Posts by feralranger

Robert Reyes4 said: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.

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...

Sam Jones8 said:As long as there are people, there'll be romance...

Honestly, trying to have a serious debate about these subjective, ill-defined concepts is a total trap... you usually just end up in some pointless shouting match over personal tastes and who has "good" style, which is honestly such a waste of breath.
One person lives for kale, someone else is all about broccoli, and then there’s that guy who can't even look at a green vegetable without gagging... so what? It is what it is. 😁

Take me, for example—I can't stand those massive, sugary gestures or public proposals that feel totally staged and forced, whereas one of my girlfriends absolutely loses it for that stuff and thinks it's peak romance. We haven't come to blows yet, though. 😁

PS I can't stand the word "partner" when talking about any kind of relationship, even if it is technically convenient sometimes. ☕

It’s hollow, impoverished, and completely cliché (a total copy-paste job).

Sam Jones8 said:As long as there are people, there'll be romance...

Honestly, trying to have a serious debate about these subjective, ill-defined concepts is a total trap... you usually just end up in some pointless shouting match over personal tastes and who has "good" style, which is honestly such a waste of breath.
One person lives for kale, someone else is all about broccoli, and then there’s that guy who can't even look at a green vegetable without gagging... so what? It is what it is. 😁

Take me, for example—I can't stand those massive, sugary gestures or public proposals that feel totally staged and forced, whereas one of my girlfriends absolutely loses it for that stuff and thinks it's peak romance. We haven't come to blows yet, though. 😁

PS I can't stand the word "partner" when talking about any kind of relationship, even if it is technically convenient sometimes. ☕

Of course. For my part, while I do have a significant other, I would never dream of degrading my girlfriend by referring to her with such a sterile term.

Robert Reyes4 said: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?

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.

Paul Grant67 said:I didn't "miss the point." 😁
Oh, so it's because I'm incapable of understanding, right? Is that it? 😬

Either you genuinely missed the point, or you're playing coy—which, frankly, isn't any more flattering. 🤷

You asked me quite literally, "What do poets have to do with this?"

If you actually grasped the distinction being made, you wouldn't have felt the need to ask such a question, would you?

Paul Grant67 said:What a subtle way to belittle someone else's perspective. Just because you feel that way doesn't mean anyone else is wrong; it just means they're different from you. Honestly, that kind of narrow-mindedness is exactly what makes someone radical... you could easily turn that comment about "lacking an ear" back on yourself instead of throwing it at others.

I wouldn't call it disparaging views; I’d call it being honest. Frankly, I have an utter disdain for "political correctness," for insincerity, for people who constantly play nice or try to appease everyone.

As for my mention of the poet—which you clearly failed to grasp—the point was to demonstrate that this isn't merely some isolated, "unhinged" opinion held solely by me.

In my estimation, these "unhinged" trends are precisely what lead to various forms of human impoverishment, both emotionally and spiritually. But then again, to each their own.

A companion can be both a lover and a confidante, and when two people share a bond built on true passion and deep friendship, I refuse to reduce that connection to some mere transactional arrangement or a simple business partnership.

But then again, to each their own. Personally, I would find a world without music—along with many other things—to be an utterly desolate place, yet for someone without a sense of rhythm or melody, music holds no significance at all. People are fundamentally different in that regard.

Paul Grant67 said:Sometimes love actually needs to be pragmatic and grounded if you want to have any real basis for romanticizing it. Otherwise, it’s nothing more than an illusion built on empty words. My point is, you have to actually live it, not just daydream about it.

Romance isn't just some ethereal concept confined to the realm of fantasy; it exists quite tangibly in the real world.

jadeowl2 said:Look, if you ask me, I’d say only one of them actually managed to rise to that level... barely... 😬.
Look, maybe it doesn't sound all poetic or romantic at first glance, but there’s more to it than meets the eye. It touches on so many different layers of a relationship... things you just can't really capture if you only use a word like "lover."

🤣

I don't know, I've just never been really into those big grand gestures or that whole "classic" romance thing... though, honestly, you could probably argue about what even counts as romance in the first place.
I honestly don't know... I’m starting to think romance isn't actually dead, it's just hidden. Like, maybe it's still out there exactly like it's always been, we just can't see it anymore...

To me, being romantic is all about that initial rush... that way you see someone else at first. It’s about how you perceive your partner, you know? That whole idealized vision of them... 😬So, how does that actually play out? Honestly, it all just comes down to whatever someone’s personal preference happens to be in any given situation... it's all subjective...

