Love Is The Drug

[Sparky Kronkite]

I was watching this movie/documentary late last night when an interesting view point regarding "men/women/sex/life-long relationships and monogamy" came up. A point of view that I had never heard before - not in this particular manner anyway.

The essence of the point was this (and remember this is not me speaking, it's the movie) -

Women, for the most part - (from little girls on up) - develop an image, a dream, a vision, a goal - if you will - of the "ideal male suitor/provider/protector/lover - a "for life partner" type of thing. Developed in their minds, over time, while growing up.

They then continue to maintain this mental image - the rest of their lives. It's kind-of burned into their being.

However, (and this is a very important part) - the image is "so perfect," - perfect for the particular woman who develops it - that soon, the eventually, fully matured woman, comes to the conclusion (through dating and such) that, "the man or a man" - or any man - who could possibly fulfill this image," - is nearly impossible to find.

Simply put, most women can't find the "one man" to fulfill their life-long image of a perfect life-long mate.

So what does she (most women) eventually do? She settles. Eventually most women settle for "some guy" or (heaven forbid) they turn into old maids. Even modern women, who find themselves liberated to a large extent and "play the field" with seeming gracious abandon and like it too - well, deep down they still harbor this image of the perfect mate. Most women though, they eventually settle on some man, some guy who finally comes along and who they find best fits their long nurtured image of male perfection. Essentially they "allow themselves" second best. They accept the rough around the edges and "choose" to be happy with it, or choose to attempt happiness. Hey, life is short p right?

Conversely though -

Men for the most part don't do this at all - they don't foster any sort of image like that of most women. No similar, complex images of "a single woman" who they may desire for a life-long relationship. It seems that men don't have the "sexual relationship sophistication" required to develop a similar image of a woman (like that image of a man developed in women) - which reflects all encompassing perfection. Nope, it seems that a man's (most men) criteria regarding women and subsequent relationships are much more simplified. Looks. Attractiveness. That's the big thing here with most men. Looks combined with a healthy degree of sexual willingness in a chosen female partner. (Hey, a beauty who might be frigid or slow to the sack? Who needs that - right? That's the way most men think.) So men's relationship requirements seem much, much simpler than those of women. Very interesting.

(Again, there are obvious exception - you may know of some or be one - I think I am but... well... interesting - huh?)

Well, what do we have here? -

Men - simplicity. Crudity? Barbarianism? Natural genetic stuff?

Women - sophisticated and complex. Thoughtful? Refined? Also - natural genetic makeup?)

So, given of course that there will be exceptions and quite possibly a relative few exceptions; if this theory might be true, even a fraction of it - it could explain a lot of stuff. The divorce rate for one. It also explains while people who seem to be mismatched, often unhappily so - staying with each other over long relationships - sometimes life-long relationships. It explains primal (often uncontrollable) needs in both sexes - why people in seemingly good/healthy relationships "risk is all" and play around on the side. Are they searching? Is the seemingly committed man, fooling around - still searching for that erotic beauty? Is the seemingly committed woman who fools around, still searching for "that perfect mate," or at least one better than the one she has settled upon?

I think, given the state of marriage today, (it's all in the statistics) that there may be much validity in this point of view.

What might you think?

The real question is: What can be done about it? Obviously what people are doing now - is not very healthy. At least not healthy regarding traditonal, majority driven, morals and mind sets. Divorce hurts people, it often crushes lives. And choosing to live within a staid (at best), lack luster, non-nurturing or worse (abusive) marriage - what the hell good is that either? (Again, life is short.) And fooling around for temporary relief from a boring marriage? I don't think so, no good, not really. So, separatism then? Please, humans must procreate. Got to keep the planet going some how.

No. No those are not the answers. Least not he best answers.

The answer must then (as usual) lie at the root of the problem - it must lie within what both men and women are taught to think, taught to imagine, taught to dream - from their early ages to maturity. What they are tauaght about love - and sex.

What's the reality?

Is love even real? Are our traditional teachings regarding sexual issues correct? Do they (traditional sexual teachings) necessitate, govern and shape our thoughts regarding love and sex and therefore the current situation? Do they (love/sex teachings) steer (particularly women) toward thoughts of love or what is perceived to be love.

