It would depend on what I would have to Invest in this "Love and What I would get out of it?
If I have to spend money for said "Love" its depends if that cost was below the current market value of a physical relationship.
If there was no Physical aspect of said "Love" then I would have to get something of value(to Me) from this "Love"
I have been in relationships where I have supported the other 100% Financially, just for the honor of being in a relationship.
But on the other hand I have also been tried to be "shaken Down" at the end of relationships.
Topic: You meet a woman... (Read 2604 times)
You meet a woman and after the first couple of dates, she tells you that she dates you only because you need her.
She felt bad about how infatuated you were with her and she only dated you for your own sake. You really weren't her type and she really didn't like the way you lived your life but she felt obligated out of her selfnessness to meet your needs. She sacrificed all of her selfish romantic desires and just focused on how much you depended on her. She was so selfless and altruistic in fact that she mostly admired your neediness and how sad you would be if she left you. She loved that your entire happiness depended on her presence and thus felt altruistic in her act.
Would you accept a "love" of this kind?
She felt bad about how infatuated you were with her and she only dated you for your own sake. You really weren't her type and she really didn't like the way you lived your life but she felt obligated out of her selfnessness to meet your needs. She sacrificed all of her selfish romantic desires and just focused on how much you depended on her. She was so selfless and altruistic in fact that she mostly admired your neediness and how sad you would be if she left you. She loved that your entire happiness depended on her presence and thus felt altruistic in her act.
Would you accept a "love" of this kind?
If she's hot yes. The rest I don't care.
She had me at "Hello, and by the way I bring my own whipped cream and handcuffs."
Some people would think it's a diversion of maternal instinct. That can make a woman chose to live with a man only because she thinks this man needs her. That abandoning him would be too cruel and on. And yet the woman can feel some pleasure, only because she'll have the feeling she's kind of useful. That her life is not meaningless.
Of course, if the man has any pride, it is repulsing.
Sounds like she's the one who is depending on her own need to feel selfless. I believe Rand said quite a bit about people who are selfless for selflessness' sake. None of it was good.
Love is doing things for someone else, not because they can't, or because you feel obligated to, but because you want to. She feels obligated to, and it sounds like it's out of some messed up sense of "I'm holier that though because I am so selfless" (forgot the term).
Another major problem with a relationship like this is that it's uneven. You would basically owe her, A LOT, for continuing to stick with you, and it's only a matter of time until she calls in the favors and uses that against you. In a love relationship, I would expect everything to be shared equally, with no one having an unfair advantage or debt.
Love is doing things for someone else, not because they can't, or because you feel obligated to, but because you want to. She feels obligated to, and it sounds like it's out of some messed up sense of "I'm holier that though because I am so selfless" (forgot the term).
Another major problem with a relationship like this is that it's uneven. You would basically owe her, A LOT, for continuing to stick with you, and it's only a matter of time until she calls in the favors and uses that against you. In a love relationship, I would expect everything to be shared equally, with no one having an unfair advantage or debt.
Hmmm, what's the sex like...?
I'm not new here.
I kill Atlas' psychopacy by seriousness.
And it's "you're", not your.
I kill Atlas' psychopacy by seriousness.
And it's "you're", not your.
And it's "psychopathy", not psychopacy.
Try agin?
I'm trying to figure out why certain posts of mine have disappeared...
Many of my posts (of late) have been WAY off-topic. OK, I get that. But how can an off-topic post be removed from the "Off-topic" section of this forum? Seems strange to me, especially given the very LIBERAL posting policy on bitcointalk.org.
Read this while you can. It will soon be deleted (or worse, moved to Meta)
I'm not new here.
I kill Atlas' psychopacy by seriousness.
And it's "you're", not your.
I kill Atlas' psychopacy by seriousness.
And it's "you're", not your.
And it's "psychopathy", not psychopacy.
Try agin?
What kind of panty-waste response is this? You do realize this is the "Off-topic" section, right?!?
Oh wait...you're (your?) NEW here. WELCOME!!!
I'm not new here.Oh wait...you're (your?) NEW here. WELCOME!!!
I kill Atlas' psychopacy by seriousness.
And it's "you're", not your.
This would not happen to me, thus I can't really answer your question.
is she hot?
No.
BUT, I still think you should get a girlfriend. Seriously.
A highly overrated human endeavor.
Is the OP supposed to be some kind of metaphor for the "mothering" state?
If so, it greatly over-simplifies things to the point of being pointless. The "free Market" can not exist without state control and regulation. Money is an obvious example, that people on a bitcoin forum are obviously going to discount. Other examples include natural monopolies like roads and utilities. Other things require cooperation like spectrum allocation and dispute resolution. "Opting out" is not a viable option in those cases.
If so, it greatly over-simplifies things to the point of being pointless. The "free Market" can not exist without state control and regulation. Money is an obvious example, that people on a bitcoin forum are obviously going to discount. Other examples include natural monopolies like roads and utilities. Other things require cooperation like spectrum allocation and dispute resolution. "Opting out" is not a viable option in those cases.
No.
Is the OP supposed to be some kind of metaphor for the "mothering" state?