A partnership or a shared stake implies a community of interest. An affair, both by its etymological roots and its actual substance, is an entirely different beast altogether.

Paul Grant67 said:Calling it "degrading" is just your personal opinion. What does that have to do with poets? Are they supposed to be the ultimate authority on how love should be expressed and lived?

Poets possess a certain mastery over language; they understand the weight of a word and the nuance of an emotion, which makes it quite impossible for them to reach for a term borrowed from the sterile world of corporate business. I was merely making a point. It is precisely for that reason that I feel compelled to emphasize that this is by no means a matter of mere coincidence. And that is merely my own personal opinion, which, quite frankly, seems to have fallen straight from Mars.

On the other hand, one could argue this is merely another symptom of that pervasive modern trend where eroticism is stripped down to mere mechanics, and romance is reduced to nothing more than a business partnership. Personally, I have always found a certain grim satisfaction in swimming against such a current, even when the tide seems determined to pull everyone else toward mediocrity.

Paul Grant67 said:According to whose definition isn't it? A partnership can apply to any duo. Business, romantic, platonic... As far as I'm concerned, a partnership can absolutely be erotic. A partner is simply someone you share something with—whether that's a business, a game, or intimacy... it all depends on the nature of the bond. A partnership is a serious commitment. 🙂
Still, obviously everything comes down to perspective, but claiming something is "sad" just because your own subjective view differs from theirs seems a bit radical, doesn't it?

No poet in history would ever refer to his beloved as a "partner." That is a term born from the boardroom and corporate offices. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the concept of a pair but is instead derived from being a part (a component). Partnership and equity are inherently unromantic, decidedly anti-erotic concepts. No poet would ever feel the need to clarify this; it is simply understood.

I have certainly never degraded a woman by using such a clinical term.

George Rivera3 said:I look back on that whole period with nothing but pure contempt. I’ve certainly learned how to keep my impulses in check by now, but when I was much younger, I used to be incredibly dismissive of the guys I was seeing. I could be truly awful... 🤣

The poor orphan. Honestly, that contempt is merely a defense mechanism, because deep down, the subconscious is painfully aware of that inherent deficit and poverty of spirit. It is quite similar to how someone who lacks any sense of pitch or musicality might react by scorning music itself...

...And honestly, I find it utterly exhausting to witness two people describing one another as "partners." A partnership or a joint venture is a cold, pragmatic arrangement; it possesses neither romance nor any hint of eroticism. It is truly a pathetic state of affairs when you feel compelled to emphasize and declare that your relationship is a "partnership," or when you find yourself referring to your girlfriend or wife merely as a "partner."

To me, romance is defined by those moments where you simply surrender to your emotions and let your dreams take the lead. However, modern lifestyle trends seem to be pushing us toward a more mechanical existence, and sexuality is frequently caught in that same trap. The internet is absolutely saturated with sexual content featuring performers who act less like lovers and more like mere sexual technicians.

Hollywood films—mostly American productions—have completely commodified and exhausted the very idea of romance. It’s a classic case of inflation; when you oversupply something, you inevitably devalue it, and this repetitive, copy-paste version of "romance" we see everywhere isn't actually romantic at all.

On the other hand, there are still plenty of women today who are perfectly capable of feeling and experiencing true romance. I think the poem by Cesarić's that I recorded once (for one specific person) serves as an implicit testament to that, especially since it resonated so deeply with many of the women on this forum. Throughout my life, I've written a handful of songs dedicated to the women I've been with; I know for a fact they still keep them in written form or have them memorized to this day. But such things can't be manufactured; they have to happen spontaneously, and a woman truly has to inspire a man to perform such an act...

We might be eternal enemies on this forum, but I will always stand up for free speech, the removal of partiality, and TSL.
Even if we are adversaries, we aren't total assholes.

I fully support getting rid of partiality.

(...and when our paths cross on some thread, I’ll settle things with a single bullet shot 🙂 , just as is fitting. ☕ 😁 )

Kimberly Evans95 said:Hi there, I tried toggling on Invisible mode yesterday, but instead of seeing a blue indicator, I was greeted by a glaringly bright red one. 🤔 When I navigated over to my own profile, it explicitly stated that I was active and even listed the specific thread I was browsing... isn't the whole point of Invisible mode that the green light turns blue, and that my profile won't broadcast my online status or current activity?

When you're operating in that mode, a red light appears next to your own posts, whereas for everyone else, nothing shows up at all. Other users won't be able to see which thread you've currently got open.

mellowlynx68 said:What would a thread even look like if we went back and scrubbed all the decent (read: non-violating) posts from one or more users?
It would be an illegible mess.
That is precisely why it isn't done, nor should it ever be.