You know, most people phrase it Love & Sex - in that order, love before sex. Maybe it should be reversed? Maybe even (heaven forbid) people should start thinking that there is no such thing as love. Maybe in the end it's all about animal procreation and love is merely a manifestation, a human emotional condition, which is not necessary at all. Maybe.

What if? What if, through modified "life teachings" in time, men and women could both compromise? Meet more in the middle somehow? What if men thought more like women and vise versa? (By the way, I think some of "us" do now.) Good or bad? Hmmm? Don't know - can't envision that.

It's obvious however that love - real or perceived - is fun. LOVE IS FUN!!! The major jungle-jim of human emotions. And it's even fun if you never experience it (or think you experience it) - it's simply fun to try to achieve it. To "find" it. Or even pretend you have felt it. Or pretend you actually do feel it - right now - as I do. Yep, for sure, it's fun to have around love is.

But my strong hunch is that as long as a few things remain the same - 1) our "morality teachings" regarding sex and relationships, and - 2) our insistence on the "existence of love" (hey, yes it's fun) and - 3) most women continue to have this "image of their perfect mate" and finally - 4) as long as men maintain their "simplified, crude thoughts regarding women"…..as long as all that (crap?) remains a part of the human existence…..

Things, life - will continue to remain the same. The same. The same. The same.

Love (and sex or course) are here to stay.

Interesting. Don't you think?

 

[Guest]

Anima Magnetism...

Hello, Sparky. You should check out Carl Jung's theories about anima and animus - although he applied the theory to both women and men.

Try typing some of these words into your search engine: "C J Jung" or "Carl Jung", "archetype", "anima" and "animus".

Jung's theory was that every man has an image of the archetypal woman in his subconscious (his anima) and every woman has an archetypal man (her animus). These images aren't static though - they change, hopefully growing and becoming more mature the more times you encounter the opposite sex.

A woman, for example, projects her mental image of the archetypal man (kind of similar to her ideal man, maybe a kind of Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp character) onto the real men she meets. At first she'll ignore all the differences between her dream-man and the real one but as she gets to know him better she'll be unable to ignore these. She's either going to have to adjust her mental map or be disappointed that the real man doesn't match up to her fantasy.

If her animus doesn't change and grow she may always be disappointed by the men she meets but if it matures in a healthy way she'll learn to be a little more realistic - realising that she'll never meet the perfect man because he doesn't exist.

I think a man's anima is like the feminine side of his personality and a woman's animus is like the male side of hers.

I'm pretty sure I've got a lot of that wrong but it's something like that.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Reply to Anima-man Roger.

Thanks dude - will do - look up that stuff. Jung - anti-deciple of Freud - no? I would be a minor Pavlov (spelling and that's why I say minor) fan.

I notice you have a dog reference on your sign-off.

Spark.

 

[RisiaSkye]

Unmentioned options

I don't want to be the Mistress of the Obvious here, but it seems to me that we still have a choice as to whether or not we participate in the nonsensical parts of relationships. It may be true (and I tend to agree with you that it is, to at least some extent) that men and women are raised to believe very different things about love and sex, and that the differences can be devisive (sp?) and hurtful.

On the flip side, though, if we are capable of realizing these differences in acculturation and socialization, we should be equally able to work to change them. I am not a Pollyanna--I know how difficult it is to overcome the environment in which we are raised, particularly when the "training" we receive seems to be well-nigh universal. But, the whole reason we persist in the (some would term it) delusion of love is that we fancy ourselves a species capable of transcendent emotion, lasting connection, and spiritual depth.

Rather than accept the soul-deadening burden of claiming that love doesn't exist because we haven't figured out how to perfect it, isn't it possible to put actual work--devotion, dedication, open-mindedness, and legitimate desire--into the prospect that it does work, but it isn't necessarily easy?

I don't mean to suggest that you personally are proclaiming anti-love, instead I question the point of studies like this which maintain that we are different. Not to put too fine a point on it--fucking duh. Every person is different, despite trends which help to support simple lines of division like male/female, white/black, rich/poor. Of course it is overwhelming, and of course it is difficult. What would be the reward if it wasn't? How much would we value a prize easily won?

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Reply to RisaSkye

Risa -

You are totally right.

