• This website is being maintained/upgraded and may have some downtime or errors.

Was I in the wrong?

@GoldmanSachs I'm disappointed. Same circular arguments and you refuse to accept facts. I’m bored with you
Really? Circular? In what way?

All I am saying can be summed up quite simply: a relationship devoid of love is not truly a relationship but a business arrangement, and there is no love in a relationship devoid of mutual physical attraction. In a business arrangement that is attempting to simulate the relationship, if you offer either party the material things they are after but had to give up life with their "lover", they would choose that in a heartbeat and never look back. That train of logic breaks down for relationships with couples that are actually in love with each other and cannot fathom life living without their partner.

How is this so difficult for you to understand? There's nothing "circular" about it. At this point, there has to be some dissonance going on where you refuse to acknowledge the reality that is apparent to most people. That there is a fundamental difference between genuine relationships with couples who truly for each other on a deeper level, and business arrangements that boil down to some form of a barter.
 

VixR

Veritas
Really? Circular? In what way?

All I am saying can be summed up quite simply: a relationship devoid of love is not truly a relationship but a business arrangement, and there is no love in a relationship devoid of mutual physical attraction. In a business arrangement that is attempting to simulate the relationship, if you offer either party the material things they are after but had to give up life with their "lover", they would choose that in a heartbeat and never look back. That train of logic breaks down for relationships with couples that are actually in love with each other and cannot fathom life living without their partner.

How is this so difficult for you to understand? There's nothing "circular" about it. At this point, there has to be some dissonance going on where you refuse to acknowledge the reality that is apparent to most people. That there is a fundamental difference between genuine relationships with couples who truly for each other on a deeper level, and business arrangements that boil down to some form of a barter.
That’s just not true in grander scheme of things.

Although mutual physical attraction can be a recipe for a good relationship (and it’s a component I prefer), it isn’t a requirement. And it’s nowhere near the concrete importance of financial stability.

Love simply doesn’t conquer all, and that’s why oftentimes love couples are destroyed by the more practical necessities of life, money problems and mismanagement being one of the top reasons couples break up.

Think Maslows hierarchy:


There’s a reason security is closer to the base.

This is why I stated earlier, that you have to have both love and security to be optimal.

But that’s obviously the best case scenario. Most people, as in third world countries, will seek security for their offspring and themselves as a first priority over their attraction to the mate, and that is something a relationship can be built on as well, though you hate to admit it.
 
This reminds me of superman vs batman. Neither is giving an inch. I feel both of you are arguing from one extreme. There is not one thing you can point to that say this will make a relationship succesful. Also VixR is arguing from a female perspective where being financially stable is more important and she is right. From mans perspective the financial situation of the female is lower in the list when seeking a mate. Cause a man is still seen as a provider and big part of how a woman see a man is based on how succesful he is. As far as relationship in third world goes......she is right a man that has means to provide will have a lot of options and women marry for that a lot of the time. In the end I dont even know what Im saying cause there are so many things discussed here that can have more than 1 correct answer
 

VixR

Veritas
This reminds me of superman vs batman. Neither is giving an inch. I feel both of you are arguing from one extreme. There is not one thing you can point to that say this will make a relationship succesful. Also VixR is arguing from a female perspective where being financially stable is more important and she is right. From mans perspective the financial situation of the female is lower in the list when seeking a mate. Cause a man is still seen as a provider and big part of how a woman see a man is based on how succesful he is. As far as relationship in third world goes......she is right a man that has means to provide will have a lot of options and women marry for that a lot of the time. In the end I dont even know what Im saying cause there are so many things discussed here that can have more than 1 correct answer
I’m totally right, from any perspective. And on any model (traditional or modern).

Mutual attraction is a luxury.

Relative security is a necessity.

If you’re lucky enough to have both those and love, you’re in relative bliss.
 
I’m totally right, from any perspective. And on any model (traditional or modern).

Mutual attraction is a luxury.

