If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Ripplemagne's Guide To A Healthy Relationship
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I have a NY stop over in March, but yes I am married and NO I would never consider even meeting you, let alone going on the "pull" with you
Ok let's say there's two people who have chemistry and they're both actively participating. They go on a few dates, have fun the whole shebang. Eventually one partner is going to have to speak up and ask the other to be in an exclusive, serious relationship. This partner is almost always the male.
Back in the day yo, when people argued, they brought forward hard evidence to prove their points rather than making wild and paranoid assumptions.
The worst that can happen is that someone doesn't get results; that means they try another method to succeed. Does this mean it should be removed from the site? No. If anything, it's a GOOD thing that there are multiple perspectives on this site, as people can do their research and find what suits them best rather than jumping into a situation blindfolded.
Quite frankly, for being the "mature" guy that you supposedly are, you aren't acting like such by acting like a whiny pre-pubescent child yo
You owe him an apology for making such piss-poor assumptions and trying to be a fearmonger of all things here yo; if you can't formulate an argument using logic and hard evidence to prove your point, you shouldn't speak up at all, and in this case, you should have never posted to begin with
What a classy guy yo :rolleyes:
Ok, just thought I'd chip in with tuppence on the responses - I agree that talking this out with good reasons rather than "It's shit, it's rubbish, lalala" would be loooooads better.
Having said that, I was enjoying reading the article and thought it was quite mature and reflective (despite having a 'one view' dictatorial kinda tone), insightful piece until the start of this paragraph right til the end:
Reasons why? The stereotypes and sweeping generalisations are undeniably gonna be offensive to a large number of people but that just comes with the territory of writing a piece that makes so many archaic assumptions about gender. The link to biology and 'why gender roles exist' is pretty basic and untrue in my opinon. Furthermore, the suggestion that a man might strike a woman because he "doesn't understand her" is inherently sinister/bizarre.
I'd also point out that there are generally quite a few undeveloped statements such as:
"The way a healthy relationship works is when a man is able to hold a woman in his arms and she can feel like she's safe from the world."
Really? That's the 'way a healthy relationship works?" I'd say that one sign of a healthy relationship is that both feels cherished and supported by the other, and that could be shown symbolically through the literal holding of each other in arms and both feeling secure. However, I think one of the problems with the post (or at least why it lacks clout as a relationships advice piece) is that it makes some very minor points as if they are the 'answer' to a successful relationship. The reality is a lot more complex and respected advisors tend to acknowledge more of the qualities that figure in sustained relationships - for instance, respect as recognised by Arctic roll is pretty valid (and for the record his wife is amazing
I'd also add that Hellfire is right that TheSite.org would/could never endorse an article like this officially, but that doesn't mean that it can't be posted as someone's opinion in a blog post in a peer support community in a way that raises debate like it has here.
Finally, I guess I just struggle to believe that you actually believe in what you've written. Like you don't quite strike me as the kind of person who truly views women in the way the article does (if Clan mother red is to be believed at least :d) Unless these views just really don't come out when you're around women in real life and they're just what you're thinking when you're around women/thinking about relationships.
Anyway, have rambled way too long, but just wanted to at least give you quite a detailed perception of how you've presented your thoughts. Obviously you can argue as to why I may have misconceived some of the points, but as a writer I'd say it's pretty important to recognise that lots of people might read without ever chatting to you about it and some of those people will have drawn the same conclusions as me and other members here.
When did I say that? O_o I have a strict "no striking a women period" rule.
Anyway, you raise a few fair objections. I appreciate your ability to be civil, while disagreeing with my material. I'll try to clarify to the best of my ability.
The guide itself is designed to be read by young men, who may be having a hard time understanding the basic framework of relationships. As such, the generalities are a framing mechanism to help guide them on the right track (think training wheels.) That's why I said at the end that the puzzle can grow more complicated depending on the individuals and because of that, sometimes people simply aren't compatible.
Nothing about my article is meant to be taken as a universal instruction manual. I recognize that people are people and because of that, one also has to adapt to different personality types, if that is indeed the person they're shooting for. However, I don't think you'd deny that there is a strong correlation between certain "masculine" characteristics and certain "feminine" characteristics.
The point I was making is that men and women are hardwired differently and, as such, the methods that we -- as men -- would find appealing are not necessarily the case. One has to understand the general female psyche and work outward from that frame. It's hard to be able to be successful with the tough cookies with unique personality types if you haven't first learned the basics.