However... yes, it’s fucking duh for you, and for me too. And hopefully many others. But I don't see evidence of it being that way for most folks. I see a vast majority of folks out there who are dumbfoundedly scratching their heads over these and many other philosophy based, conceptual issues.

These issues - obviously not black/white, right/wrong issues - but rather than logically fight through the fog (as you and I do) most folks are blindly circling, wide eyed and lost in it. Most folks - your average on the street American type of folks - are unaware of any studies, research or writings on this particular subject.

(I too – a regular normal guy - was unaware of much of the traditional research on this subject. Remember I caught this from an HBO documentary. And people, because of this little spew presented here, have pointed me toward those sources – thanks all.)

It's my personal belief that most folks, "they really don't want to know," it's too complicated of a concept to allow into their already complex lives. (Yes, you and I - like, learn and thrive off of complexity - not most though.) And I might add - it's all there in just about any statistic you can sight. TV ratings, best selling books, the type of food most people consume, movie box-office grosses, prison population, tobacco sales, alcohol sales, etc., I could go on and on. Generally, most people "want to have simple lives," they don't want to read (newspaper sales continue to diminish by the way), they don’t want to vote, they don’t want to volunteer community service, they don’t want to do much except take care of their own family in a priortised fashion based on time and money. And doing this, taking care of their families - it takes up most to their time anyway. And what’s wrong with that? Nothing. Not that people "are simple or unintelligent" they just "choose to exercise their minds in a simply focused way."

Life's hard enough for most folks without the added complication of theoretical philosophy. It's all highly understandable actually.

Kind of - no fucking duh.

 

[XXplorher]

WOW!

This is a REALLY bad idea...... (for me)

I'll be fucking damned if that isn't the most intelligent; sincerely thought out; god damn fucking consuming, involving, and worthwhile thread I've ever seen here!!
Why is it so limited in contributions?

This is a branch that can grow.....

XXplorher


PS Where the fuck is Caddyshack when I need it?
(Don't misunderstand - Humble)




.........DOH!

 

[Lasher]

Just a thought...

If you've been lurking, Xx (and I know you have), you'll understand why there hasn't been more responses. The posts are wayyyy too long to hold the attention span of... ummmm......"children" (best I could do for a euphimism on short notice) these days - so no one is reading it.

Also, posting on this thread would require actually "reading" the thread and being able to form intellingent thoughts, plus the ability to compose a response based upon somewhat abstract ideas... also rather difficult for... ummmm... "children" today.

Unfortunately, my wife is making me spend some quality time with her now, but I'll be back to this one later.

Good seeing ya here, Xx. Stick around and have some fun.....

 

[Jenne64]

This is a thought provoking thread, it made me think anyway-))
The only trouble I have with philoshophy is that it is really just a view held by one person and then well publicised. Isn't that the same as religion?

I know that is a sweeping generalisation but that's the way I see. I think that we do have blueprints of what our ideal/man woman would be or even should be but what shapes those blueprints is down to so many different factors.

If your father beats up on you then it's fair to assume that all men will and that it is a normal part of everyday life. If you are brought up believeing a certain set of morals then you take those morals on board and unless you are very strong they are hard to break away from.

I don't think women/men actually settle for second best what they do is comprimise. Isn't life, love and relationships all one big compromise anyway. I hate the way my man leaves the loo seat up but hey he doesn't hit me, he loves me and allows me to grow as a person within our relationship. That's more important than any blueprint I might have in my head.

I think age gives you knowledge, life gives you knowledge. You take that knowledge and you use it either to your own advantage or you use it to destroy yourself. I prefer the first option.

Love does exist in one form or another but it's not something that anyone could ever quantify because love is a different thing for everyone. We all may feel the same emotions but for different reasons. You may marry an older man because he's like your Dad. You may stay celibate becasue the man of your dreams is also you best friend, why upset a perfect relationship right? There is a danger that people in a greed driven society such as the one we live in today confuse love with lust. The feeling these two seperate emotions produce are equally powerful and so easy to confuse.

Take this senario, my marriage is falling apart, the guy I work with pays me a lot more attention than I'm getting at home so I sleep with him for instant gratification. Then I have to go home to the guy that I've just spent the past 12 years with. How would I feel? Like a real shit, the lust would have overruled the love. My excuse no doubt would be I needed the attention. I didn't need the guy I slept with I needed the few fleeting moments that he made me feel special for, the things that were missing from home.

In the throwaway society that we have created isn't it the same with love? Love not lust that is. We seem to want our cake and eat it nowadays. We seem to enjoy the morals when it suits us but when it doesn't we disregard them.

My ideal man is the one that I married 12 years ago even though he has his faults. I also have mine something that it's easy to forget when it suits your purposes.

The truth is we are bombared with images of the perfect man/woman, the perfect relationship, the perfect love but somehow I doubt wether the word perfect should ever be applied to love. We swallow the dream and persue it relentlessly even though half the time we don't believe it anyway.

I can't believe I've just written that lot and I hope that at least some of it makes sense ot someone other than me.
Live your life the best way you can and be happy with it and yourself is my own philosphy. If Carl Jung, Frued and the rest disagree then so be it. I'm an indivual something they seem to over look.
regards,
Jenne
The female with far to much time on her hands at the moment-)

 

[Lasher]

Having had a few hours now to mull this over, it seems to me that the little theory that Sparky saw on the HBO special is just a little too neat to be all that it claims. It drives me nuts when these pyschology types (I'm assuming from Sparky's explanation of all this that it had to be one of those) try and tie up all human experience in a neat little package with a bow on top. Life just doesn't work that way.

We've seen trends throughout the last 100 years that have shown a loosening of "morals" in a variety of areas. The increase in divorce rates has accompanied changes in the full spectrum of human behavior, and to blame that on the idealizations that women carrying in their heads, and on their "settling" because of this, is to ignore just how completely society has really changed.

It hasn't been that long since the vast majority of people lived in a tight society without much contact with strange ideas or people. Women and men grew up in environments where the "right" thing was done, where marriages were arranged, where so-called "scandals" were covered up and ignored, and where the idea of divorce was in and of itself scandalous. I'd be awfully curious to find out when exactly Love became the overriding force in determining the success of a marital relationship. I would think that's a very recent phenomenon.

Now, as we look at how the 20th Century progressed, what you see in all areas of human endeavor is a broadening of the exposure of people to ideas and to new and diverse groups of people. The pace of change was monumental. In the United States alone, the amount of time it takes for this country to change from an isolated agrarian society, to an urbanized industrial society, and then to a highly interconnected suburban society is maybe 60 years... If you ask me, it's these changes that have changed the way romantic relationships now play out.

Let me give you an example... Let's say it's 1900, and you have a young man living on a farm and a young woman living on the next farm. The only lives the have ever known are what exists on these two farms. The only examples they have seen of marital relationships are their parents and grandparents. As they grow up, the families expect them to marry, and they expect to grow up to be just like the people who exist as their role models. They run their farm, and they raise their children. I would guess that ideas such as "true love" or "erotic fantasy" have little meaning in their lives. If the farm does well, and the children grow up to be good solid folks, they've had what they've grown to see as a successful marriage. How could you possibly even think to walk away from that if you don't know any better?

Now, contrast that with the society we have today. The very ideas that formed the rock that the above marriage was based on are constantly placed in question. Various forms of media exist to help you question the validity of your relationship with your significant other. How much self-doubt can one person be expected to endure? And along with that, opportunities for temptation exist where in the past a relationship might otherwise have seemed safe. Our content farmers from circa 1900 would today exist in a society where they are exposed to new ideas about romance and sexuality on the television and in magazines, and they would be able to discuss these ideas with potential partners on the internet. Instead of living that sheltered and uneventful life that their parents and grandparents had lived, they would no doubt be able to discover the very things they had no idea they'd been missing. Let's face it, love and romance are very intoxicating. They are things that are very difficult to turn away from once they have been presented.

Now, as for the theory as initially presented, everyone grows up with idealized images of what the "perfect mate" will be. It's a very important part of growing up to develop the self-awareness to understand the type of person that may complement you. However, I do not believe that successful relationships occur inspite of this idealization, but more so because intelligent and well-adjusted men and women are able to adapt their idealizations as they mature. The things that are important to a 16 year old should not be important to a 21 year old and certainly should not be important to a 30 year old.

I doubt there is any one formula that creates a successful relationship - otherwise it would be far more easy to accomplish than it is. That's the problem with neat little theories such as this. Love, romance, sexuality, desire, commitment, happiness and the like are far too complex to sum up in such a simplistic manner. I have little time for generalizations such as this. Once you start seeing phrases such as "Women look for..." or "This is what Men really want...", you realize that someone has found yet another shortcut to avoid actually thinking. When you have to start dismissing those who do not fit the norm as "exceptions", what have you actually got? I'll even go one better, what happens when you have one Man who fits the norm in one relationship, yet exists as the "exception" in another? I find it very easy to conceive of a Man who can exist in one relationship solely as the "ideal male suitor/provider/protector/lover", yet maybe even simultaneously exist in another relationship where he can speak of his desire for love and romance and for a partner that feels the same.

It's not so simple then, is it?

It's a great topic you've presented us with here, Sparky. I hope more people take the time to share their thoughts on this.

 

[poohlive]

It is a reallt good topic Sparky, I am glad you brought it up. It seemed like men and women, in this certain society would actually never fall in love with each other. I mean we would all be like at a junior high prom, guys on one side, and women on the other.
I suppose it all goes down to who is more suited for them than any other.
I would like to hear others opinion before I present my own, this is definitally an interesting topic, deep too. I didn't expect to see something like this on literotica, a lot of things seem to suprise me lately, lol.

 

[Alyrahh]

I have to agree with Lasher...

The whole generalization thing bunches my panties. Personally, I really don't think there's a way to divide it as "women think this way" and "men think that way". Don't get me wrong, I think Sparky had some legitimate points, and they probably even apply to some people. But, at the same time the "exceptions" are vast and diverse. As Lasher pointed out, the world as a whole is changing at an alarming pace who wouldn't expect every aspect of our lives to be touched by this alteration? Yes, even the "love and sex" part. A decade ago, I was 18 graduating from high school in a very small rural community. My life choices were limited to what I knew and saw every day. Over the past decennium the internet has become a fixture in most every home, even here in small town rural America. We've been given glimpses of "what could be" and given the opportunity to meet more people in a single day than most of us would have met in an entire year.

If I were to offer you a cookie, and gave you the power to choose between a chocolate chip and a peanut butter cookie, you would weigh your options and choose the one that best suited your taste. The choice wouldn't be too hard for most people. You would enjoy your choice and know you'd chosen the best cookie for you. On the same page, if I were to offer you a cookie, and give you the power to choose between 8-10 different kinds instead of the 2, your decision then becomes more difficult. You might find yourself torn between the old favorite and a new, exotic flavor you've yet to try. You might even chose the old favorite and sneak a bite of the new flavor while I wasn't looking. I think it all boils down to the enormous amount of choices we have now.

We're in a constantly changing environment. I don't think the divorce rate has sky-rocketed because women have "settled" or because men are in a perpetual search for a beautiful woman with an energizer bunny sex drive. (Although I doubt many would complain if they found her) I think it has more to do with the choices and change we're faced with daily.

Yet, again...this doesn't apply to everyone, hell, it might not apply to anyone. Just a thought. My idle ramblings.

 

[XXplorher]

Salude

>If you've been lurking, Xx (and I know you have)

Actually, not (depending on your definition of the word). I dropped in on a few rare occasions after I left and really couldn’t relate to the newcomers. It’s like once you leave, you lose track of everything – can’t relate to the mindset anymore. It feels stale.
I’ve also ‘lurked’ a few times after being directed to a post through Email. Did that recently.
AND I stumble in drunk on occasion. Case in point - that last post.

Nice to see something intriguing in post though. No surprise your name was attached to it, eh.

As per your last post regarding: What people need to understand is, when you don’t have factual basis – it’s not possible to form an ‘answer’. Only an ‘opinion’. Often these psychological types fail to recognize that, eh? (Similar to most board posters, hehe he). You’re dead on accurate. Try as they might to stick people under a ‘heading’ – it ain’t gonna be bingo.
However, I’m definitely a big fan of PONDERING perception, behavior, and reasoning - and trying to form an accurate understanding. I’m certain to drive my point home in doing so, eh. Certainly, at times I’m flawed in my delivery. A lot of that depends on the person listening to my determinations. (When they take what you say, hear it incorrectly, and present it to others as your factual statement… then you’re in trouble, LOL! Case in point – I don’t miss the boards)

Couldn’t agree more with your 1900’s association. It’s about what you see during the formative years. And whether you care to alter that existence, or mirror it. The fact that ‘what’s out there’ is far more accessible these days… it’s safe to assume people are a bit more itchy and scratchy to try out new furniture.
For me personally… there can be only one. I won’t ‘settle’ for nothin’! I’m secure, I’m determined and I’m persistent. I wait.

XXplorher


PS I appreciate the invite (thanks), but I wont be hanging out bro. Well……… maybe out of my pants. (Got something in the works though – I’ll keep you informed)

 

[XXplorher]

Acts of madness...

Hi, inebriated here – thought I’d check in!

First of all, where’s that dumb horny bitch Deborah? (I may have forgotten the accurate term, eh? Sorry ‘o season of the witch) I was counting on some abuse?! I notice this thread has not continued, and you know how I get when I’m left unnoticed. Heinous!

But seriously, my otherwise dumb uneducated ass has recently become fully versed in the almighty HTML (btw – for those interested, it’s far less intimidating once you step into it. HTML is like 5th grade math. Give it a shot, eh). My intention is to start up a few websites, including one of THIS ilk.

Sooooooooooo, I thought I’d just run naked and swing my verbal cock around to let you all know that………eh. I will have a fuckfest of an erotica swamp. Ready to tangle anyone vulnerable into the enticement of it’s expansive lust. Come….

Obviously, I’ll be looking for willing writers to graciously submit their material. Like Literotica, it will be a completely free site (hell, contrary to popular belief – I ain’t no pimp). I’ll have to go on record as saying, I’m going to be slightly demanding as far as content goes. If you wrote it while your baby was crying in the background – it’s not going to get anywhere near my HTML fingers. I want a site that’s, erotic, entrancing, funny, cultivating, and basically entertaining. There will be no ‘MANdate’. Women rule the world and I’m fully aware of that. Only, you know damn well, you like to share your pie. ‘Let’s go down to the waters edge..’

And you must be a part of my tablet. We must consume the blood and the wine together (winks at a certain someone) Cuz I like learned FLASH! And I’m really super special now. I can make things like my already almighty penis, expand and morph into all kinds of exotic shapes and threatening devices! Hell, I can even make it shrink into the peanut shaped, crunchable, hate to be seen when I get out of the water naked worm of an extended partition that it tends to be when I’m, uh… cold. Yup. I’m certain Laurel wants to witness that desperately ; )

Please consider me at xxplorher@aol.com (yeah, I know. I never grew out of it). I’m looking at a 2-3 month creation period prior to publish.


Fear to spend too far away from yourself, yet never too close,

XXplorher


PS. Not to go unmentioned… Rodrigo is god. I heckle not.

 

[Deborah]

dumb horny bitch?

I'm not dumb.

This is why a MODERATOR is necessary on this forum. To deal with these mean-spirited vicious personal attacks.

Hey, xxplorher, I suppose you only accept stories for your new site where the theme is how you set women free and your cum is God's gift to women.

No problem. My stories are on the way to you. Please hold your breath while you are waiting.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I can make things like my already almighty penis, expand and morph into all kinds of exotic shapes and threatening devices! Hell, I can even make it shrink into the peanut shaped, crunchable, hate to be seen when I get out of the water naked worm of an extended partition that it tends to be when I’m, uh… cold.

If Scott were alive 60 years ago he'd be a bus boy at the Algonquin.

 

[XXplorher]

Of course, as always, you are correct, Deb (not). Are you still upset that I haven’t splattered your face? : (
(I’m fresh outta spermies, but you can try me next week, princess).

....I am holding my breath waiting for Deborah’s stories, while trying to figure out what the ‘Algonquin’ is. That should virtually ensure I will perish within a reasonable amount of time, eh.

Adios.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Yes, you can clear. And could you bring us some more bread?

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Guest]

Tantra

 

[For_Valentine]

Bumpety