Relative security is a necessity.
I agree....but whats relative security for someone living in the west. I live in country with safety net...we already have relative security. I think you dont take into account how differentbmen and women are
 

VixR

Veritas
I agree....but whats relative security for someone living in the west. I live in country with safety net...we already have relative security. I think you dont take into account how differentbmen and women are
Because of that, there’s more to scrutinize in the West. It’s more or less an evened playing field, hence looks are definitely much more important to women here.

But to say unless there’s mutual attraction, there’s no real relationship is so fake.

He was trying to put it (mutual attraction) on the same playing field as security but it’s not working for him.
 
Because of that, there’s more to scrutinize in the West. It’s more or less an evened playing field, hence looks are much more important to women here.

But to say unless there’s mutual attraction, there’s no real relationship is so fake.
I agree......tbh physical atteaction is not all that. Imagine being physically attracted to someone. But you cant stand their personality or being around them. As I got older I start to understand why people put personality so high
 

VixR

Veritas
I agree......tbh physical atteaction is not all that. Imagine being physically attracted to someone. But you cant stand their personality or being around them. As I got older I start to understand why people put personality so high
Maybe I will learn to be less shallow with time

Honestly I’m the last person Goldman needs to convince on attraction, but at least I know the reality that it’s not on the level he describes.
 
Maybe I will learn to be less shallow with time

Honestly I’m the last person Goldman needs to convince on attraction, but at least I know the reality that it’s not on the level he describes.
No offence but you both seem very stubborn:ftw9nwa: i dont think neither of you woukd budge an inch
 
I just know I’m right.

Watch him come back with “But mutual attraction...”.

I’ll just have to stop responding at that point.
Lool even though after you explained i lean more to your side. When it comes to how relationship becomes succesful. There is more than one formula. Vix honestly though are you like this in real life. Im always right?
 

VixR

Veritas
Lool even though after you explained i lean more to your side. When it comes to how relationship becomes succesful. There is more than one formula. Vix honestly though are you like this in real life. Im always right?
Nah, there’s really not. Though there are other components, what I’m describing is the skeleton, it’s barebones.

Like what? I may have said I’m always right on here to be ridiculous, but I know that’s not always true. I strive to be though. When I’m not right, I’ll swallow my pride lol. But I expect the same.
 
Nah, there’s really not. Though there are other components, what I’m describing is the skeleton, it’s barebones.

Like what? I may have said I’m always right on here to be ridiculous, but I know that’s not always true. I strive to be though. When I’m not right, I’ll swallow my pride lol.
We could do with somali version of Dr Phil. You ever thought about doing something like that lol
 

VixR

Veritas
We could do with somali version of Dr Phil. You ever thought about doing something like that lol
Do I strike you as someone who’ll fix your problems?

Is that why you keep asking if I’m going for psychology (I’m not lol)

I’m everybody’s therapist. Tbh I hate it sometimes, but ppl trust me with stuff.

I actually hate shows like Dr. Phil/Maury, etc.
 
Do I strike you as someone who’ll fix your problems?

Is that why you keep asking if I’m going for psychology (I’m not lol)

I’m everybody’s therapist. Tbh I hate it sometimes, but ppl trust me with stuff.

I actually hate shows like Dr. Phil/Maury, etc.
Lol you should. You have clear strong opinions and strong convictions. You remind me of Iyana vanzant. Go for it Vix:ftw9nwa:
 

VixR

Veritas
Lol you should. You have clear strong opinions and strong convictions. You remind me of Iyana vanzant. Go for it Vix:ftw9nwa:
Shows like that exploit people’s need for therapy, which personally I feel like most people need or could do with, myself included, and they exploit it on the big screen for entertainment value.
 
That’s just not true in grander scheme of things.

Although mutual physical attraction can be a recipe for a good relationship (and it’s a component I prefer), it isn’t a requirement. And it’s nowhere near the concrete importance of financial stability.
Now you're putting words in my mouth. A "good relationship" is a very different and broader thing than a "genuine, loving relationship". A "good relationship" can encompass the type of business arrangements we were talking about. See my post about the friendly relationship that I have with my grocer. That still doesn't mean I wouldn't jump ship as soon as one of the fundamentals of the relationship changes, such as prices.

Love simply doesn’t conquer all, and that’s why oftentimes love couples are destroyed by the more practical necessities of life, money problems and mismanagement being one of the top reasons couples break up.
No one said it did, but it is the absolutely essential ingredient for any long-lasting relationship. You yourself admitted that the overwhelming majority of people date within their class and socioeconomic background. If what you are saying was true, then why do see that most relationships aren't composed of men trading resources and leveraging their financial success to get the most beautiful woman they can and vice-versa?

It's funny how you tried to insinuate my lack of life experience is what leads my to my thinking, but let me ask you this: Do you know any super-wealthy people? Do you know people who are apart of the aristocratic class or "old money", as many like to put it? If you did, you would probably open your eyes to reality. The fact of the matter is, you are surrounded by broke university students who find the sugar-baby lifestyle empowering and you are using their talking points. Now I am not denying that once in a blue moon a very wealthy man will leverage that to get a beautiful woman well below him on the socioeconomic ladder, but the people around him will definitely judge him for it and they will start taking bets on what year she will decide to cash out.

There's a reason why gold-diggers are heavily stigmatized and they can't just be upfront with their ambitions and tell their partner straight up that they are only with him for the money, and it's not because of some conspiracy by broke men forcing it on society. Let's not be ridiculous now.

But please answer the pressing question, given your logic that these are generally the most practical and sensible forms of relationships. Why don't we see new-money types, which are typically the only ones to fall for a gold-digger's antics, trade on their wealth for beauty and constantly upgrading their arm-candy over the years? Men like Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffett, etc. with entertainers being the only notable exceptions.

Think Maslows hierarchy:


There’s a reason security is closer to the base.

This is why I stated earlier, that you have to have both love and security to be optimal.

But that’s obviously the best case scenario. Most people, as in third world countries, will seek security for their offspring and themselves as a first priority over their attraction to the mate, and that is something a relationship can be built on as well, though you hate to admit it.

So now you're going to third-world countries and their dynamics to make your point?:ulyin:

Third world countries have their own cultures, stigmas, and most notably marriage laws. It's much more sensible for a man to trade on his success to the most beautiful woman he can, but even here family and the lineage of the woman matter a lot more than you would like to think. You can't really blame a woman in these countries for seeking the best possible man she can get in terms of wealth since she can't go into the world and build it for herself, so there really isn't much of a gold-digger stigma and hence whatever point you were trying to make here is moot.
 

Always Lit

Everybody lies, which ones are tolerable??
I am a uni student, and?

Did you really type the bold with a straight face?:cosbyhmm:

In the first world, more recently as women entered the workforce in numbers, most no longer require a man for their survival. Instead, it’s the model of a couple coming together of similar economic ground, which leaves room for looks and other traits to balance the equation.

But even in this system, there are women and men who prefer the throwback model of mutual exploitation, beauty for riches and riches for beauty, and to consider it prostitution is intellectually dishonest, because all couplings are essentially on an exchange continuum, and that’s what they chose build their relationship on.

Now for a look towards the third world, there’s no debating this model is the dominant reality there, due to a wealth distribution even more egregiously in favor of men (though importantly, not most men), so women are traditionally much more likely to select for the highest earning man they possibly can for the comfort of their offspring and of their self.

So you’re saying if these women happen not to be genuinely attracted to their mates, it automatically means it’s a prostitution of self, and that it cannot and does not often lead to a fruitful relationship in your eyes, because of this lack of mutual attraction? So you’re saying that most of worlds relationships are prostitution and not genuine.

I honestly can’t believe I have to explain this to you.

Why is mutual attraction more genuine reality and mutual exploitation isn’t?

You’re clearly living in a bubble.

This is why I asked about your parents.
could you give examples of mutual exploitation?
 

Trending

Top