To a degree, perhaps. But it really comes down to the nice little ASCII diagram that Jessi made earlier, where men and women favor different things differently. As I stated in the guide itself, both people in the relationship lean on each other, but usually in very different ways.
What you're saying is not necessarily wrong. It's just another element to a relationship though that I felt was obvious enough not to include in the guide. The "respect", "love", et cetera are all things covered by a million other articles and has been drilled into our heads since youth.
You are also correct that there is more to it than just the guide I've written. That's why after presenting it, a dialogue is opened up. It would take me ages to write about every little detail to be included in a healthy relationship (many of which are obvious.) As such, the guide is written in such a way to ground the reader, encourage questions and open up a dialogue in regards to them. From which, I will typically analyze their current situation, listen to everything they have to say and present additional input. Savvy?
I'm curious. What exactly are the views of women that you're attributing to me based on the guide?
Terms like 'alpha male' might be useful descriptions in some situations, but it's a leap to use this kind of language to categorise and presuppose people's - even whole genders' - personalities and attitudes to relationships.
That'll be the bit that **helen** quoted
My argument remains that men and women are NOT "hardwired differently" and generally want pretty similar things from a relationship. Sometimes I want a protector and sometimes my wife does; sometimes I take the lead in decisions and sometimes she does. It depends on the situation and what circumstances demand.
I don't think it does take a long time to talk about how to make a long term relationship work, I think it is really quite simple how to make a relationship work. You love your partner and you respect your partner. If you can manage that then you're on to a winner. How your partner wants you to love them and respect them will depend on the people involved.
PS I expect an apology about the comments you made about my wife.
Picking up randoms is not what I would class as having a healthy relationship.
Perhaps if you restated its purpose we might ignore it as pointless rubbish, instead of dangerous rubbish.
Holy shit.
That is the peen's understanding of relationships.
I think this makes sense, relationships do come and go, and if you can't adapt yourself to your peers then you will find it hard to sustain meaningful relationships with them. I dislike the implication that relationships are a game, and that a partner is nothing more than an animalistic mate. I think the statements in these few sentences are difficult to disagree with and are intended to lead the reader in to the rest of the article, albeit in my case unhappy with the survivalist choice of terms.
I don't think makes sense, I think it is contradictory to claim to be both meticulous but to also be able to make a prediction about a particular relationship based on limited perceptions.
I'm glad your not going to patronise the reader from an assumed moral and intellectual high ground on this occasion. I think its good that you've identified who your advice is intended for.
I don't find this a particularly interesting set of statements about the general misuse of language. The observation than positive words are overused without understanding of their true meaning seem obvious to me. However I don't agree with the assertion that the same people who overuse positive words better understand negative words, I think overuse of both is symptomatic of a poor grasp of language.
I find asking a question and then neglecting to offer an answer in an article a waste of the reader's time. I don't find the basis of a potential answer provided informative or thought provoking in this case due it being obvious.
I disagree that maturity is all about having a rigid set of views about the world, indeed you seem to contradict your sentiment in the following parentheses.
This seems to be a verbose reproduction of the popular adage "You must love yourself before you can expect to be loved by others" and an identification with the also popular sentiment that "children grow up to quickly nowadays". I don't disagree with that sentiment, but I don't think its interesting or informative to reproduce that sentiment in an article not intended for the age of person that it would reassure. I think that these statements are intended to endear the article to a wide readership.
I think this is a more a justification of your own choices in life rather than a logical argument of a point or advice to the reader. You seem to imply that seeking a relationship with the opposite sex at a young age will impair ones social skills, I don't think this is true.
I don't think this analogy makes sense, and reminds me of the survivalist terms used at the start of the article. I think this analogy shows that your view of relationships is combative and focused more on the aim of "finding a mate" than seeking happiness.
Perhaps if you learned to read more than one paragraph before formulating your responses, I wouldn't take your comments as rubbish.
For a simplified version, yes.
I don't sugar coat. What is ultimately is regardless of how bluntly it is phrased.
I can make predictions because I am meticulous. I meticulously observe everything around me.
That's what I was saying. Point is that "love" is a powerful concept that people throw around like hot potato.
The part you quoted is a preamble. The question is answered in the subsequent paragraphs.
