A Vow of Celibacy

Celibacy isn't the important part, so much as honesty is. If I met an adequate man tomorrow I wouldn't mind giving myself to him. When I exaggerate and say I'll wait 50 year if I have too, I'm just trying to emphasize my determination. Of course I'm actively dating and trying to find good people, which is not as hard as I expected. I think that putting yourself out there is really important in the process.

 

It's obvious that you like being condescending to people and make yourself feel good about it. It's quiet funny. All I can say is good luck with talking to intelligent human beings, cause you're gonna need it.

 

The thing is, I don't think all the criteria I outlined are set in stone; in fact, many are flexible. You can improve how you look, how you act, your emotional well being.

It seems like many of the things you listed as "faults" are actually areas you can actively try to improve to increase the quality of your life. That is also part of the list. It is my obligation to be the best I possible can.

The only thing that's hard to change is looks! I mean even that can be changed if you are willing to shell out enough cash/work hard enough.

 

Yes, which is why I'm making this list. I was naive and assumed that they had more worth than they actually did. I ended up placing too much value on them and lying to myself and them. Luckily, I'm still a virgin, because that would have been very emotionally draining. The fact that I place so much value in placing my emotional trust, love, etc. in people shows that a physical commitment is even more important.

 

It's so weird, what you are saying is correct! But, you continue to try to refute my argument with that which is based on! I'm glad that you're not wrong, but I am frustrated that I'm having such a hard time articulating myself, if that makes any sense. I'll try to be less intense with my approach, if you will be willing to look at it with fresh eyes.

Okay, you just answered your own misunderstanding. "Getting to know a guy and who he is " is what the list is. It's just outlined all of the aspects so that one can be conscious of it rather than ignorant of the unconscious mental thought processes.

 

So what is love based on? If not inborn or socially regimented standards, conscious or unconscious, what is it?

 

I hope that makes sense. And I apologize for using bold, it's just the easiest way to point out what I'm talking about.

 

So basically, being metacognitive is turn off for you? I understand you don't want someone who understand why they are attracted to you. You would rather have someone that is naturally unconsciously attracted, that makes perfect sense. And in real life that is what I strive for. This is very natural. It's not so much my ideas that you don't like, but the fact that I understand them. Wait that sounds too arrogant:eusa_dohDo you like it when I use emoticons? It makes me seem more human and relatable. Opps there I go again trying to understand reality, silly me), you don't want me to analyze things because it makes things to artificial instead of natural. I agree, I don't act like that in real life, but I keep it at the very back of my mind just to bring me back to reality in case certain situations occur.


I'm very robotic when I write, but I do that in order to articulate my ideas in the clearest possible manner. In real life my speech pattern is much more colloquial and relaxed. Thus is facilitates social interaction more easily than more robotic text. If I seem like a corrections robot it is because I strive for the truth.

 

Okay here's where I was unclear (I'm taking blame; so, please try to be open and listen). When I say something like "Fashion" on the list that doesn't mean the latest trends or something, but that they shower and keep themselves sanitary. "Fashion" is the subject but I, in my head, define the standard. All of the subject areas are like that they are not set at unrealistically high standards. For something like "morality" they don't have be Mother Teresa herself, but they should be a psychopath who is a danger to himself and society. When I say the subjects, they are very different from the actual standards I use to measure them by.

 

Here's something else that I've been somewhat hesitant to bring up because I find it somewhat touchy, but it's the fact that I rather prefer to be submissive. In order to be submissive, the other person should be "better" (And I use that word tentatively, but I don't want to get into a semantic debate, just try to understand it as I intend.) than myself.

Like a wise old man once said: " I take pride in having climbed the tallest mountains I can."

 

I don't derive pleasure from beating others. I pursue what appears to be true. That was my goal.

I'm glad that we could come to a conclusion. The disagreement isn't over the list so much, but rather if it should have even been made in the first place. I find that argument much more tenable than the one you were making before. Actually, I'd rather agree that they shouldn't be analyzed by everyday people, but then again someone has to do it.