Actually, you're mistaken. If we did that, the content itself wouldn't actually be erased, and every single username involved would simply morph into something like "Anonymous."

While a quote preserves the actual message—meaning any thread built on that substance would still exist—the problem is that once a profile is deleted, victims wouldn't be able to search for malicious individuals, stalkers, or other creeps. (And let me be clear: they exist. Yes, psychopaths are out there, and there is no foolproof way to filter them out during the account creation process.)

More polished social media platforms offer a genuine option to delete one's profile, a level of decency that this forum, unfortunately, hasn't even begun to approach.

Ethan Gomez82 said:Personally, I find linking those two ideas completely nonsensical, making phrases like "wise crime" or "wise charity" equally absurd. But let's save that for the new thread. Anything involving high intelligence is often conflated with wisdom. That’s how I first encountered the concept growing up—not through fairy tales or fantasy novels, but through reality.

Teddy, are you pulling my leg? Honestly, up until this point, you haven't sounded like someone who failed their basic logic course.

You claim things are generally one way, yet you refer to those two things (when, in reality, those two things are quite specific).

Why is it perfectly acceptable to "pair" the terms cunning and criminality, yet—per your logic—it becomes an issue to pair wisdom and criminality? What, pray tell, is the distinct difference here?

(It lies precisely in the empathy and ethics that you seem to be overlooking; that is why cunning can be associated with crime, because unlike wisdom, cunning lacks any inherent foundation in empathy or ethical considerations.)

Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: There is quite a vast amount of information that simply fails to occur to me upon my first attempt at reasoning, yet simultaneously, there is an abundance of insight that strikes me instantly—instances where one can clearly observe just how far a certain brand of wise crime sits from any semblance of actual ethics.

That argument simply doesn't hold water. If we were following that logic, one might claim the existence of a wise crime or perhaps some sort of base wisdom—but that is an absurdity, isn't it? By its very definition, wisdom is inextricably linked to ethics, making such a concept fundamentally impossible. Wait, are you seriously suggesting that a wise crime or a base wisdom could actually exist?

Quincy:

Ethan Gomez82 As Ethan Gomez82 points out: Pinpointing that exact, golden moment to offload a stock position requires an immense amount of wise crime. One would need to possess a deep, almost obsessive mastery of economics, sociology, psychology, and politics, among many other disciplines—and more importantly, one must have the uncanny ability to weave those disparate threads together at precisely the right instant. Even most highly intelligent individuals fail miserably at this, yet a select few seem to possess this particular knack. It is a feat steeped in profound wisdom, though I assure you, it is entirely devoid of any ethical substance whatsoever.

It is nothing more than data collection and mathematics: statistics, probability, analytics... all that, along with its practical application, much like meteorology. It has absolutely nothing to do with wisdom. Even when a meteorologist makes a perfectly accurate prediction, we don't exactly go around calling them wise.

@Ethan Gomez82

I find your particular interpretation of truth to be quite coherent, certainly, yet I remain steadfast in my belief that wisdom is fundamentally inseparable from ethics.

If they were truly distinct, we would be forced to acknowledge the existence of works that are simultaneously wise and vile, or perhaps wise and treacherous... though that strikes me as an outright oxymoron, wouldn't you agree?

Unlike that nonsensical pairing of "wise and vile," one can easily envision something being both sly and despicable (even if, granted, a certain level of slyness might occasionally serve a virtuous end).

If wisdom could actually be decoupled from morality, then a human action could exist that is both profoundly wise and utterly base. Could you possibly provide even a single instance of such a thing? (I fully expect you will struggle to produce such an example, which would, in itself, prove my point that wisdom and ethics are one and the same.)

One could easily imagine a book titled Sly Wise Crime describing a criminal who was simply clever enough to evade capture and punishment.

However, I cannot fathom a book entitled Wise Crime. Can you? (Unless, of course, one were attempting to craft an intentionally absurd, oxymoronic title, of course.)

David Robinson26 said:If we accept the premise that good and evil are human constructs—wherever morality depends entirely on one's perspective—then wisdom and cunning will inevitably be subject to later revaluation and shifting definitions.
We might initially perceive an action as wise simply because it appears virtuous, yet as time passes and its negative consequences unfold, we will retroactively label it as unwise.

That is certainly a possibility. It stems from the fact that humans are fundamentally flawed beings possessing nothing but imperfect insights. As time marches on, our perceptions may become more comprehensive or holistic, eventually exposing a profound discrepancy between our past assumptions and the reality that finally reveals itself...