It's not about having a rigid set of world views. It's about knowing who you are and knowing what your place is in the world and in life, in general. An individual's opinion on marijuana laws certainly has nothing to do with if they are more. Though, it does help to know what you believe.
I used myself as an example. I've made similar observations in many others, which is what made me come to my conclusion.
It's about finding happiness with a mate. To further my analogy: say you ask someone to marry you, but you don't have anywhere to live (no money for rent, don't know anyone to stay with, et cetera.) How well do you think your relationship is going to last without stability?
The fortification I'm speaking of is your own stability. Building yourself, so that you're ready to accommodate a mate.
I didn't say it was sugar coating, I said the terms where of a different interpretation of relationships, which I think is a survivalist interpretation.
I don't consider meticulousness to be compatible with uninformed judgments. I think what you are saying is that you can make a judgment on relationship X based on the conclusions you've made from the outcomes of relationship Y and Z rather than from information about relationship X. That is not what I understand by the term 'meticulous'. In my opinion, a meticulous person would not make or claim to be able to make such judgments.
That was half of what you were saying, in the article you were asserting that people understand hate more than love based on different misuses of language associated with both terms. I disagreed saying that I thought it showed an overall poor grasp of language rather than a specific lack of understanding of either term.
In my opinion preamble should be informative or thought provoking, I didn't find portion of the article I quoted to be either.
I agree with what you've said there, however I think article implied that maturity was a rigid mindset by saying "[a mature person has] a tight grasp of how the world works" and "[a mature person has] plans that are laid out before [them]", I disagree that either of these is a sign of maturity. I think "a tight grasp of how the world works" implies there is only one way to interpret events in the world and that you have that interpretation or not, which I think is a fallacy. I also disagree that having "plans laid out before you" is a sign of maturity.
I don't doubt that it is your conclusion, I do doubt the accuracy of your observations and in turn disagree with your conclusion.
I think I must have a different view of stability. I think there are more factors to stability than you seem to think there is, and I acknowledge that I don't know what all these factors are. From this different view of stability, I do not think that I can make an informed judgment.
:yes:
I didn't find anything useful in the article, I'm not finding out much from the subsequent discussion.
Don't you ever fucking tell me what my 'job' is as a female.
Enchantment's the last thing anyone needs. It's better to know exactly who you're with instead of some fake persona.
Don't underestimate people. Just because someone's relatively young, doesn't meant they don't have the capacity for love and commitment. I spent almost three years from the age of thirteen with my exboyfriend.
Etc, etc. Basically, it's a sexist and inaccurate article.
Word
Probably because the discussion mostly consists of you saying what you "think" and "feel", which is going to be largely unchanged in a discussion no matter how long it persists.
Too late. Now, get back in the kitchen.
I don't see any 'evidence' in your article either, it's just your opinion. An opinion that not many people share it would appear.
Still you entilted to it, and to share it. And we're entiled to think it's bollocks. That's what discussion boards are for.
Now, unless the rules of courting and maintaining in a relationship work differently in jolly ol' England, the fact that it has actually worked every time it's been reasonably implemented by myself or another young couple whom I've "coached" pretty much affirms that there's at least an element of truth to it. If what I'm saying is bullshit, then there is no way I could have the support I do from people like Jessi, Kori and Doom. There's also no way I could have managed to score a tough cookie like Lina.
Correction: Not many people here.
And I'm entitled to think that your unsubstantiated opinion is bollocks.
No I don't.
All you have to back up your theory is experience - the same thing I'm using to disagree with it. Through my own experience I find most of the content in that article complete guff. In my opinion trust, respect and good communication is all that's needed for a healthy relationship.
Then it's worthless.
Invalid argument. If it was bullshit, then it could never work at all. Least of all as frequently as it does for me. Maybe you don't execute it properly. Ever think of that?
And only trust, respect and communication? Not honesty, love, fidelity, understanding, compromise, et cetera?
It's not an invalid argument at all. All you've done is write down a load guff and then said in your experience it works well and therefore must work for the rest. Others have replied with different experiences and you see unable to accept that. You come across as an approval junkie to be honest.
I we talking about healthy relationships or picking up women? I would suggest numerous frequent relationships aren't really healhty relationships.
I'm myself and I do fine with the ladies thank you.
I don't have a plan to 'execute', and I certainly wouldn't use yours.
Of course love, that's a given
Fidelity comes under trust, understanding under communication, and compromise under respect, but lets not get into semantics.