 

If this doesn't help I don't know what will and I think I'll give up. That is because, Numfarh, I generally take you be one of the most intelligent people on this entire forum. I'm going to try my best not to sound aggressive or cold, because I respect you.

I'm going to try and quickly summarize your argument and correct me if I make Straw-men. Also, when I number my paragraphs 1) 2) 3) EDIT, I will be making reference to your corresponding point.:

1) Love is not a checklist.
2)Metacognition is disturbing.
3)You asked for advice Take it like a man damn it!(OK I had fun with that one)
EDIT: How can someone who is better than you love you back? Dominant (Conqueror) ---> Submissive ( Conquered)
Now I will attempt to address them:

None of the abstract that you claimed go against my theory, they are in conformity with it as I will try to explain below:

1) When I made the list, I did not put what was most important or relative. I organized in order from most easily perceived to least easily. That is, Looks/Health=Visual, Intelligence = Verbal, Social Status = Verbal but less easily perceived, and Personality= Verbal and visual and thus the hardest to comprehend. I organized the list of what is easily perceived. The list is also not so much a check list as it is a fill in the blank for the first section I would do as follows:

Etc. That's how the list works. I should have been more clear, though I did say in bold italicized underlined letter "According to one's own values", but I guess people glazed over that section. Therefore the list is a fill in the blank and if the person I'm dating does not conflict with what makes any sort of sense, then they are good to go.

Also, it's not the list that is inflexible, but my morals. I will define my morals as my willpower to keep from investing emotional energy in people that are not compatible with me.

2)Here's the weird thing I agree with most of what you guys/gals/Xs have been saying, but what I find interesting is the utter abhorrence of metacognition.(Please read, it will clarify a lot of what I have been saying http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metacognition) The fact that I can explain something seems disturbing which I will now explain.

People, naturally, want social interaction to be a natural fluid process devoid of overcomplicated thought. When one breaks down and correctly understands in practical terms what is occurring in these situations, people are put off but the idea. The reason, I conjecture, is that it is unnatural, artificial, not real etc. The fact that someone can analyze and break down how a social situation works and operates is very unnerving. It reminds them, unconsciously I suppose, of a con man who understand the inner most motivations and desires of the human race. They see a metacognitive being as a threat, that this person could get inside their head and take from them whatever they want. That is the true reason that people don't like my thread. It's very robotic and frightening but that does not for one instance make it wrong. It's unnatural and disturbing but it may in fact be true. That was what I learned from this thread. I danced around the idea for years before finally coming to this magnificent conclusion. In interaction, people don't want to know what their doing, and more importantly, they don't want the others to know.

Also, on my diction sounding robotic, I wanted to try to be as clear as possible because it's a difficult topic. I didn't want to bog it down will extra fluff.

3) I'm going to skip, because if I clear up 1+2+EDIT, the problem should go away.

EDIT)Well, the psychology for a dominant male, which I've experienced from time to time would be as follows: they want to overcome the biggest obstacle they can. That would be the ultimate goal. They don't want to overcome those so weak(Please disregard the negative connotation) that they aren't even a challenge. Hey! I've got it, you've got a cat right(Adorable I must say)? Does your cat like it if you just give it the toy that it is supposed to chase? I suppose not. They would rather chase and pursue rather than obtain and keep. Getting the mouse toy is only satisfying in how hard it was to obtain. Thus, I wish to make my self like a challenging mouse toy ( to mix a metaphor ). It would seem that they wish to conquer, something that is worthy of being conquered.

If that doesn't help I don't know what will and I think I'll give up. That is because, Numfarh, I generally take you be one of the most intelligent people on this entire forum. I tried my best not to sound aggressive or cold, because I respect you.

I realize too that trying to explain this to every person that "throws shit" at me is pointless. If you, and you alone get it, I will be satisfied.