my responses simply tend to fall outside the standard mold, which leads the usual conformists in these groups to jump on my posts quite frequently—though I make it a point to reply to everyone. Do you truly believe I should just ignore such forum users and treat them as fools unworthy of a response? 🤷

For instance, why did you go out of your way to plant that specific sentence, acting as if someone had actually uttered it? (I am not expecting an answer, but I do expect you to give it some thought.)

Robert Reyes4 said: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.

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

Drew Ross2 said:When it comes to romance, I guess it doesn't really matter what label you use for the person you love when you're around others.
It’s not like you suddenly become more romantic just because you tell some coworker, "Hey, this is my mistress." 🙂

🤦

Nobody even claimed that bolded sentence was true, so feel free to give yourself a massive facepalm since your comment was entirely misplaced to begin with. 😁

George Rivera3 said:They won't, but if you walk into a room full of strangers and tell them your wife is your "partner," they’re going to assume you’re having an extramarital affair with that woman...

exclamation point fled

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.

George Rivera3 said:It’s a curious thing to observe how poets navigate the landscape of affection; they weave these incredibly lush, romantic expressions into their verses and intimate moments, yet when it comes time to introduce their wives or girlfriends in more formal, public settings, the language shifts entirely to something far more reserved... It is as if there exists a distinct boundary between the soul's private passion and the social mask one wears in polite company...

Just like someone is going to pull their boyfriend aside for a private chat... I’m just calling it like it is... 🤣And before he even gets to his boss, they’ll probably just call him a partner...

It all boils down to context, and that is exactly what mantissa keeps pressing us on...

When you choose to use the word "partner" instead of "mistress," you’re essentially making a statement to any stranger listening—you're confirming that there is a depth to your connection that goes far beyond just what happens in the bedroom. Now, if you want to call her whatever you like when the doors are closed, and if the two of you find some sort of twisted satisfaction in that, then frankly, I couldn't care less... 🤷

I would argue the exact opposite. If I refer to someone as my partner, most people will simply assume she's the woman joining me for doubles tennis in our local club's four-person rotation. At best, they might wonder if I've suddenly taken on a new business venture.

In fact, my partner has accompanied me to sign contracts regarding co-owned real estate holdings, and we have even collaborated on some rather significant business deals together.

Robert Reyes4 said:I never actually said the word "partner" was okay.
My point is, there just isn't a right word for this.

True, but that’s only because people have managed to trivialize and degrade language through sheer misuse; in this twisted reality, a word like "mistress"—which, at its very core, carries the essence of love—now carries such sordid connotations, whereas the term "partner" feels like a sanitized byproduct of Americanization (filtered through our media and films rather than derived from Latin roots).

Aside from when it involves technology, I tend to view Americanization as a form of linguistic impoverishment, often manifesting as a pervasive, trendy descent into stupidity across various contexts, though I suppose that’s drifting away from our current topic of the day...

Robert Reyes4 said:Look, I already explained why neither of those terms really works for me.

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.

Robert Reyes4 said: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.

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."

Nicholas Bailey3 said:So, you aren't.
It’s a shame—I think you’re really missing out on that specific experience. You know, when two people just aren't right for each other, yet they can't seem to stay away—falling back into that same loop over and over again. It’s like being stuck in a cycle you’re supposed to break, but somehow, you just can't.

Oh, I certainly have, if we're counting that one girl... but compared to what follows, that was rather meager. Once a man experiences something far more profound and complete (with all its accompanying complexities), it becomes incredibly difficult to settle for something so thin.

As for that irresistible magnetism and passion that even the passage of time failed to erode, I experienced precisely that with my wife. (Perhaps that is why I have always been so hesitant to diminish her role by merely calling her a 'partner.')

Robert Reyes4 said: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.

"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.

Nicholas Bailey3 said:Have you ever actually felt a connection with a woman based purely on lust and physical gratification?

In my entire life, I have only had one single experience that was truly impoverished in that regard—utterly devoid of any emotional substance. On the other hand, I did have one rather lovely 'ménage à trois' experience, though even that was shared with two dear, close friends.

Given the nature of my professional circles, I occasionally encounter women who would be considered absolutely 'irresistible' by most standards; however, if I find myself lacking even the slightest inclination to grab a coffee with her, she becomes completely incapable of being sexually attractive to me, regardless of how 'phenomenal' her appearance might be.