If so, it greatly over-simplifies things to the point of being pointless. The "free Market" can not exist without state control and regulation. Money is an obvious example, that people on a bitcoin forum are obviously going to discount. Other examples include natural monopolies like roads and utilities. Other things require cooperation like spectrum allocation and dispute resolution. "Opting out" is not a viable option in those cases.
If so, it greatly over-simplifies things to the point of being pointless. The "free Market" can not exist without state control and regulation. Money is an obvious example, that people on a bitcoin forum are obviously going to discount. Other examples include natural monopolies like roads and utilities. Other things require cooperation like spectrum allocation and dispute resolution. "Opting out" is not a viable option in those cases.
You meet a woman and after the first couple of dates, she tells you that she dates you only because you need her.
She felt bad about how infatuated you were with her and she only dated you for your own sake. You really weren't her type and she really didn't like the way you lived your life but she felt obligated out of her selfnessness to meet your needs. She sacrificed all of her selfish romantic desires and just focused on how much you depended on her. She was so selfless and altruistic in fact that she mostly admired your neediness and how sad you would be if she left you. She loved that your entire happiness depended on her presence and thus felt altruistic in her act.
Would you accept a "love" of this kind?
She felt bad about how infatuated you were with her and she only dated you for your own sake. You really weren't her type and she really didn't like the way you lived your life but she felt obligated out of her selfnessness to meet your needs. She sacrificed all of her selfish romantic desires and just focused on how much you depended on her. She was so selfless and altruistic in fact that she mostly admired your neediness and how sad you would be if she left you. She loved that your entire happiness depended on her presence and thus felt altruistic in her act.
Would you accept a "love" of this kind?
What you're describing ain't "love". It's two people whose psychological pathologies intermesh to give them the illusion of "love". Only the clinically codependent (or those who suffer from some other serious mental affliction) would think that the relationship you've described above qualifies as healthy.
Just guessing, but the "she" in your story above is a sociopath who will wring her victims dry and toss them away like so many old rags.
Good luck!
I would like to thank you for making my point even clearer. : )
You meet a woman and after the first couple of dates, she tells you that she dates you only because you need her.
She felt bad about how infatuated you were with her and she only dated you for your own sake. You really weren't her type and she really didn't like the way you lived your life but she felt obligated out of her selfnessness to meet your needs. She sacrificed all of her selfish romantic desires and just focused on how much you depended on her. She was so selfless and altruistic in fact that she mostly admired your neediness and how sad you would be if she left you. She loved that your entire happiness depended on her presence and thus felt altruistic in her act.
Would you accept a "love" of this kind?
She felt bad about how infatuated you were with her and she only dated you for your own sake. You really weren't her type and she really didn't like the way you lived your life but she felt obligated out of her selfnessness to meet your needs. She sacrificed all of her selfish romantic desires and just focused on how much you depended on her. She was so selfless and altruistic in fact that she mostly admired your neediness and how sad you would be if she left you. She loved that your entire happiness depended on her presence and thus felt altruistic in her act.
Would you accept a "love" of this kind?
What you're describing ain't "love". It's two people whose psychological pathologies intermesh to give them the illusion of "love". Only the clinically codependent (or those who suffer from some other serious mental affliction) would think that the relationship you've described above qualifies as healthy.
Just guessing, but the "she" in your story above is a sociopath who will wring her victims dry and toss them away like so many old rags.
Good luck!
This girl is troubled. If she want to do that to herself as a kind of sacrifice (selfish altruism), she must have very low thoughts about herself. She's immature, get a real woman.
Not another "Atlas and I met a woman" thread. This is like deja vu all over again.
Who let the dogs out?
For the record, I'm all for having Atlas given a second chance and all, but restrictions were put in place.
Atlas, you are a very bright guy (note, I didn't say kid) and love reading your stuff (will never ignore you), but please consider adding VALUE to this forum. I know damn well you have it in you better than I in some respects.
Later, bud. (sincerely)
~Bruno~
Who let the dogs out?
For the record, I'm all for having Atlas given a second chance and all, but restrictions were put in place.
Atlas, you are a very bright guy (note, I didn't say kid) and love reading your stuff (will never ignore you), but please consider adding VALUE to this forum. I know damn well you have it in you better than I in some respects.
Later, bud. (sincerely)
~Bruno~
I appreciate your kind words. I will say that the OP is a genuine question of intellectual merit.
Not another "Atlas and I met a woman" thread. This is like deja vu all over again.
Who let the dogs out?
For the record, I'm all for having Atlas given a second chance and all, but restrictions were put in place.
Atlas, you are a very bright guy (note, I didn't say kid) and love reading your stuff (will never ignore you), but please consider adding VALUE to this forum. I know damn well you have it in you better than I in some respects.
Later, bud. (sincerely)
~Bruno~
Who let the dogs out?
For the record, I'm all for having Atlas given a second chance and all, but restrictions were put in place.
Atlas, you are a very bright guy (note, I didn't say kid) and love reading your stuff (will never ignore you), but please consider adding VALUE to this forum. I know damn well you have it in you better than I in some respects.
Later, bud. (sincerely)
~Bruno~
If she loved me out of a sort of pity; then I would probably end trying to fix her, which ultimatley would end up with me loving her. It's a sort of Paradox. Interesting question, never the less.
Jump to: