Judging people (long)
 

Ok, this is another relationship-inspired post, so for anyone that is tired of break-up-inspired postings should probably leave now. :D (warning: massive post ahead!!)

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about WHY people stay in relationships. And while I think that nothing in this post is really new info for anybody, I think it describes it in a way that makes it all a little easier to understand.

Say that the way you feel for somebody is on a scale of 0-100. 0 means you would kill them on sight, and a 100 is Romeo-and-Juliet. *Everyone* you meet in life gets put onto this scale. Your best friend in the whole world might be a 90, but your poker buddy may only rate around a 60. When you first meet anyone they get an initial rating... but it might change. You may meet someone in a bar that just seems soooo perfect, and you rate them a 95. But then you get to know them, and maybe they burn babies or beat little-old-ladies or something, so they fall to a 10. But you may also meet someone that at first you rate around a 50, but then as you get to know them more and more it moves up to like a 70 or 80.

As we go through life we start to get better at that "initial" placement. When you're young you might meet a "90", and they slide down to a "30", but when you're older you can sniff them out better. Basically the older we get there is a smaller shift in the scale. If you meet someone and initially they're a 70, you know they might slide to a 60... maybe an 80... but odds are they won't magically turn into a 20 or a 95 just based on past experience.

So anyhow, I think that this plays a major part in relationships. Say you're with someone and you rate them at a 75. That's a pretty decent number... you're happy together and there aren't any PROBLEMS with the relationship, no major ones at least. If you guys were dropped on a dessert island you'd live together happily forever.

The problem is you're constantly running into new people. So let's say you got together with that 75 when you were "looking for someone", and now you've stayed because it's comfortable. And at 75 you can really love them... maybe not on that Romeo-Juliet level, but you feel love. But as you meet new people they're automatically compared to your current mate. Normally it's not a big deal. Say you run into someone who rates a 65, or a 70... you don't even think about it, b/c your partner is better. Maybe you even meet a 75... or even an 80. The 80 can be interesting, but you still won't leave the relationship for them, even if they're ranked higher.

The reason is b/c they're not rated high enough. Sure, they may be an 80 now... but no one stays in one place. As you get to know them there's a very real risk that they'll fall to a 75, maybe a 70. And if you walked away from a 75 relationship for that, then you wasted all that time for something WORSE. Not smart.

That's what makes relationships tough. Is no matter how high you rate your partner, you will always meet someone who rates higher from time to time. If you rate at a 95 it's easy though... because that one time you meet someone who's a 98, it's easy to stick with your current partner. Sure, the other person SEEMS better, but you have history, commitments, etc with your current partner, and why risk a 95 for a 98? Is a difference of 3 really all that much? And besides, that 98 may really be an 88. (And when people initially rate that high, most of the time that number does fall).

But for a 75'er it's much, much harder. For the 75'er... every single time they meet an 80 or a 90 they have that temptation. Meeting a 98 is a difference of 23... that's a big shift. Even if they fall to an 88, it's still better than what you have now. Even if you stay with your current 75 relationship... can you really be happy? Think about it... every time you go home you think to yourself, "I could have something much better than this right now".... so even though you honestly care about that person you aren't happy b/c you feel like you're selling yourself short.

And it's those 75'ers that have the most problems in life... either they break-up with their BF/GF and go through that pain for a chance at something better, or they go on being frustrated knowing they could have better.

Ok ok, I know, nothing new and exciting here, all I did is take a commonly known idea and put it on a ratings scale. But! I'm going somewhere with this, I swear...

First up, we all have a "maximum limit" for how different people can feel for each other. For example, I don't care how nice she was, I don't care what she did for me, or any other thing imaginable... I will never, ever be able to rate Roseanne Barr at a 95. It just couldn't happen, we're incompatible people. And everyone has a certain level of compatibility that dictates what their "maximum rating limit" can be.

Everyone in your life moves around on the rating scale. Even if you've been best friends for 10 years, that person isn't *always* a 90. Sometimes they slip to 80, or whatever. But as you stick together and work through problems they'll work back up to a 90. But you may have another friend who's at a 70. No matter what they say or do they just won't ever be able to be like your best friend, and reach a 90 level. So while they slide around it never is able to break through that 70 max limit.

It's the same with relationships, they have a maximum limit too. And if that number is locked at 75, it doesn't matter how much you TRY to make it work, you simply will not ever feel a 95 for them. You can't do it. Sure, 75 ain't bad, and it can even be a good relationship, but it won't ever be fireworks and flower petals when you think of them.

And why is that a big deal? Because in a relationship there are two of you! Just because you may feel a 90 for the other person, they may only feel a 75 for you. That's a problem b/c they know that you need them more than they need you. Think about it... if you guys broke up, all you have to do is find a 75'er, and you're back in a relationship that's "just as good". But they have to find another 90'er... not so easy. It puts the higher ranked person in a control position. Which is BAD. How can you honestly love someone that you control? So it becomes a mutual dependency thing. If you're both at 75, both 85, or both 95 it has a better chance to go the distance.

Also, this is a big reason why I think marriages back in the 1950's stayed together so much better. They didn't have the communication or interaction that we have today. If the happy housewife was in a 75-rated marriage... that could be fine since she never has that constant onslaught of other people who may rate in the 80s or 90s. Which means that in the 1950's for a marriage to stand the test of time maybe it only needed to be a 75. But with our super-information-interaction world that we live in now, the relationship needs to be a 90 or 95 if it wants to make it.

And so now I hope you didn't mind my way-too-damn-long post. :D I wonder if anyone will actually make it all the way through.

(The sad part is that there's actually a lot more to this whole theory, I just chose to post the major points) :shock:

I read the whole thing. My first thought is that it's not possible to reduce complicated human relationships to a simple number. And doing so won't yield the same kind of wisdom as it will in other applications.

Other factors: the longer you're in a relationship, if it's a loving relationship, you build emotional and mental bonds that couple you like nothing else. Your needs adapt to each other, even as you change as people. You build a life together and the intertwining becomes stronger. Your shared experiences become benchmarks. The needs/desires are no longer a single point; they're strung all over the place. It's not just an equation, it's a set of different equations that change every single day.

History: I dunno. But I'd say, when looking at how people were different in the past, there are many factors at work. Some factors are linear through history, such as the introduction of the birth control pill in the 60s. Once that happened, argue some, everything was suddenly different in familial relationships.

But other factors are cyclical, such as the level at which a society values children. These factors are huge, but happen at such a slow pace that we can't even see the waves that take place.

(edit: post updated with yet more boring equations, sorry!)

I completely agree my post is a simplification... but I disagree that it's an oversimplification.

Students still use "3.14" for Pi... even though it's a severe simplification. I guarantee you'll never find a NASA engineer that uses "3.14". But for a student, they are able to use 3.14 and while they won't have the 100% correct answer, it's still accurate enough to pull meaningful conclusions.

Same thing here.

I agree that long-term relationships have another level of bonding. Maybe that could be another rating scale which runs from 1-100. As you build those experiences-with-your partner it slowly raises the "relationship-strength" rating. So while you may be in a 75-rated relationship, after 30 years you've had enough experiences that the relationship-strength value is so high that no one could pull it apart, no matter what their personal rating is.

Maybe the "interest level in a person" could be defined in a function something like:

interest = personal_rating * (relationship_strength/100)

Meaning that a 75-rated relationship with a 100 rated relationship-strength yeilds a net of 75. If that person then met a total stranger with a personal rating of 100, the net would be 100 * .01, or a net of only 1. Not even close to being a strong enough motivator to leave the 75-rated partner.

And relationship-strength CAN change to the negative over time. If a husband waits on his wife hand-and-foot when she's hospitalized there are several deposits to that scale quickly. But if 10 years down the road he's more interested in football than talking to her and forgets their anniversary, then the scale takes some hefty withdrawals. So, unlike the personal-rating scale, the relationship-strength scale is more capable of fluctuating greatly (albeit slowly), and has no "max limit" comparable to the compatibility-index that dictates the max on the personal-rating-scale.

However, it's still not that easy. Say for example you've reached a relationship-strength of 30 in your 75-rated relationship after 5 years of being together, then you may assume that after 5 years with a 95-rated person you would also reach a rating of 30. So even though today that 95'er is cummulatively rated lower, when you look at the 5-year potential, they match up:

75 * (30/100) = 22.5
95 * (30/100) = 28.5

And as more time passes that 95-rated person continues to increase faster and faster. (Think interest on a bank balance). However, if a couple is together for 20 years and reaches a relationship-strength level of 80, it would take a long, long time for even a 95-rated person to reach a matching level. Basically this means that the longer a couple is together, it's not so much that the motivation to leave your 75-rated partner for that 95-rated prospect decreases... it's just that you understand you don't have enough time on Earth to see a net positive gain by the change, you'll be happier with the 75'er.

So what does that mean? It means that if at-this-very-second if both the 75-partner and the 95-prospect called to tell you they needed your help right now, you would go help the 75'er, since they currently rate higher. However, the next day you might leave the 75'er because your potential-gain is higher in the long run with the 95'er.

(I could go on, maybe even add a "calculated risk" number to the equation which effects the decision model for leaving your current partner... but I think you see my point)

Wow. I think I've now crossed the bridge into complete, and total engineer world. I can only think in numbers. :cry:

I recognize that syndrome, because I had it when trying to buy a house.

Every house comes with a dollar amount assigned to it; and certainly if you find a house worth $200,000 to you, but priced at $50,000, you should buy it immediately, I thought.

As soon as I got into the process, I found myself swimming with too much information. OK, that house is $120,000, but it has a crack down the wall that might be serious foundation problems. OK, that house is $160,000, but it's at the bottom of a hill and could take on water. That one has a cool basement. That one has really old appliances. That one has leaves in the gutter. That one backs up to woods.

The lesson learned: there is no equation. You can only gut it out. There is too much you don't know. Sometimes, you don't even know your desires, and the house in the suburbs you planned with one life in mind becomes a ball and chain in your mind after ten years.

Did I say sometimes you don't know your desires? MOST times you don't know your desires. Most times you think you know yourself, but if you truly test yourself, you find surprises.

when i started reading your initial post, riddil, you were a 75 to me. by the time i finished it, you were down to a 60 because the left side of my brain was trying to take over the right side's responsibilities. Undertoad scored an 83 with his reply, maknig his total post average an strong 92. after reading your second post, i decided that you are the original programmer of the "Sims" games, and your rating increased to 72. at present, the urge to pick my nose is scoring a 65, while the urge to scratch my ass is only a 33. all of the sudden the urge to end this post is at a 100. bye

I just re-read my post and I found it too full of wordy gobbledygook. What I am trying to do, sound like some professor? Trying to make people think I'm all smart or something? I mark it lower, I think you were too generous.

Do we really get any better at judging people? I got very lucky hooking up with Pete but aside from that single most important relationship, I'm still a regular Helen Keller when it comes to reading folks. I know we should get better but...

absolutely. the right side of our brain uses info that we don't even know we have and compares it to previous experience. I meet a lot of people in my line of work, and can usually suss someone within minutes if not faster. sometimes I'm wrong, but I'm seldom surprised by the way people will react to what I say. I used to have a lot of trouble telling whether or not someone was lying to me, but now i can sniff it out pretty easily. the subconscious should be listened to , griff. trust your instincts....if that fails, use the force!

The relationship is controled by the one that loves the least. That doesn't change. Everything else does,......constantly.
You make some assumptions if believe to be flawed, but that's OK. A lot of smart peole have dedicated their lives and careers to try a figure this out....unsuccessfully.:)

with most people i meet, within the VERY early stages of the relationship they get an extra few points (say10-15) on credit for the possibility of things to come.

And i also agree with the concept that the one who loves the least has the upper hand, i dont give my heart too easily.. and i find in most relationships i have been in control of the situation (or at least i thought i was) :rolleyes:

Ok... this is amazing.... honestly, I've had a total, and complete reversal of opinion.

For the past day or two I've been mulling in my head all the info that was in my first post. If you read just that first post the only thing I really quantify is "individual rating" as a basis for decision. I was seriously thinking that I'd "finally figured it out", and I was ready to run out and start judging women based on the stupid idea that "Woman A rates higher than woman B, therefore I will pursue woman A, and ignore B."

Is it even possible to be more shallow?

I'm glad UnderToad challenged my idea straight away... b/c while I knew that there is a deeper "relationship strength" that adds to a relationship, I hadn't bother to try to include that in my magical equation.

So I reworked the equation and what I realized....

If you take a 75'er but only have a weak relationship score of a measly 1, then your interest/commitment works out to a .75. Compare that to a 95-rated person... if you have a weak relationship (Again, say a 1), then they total a whopping .95. Still not very impressive.

It doesn't matter, you compare ANY person to any other person and all you ever do is fluctuate from .01 - .99. But as soon as you start BUILDING a relationship it doesn't take long at all for that interest/commitment rating to go up very, very fast.

And what that showed to me is that it doesn't matter if the person you're with is a 75 or if they're a 95.... where you find true happiness is in how strong the relationship is. A 75-rated person with a relationship-strength score in the 80's will totally shadow a 95-rated person with a relationship-score in the 20's.

Sure you might feel good because you can take your 95-rated partner out on the town and impress everyone.... but are you happy? Are they giving to the relationship to make sure that it continues to grow as every year passes? This is the problem with celebrity marriages... they work so hard to get a "highly rated" person b/c they want a nice prop to show off to the world, but since they never measure the person for the QUALITY of their relationship, it becomes anemic.

So... even though I still feel like relationships (and everything else) can be expressed mathematically... I now realize... for matters of the heart it doesn't matter. Why worry about splitting hairs trying to figure out if a prospective partner is *really* an 80? Maybe they're a 78? Or an 82? When you compare it to the relationship that you build over time, it completely eclipses those tiny differences.

To be honest, I came up with the original post as a weak justification to make myself feel better about breaking up with my girlfriend this past weekend. I told myself that sure, I care about her, she's a good person, but it's just not working out. I didn't have a REASON to break up with her... so I invented the ratings system.

But it's not true at all. If it was just a simple "rating" then why did we get together in the first place? How could we have stayed together for so long?

The reality is that she could have been a 70 and I could still be completely in love and committed. What drove me away is that our relationship had grown weak. I gave and gave to the relationship, and because of it she was happy, but she never gave anything back. So as time passed the strength of our relationship never grew stronger... and it actually grew weaker. And the whole mess concluded with me breaking up with a woman in tears because she was convinced that she wasn't far from hearing a marriage proposal.

When we're young we constantly hear the mantra: don't judge a book by it's cover. Love the person that's INSIDE, not the image on the outside.

I always took that to mean look past a person's skin to discover their true personality. You may find they're smart, funny, whatever. But even those things are immaterial. What that little saying means to me now is that the "relationship strength" (read: love) that you build together will so far out-weigh everything else that everything else becomes insignificant in comparison.

Choose your mate not by if you think they're attractive... or smart... or funny... or successful. Choose your partner by how far your love can grow.

*cue cheesy violins*

Hehe, I just think it's funny that to understand something so simple that everyone already knows I had to go through this silly, convoluted process. The good news is that it only took me 27 years to get here!! Just think where I'll be when I'm 54!! ;)

Anyhow, thanks everyone for holding my hand on this one. :p It probably seems silly/stupid that I could swing such a wide belief-structure so fast... but hey... emotions roll pretty quickly when you're going through a break-up. ;)

Anyhow, to update my equation... I want to redefine the "limits" for the relationship-strength scale. It's not a 1-100 scale. It runs from 1 to the end of imagination.

well until i read that last post i thought you were making total sense until i realised your scale was meant to be on a material level. i read your scale to be judged on not only your attraction to someone, but your compatability to them as well, the love that has a possibility to develop, etc. not just looks... that IS shallow.

I would think that just about anyone could be happy on a "dessert" island. Yum!

Well, just to defend the idea that I really don't believe in anymore...

Sun, that *is* what I meant. I'm not just talking about how attractive someone is. I know a lot of very beautiful women that I rate very low on a personal-rating level. A personal-rating really is defined by "perceived compatibility". Are they a good person? Good conversationalist? Good outlook? Active? Intelligent? Open-minded? etc etc. And yeah, attractiveness is included in there, but it by no means is the sole item.

My whole point with the last post is that while ALL of those things may be important when choosing a mate, that NONE of those things individually matter one little bit when you compare it to a strong relationship.

Sure, you can argue that to actually have a strong relationship you need to find a person with many/most of the traits that you see as important... but my point is that no one will ever be 100% on the list. And any prospective partner will have a some measure of those things. Does it really matter if they are a 75% match compared to an 85%?

Not when you stop and consider that over time the strength of the relationship outweighs that difference.

That's what I meant. :D

As far as scores go, I took the AIDS test and got a 74. Is that good?

My divorce situation really informs me on this. To reduce it to numerics and compress time:

B: I want to love you and believe that you answer my needs. I rate you 85.
A: I love you very much. I rate you 90.
B: That makes me more comfortable in the relationship, so I can admit you're not an 85. You're a 75.
A: Even though that's painful, I still rate you 90.
B: Good. Now since you're a 75, let's focus on changing that other 25%.
A: But my 90 love for you means I ignore the other 10%.
B: So you're not going to change the 25%?
A: No, I insist that the 25% is a critical and important part of my personality. If you want me to change so much, am I really a 75?
B: Look, that 25% is really terrible to me.
A: But what about the 75?
B: I'm a diagnosed obsessive-compulsive and can only think of the 25%. It's almost unbearable. OK, I found a guy that had that 25% but none of the other 75%. Bye!

B: OK, the 25 guy decided I did not score high enough for him to continue with me. Boo Hoo.


now where does she score, A?

I read, in one of those end-of-the-year improve-your-life kind of articles, that many people are unhappy because they are striving to have the best possible life. When they should be trying to have a good life. The possibility that there might be something a leetle better out there irks them.

Seems like this whole numbers thing is right in that direction.

She now scores 0, of course. The post-mortem is not pretty.

A: I need attention, love, and affection. I will give you those things in spades.
B: I can't give you those things, because I'm simply not a loving affectionate person.
A: It's not me, is it?
B: No, it's me. It's completely me.
A: I believe you. Because you're a 90 for me, I can accept that.

(ten years later)

A: This lack of attention, love and affection is really getting to me. In fact, now I feel like I don't believe in myself.
B: I agree, I don't believe in you either.
A: If you would love me I would improve.
B: No, I'm leaving because I can't give you the love you need. And now that I think about it maybe it was you after all. (Writes personal ad: "I need love and affection.")

[dr smith]oh, the pain....the pain![/dr smith]


you know you have lots of affection here in the cellar. some even love you. [stuart smally] and that's ....okay[/stuart smally] just get out to the local Border's or Library, and find a girl to talk to. .... I'm gonna start a thread for "pick-up" lines to help you break the ice...... the rest will fall in place because you are who you are. GO TOAD!!

Thanks man! I didn't mean to hijack the thread to continue my sob story though.

I went through one of these engineer-obsessive equation mangling fits when I was picking a major in college. (While the topic isn't as emotional, the logic still holds -- it's a long-term commitment, with a large investment that is hard to change later.)

What I realized is that while I would never be happy as, say, a lawyer or a neurosurgeon, I would probably be pretty happy as either a physicist or an engineer. There is a curve that describes your happiness with different choices. While the choices down on the left side of the curve have a huge bang-for-buck improvement in your happiness for a "small" change in career plans (Delta1), the choices near the top present a smaller payoff for the same size change (Delta2).

I guess what I am trying to say is this: there are probably a variety of choices that one could make that would lead to happiness. Sure, one wants to be as near to dh/dc = 0 as one can be (local maximum), but the rate of change near that inflection point is pretty small.

But do try to be sure that your local maximum is really the global maximum!

Heh.

- Pie

[edited to resize image]

LOL, excellent point Pie. I think the greatest struggle from that example is to find a way to depict calculate the delta between two paths in true payout. It's easy to get caught up in the emotion of the choices and to let that cloud your vision.

And UT... I'm glad you continued posting your story. I've been sitting here today trying to figure out why my relationship which started so strong could end so... flat. And your story adds credence to what I think happened with my relationship.

It goes back to the old withdrawals vs. deposits comparison. In a relationship you honestly want to give love, you want to do anything for the other person to make them happy. And at the same time you honestly never want or expect anything in return. The good news is that if both people feel that way then it's a constant growing love.

But it's not as simple as, "make more emotional deposits than withdrawals".

You should want to only do good things for your partner. That means a constant flow of positive emotional deposits. However if all you ever do is give-give-give, you'll become drained over time. You don't expect the other person to do caring things for you, but it is those very things that keep your emotional-bank-account full, and let you keep making deposits to the other person. (I think this is what happened to your marriage UT)

But what happened with mine is that my girl-to-be understood everything I did for her, and she loved those actions. After enough time w/o out her making a deposit to me, she felt that she "owed me", and she'd try to make one big emotional deposit to make up for all little ones I never received. But think about when you watch a comedy, if the movie is really bad, it doesn't matter if they have one joke that is the funniest thing you've ever heard, you'll still walk about with a bad impression. You'd rather have a comedy that kept you chuckling the whole way through.

What confused me for so long is that I thought my girl did care about me. It sure seemed like it. And early on I did care about her so much, I did everything I could to satisfy her every need. But she never tried to do those things in return. She fell in love with the way I made her feel, with the things I did for her. If she really would have loved me then she would have done those small, day-to-day emotional deposits... instead of choosing to ignore the things she new I liked/wanted because it would have taken effort on her part.

Ah well. I guess the whole point of this has been I've learned:

1) Don't listen if someone says they love you. Watch their actions.

2) The occassional BIG action intended for a big emotional deposit doesn't mean they love you. It could mean they're trying to make up for a deficit they've been running. (Judge this one carefully)

3) The small day-to-day actions/deposits are the best proof of love and the best way to build upon that love. (And the lack of them are the best way to drain love).

4) Be aware of a difference in deposits. If one partner is giving more than the other then that is a problem. One which must be resolved or else it will leave one partner emotionally drained to the point where the relationship is forfeit.

Gotta agree with ya there. I have a friend who ironically has a pretty good judge of character for most people, but has lousy relationships with men..go figure.

I hate the whole "reading" people thing. However, I think that I have gotten a bit better at it with age. ;)

Warning: This post is too long.

I've had an interesting relationship history. I used to be cripplingly shy, and had a hard time even speaking to women. Despite this, I had a few successful relationships. Some years later, after some deep internal reflection, I worked through my issues and the shyness rapidly disappeared. I transitioned from anti-social to borderline-swinger almost overnight.

Fast forward a year or so... I was casually dating four different girls, none of them serious yet, but a few were going in that direction. I was realizing that I'd need to start making some decisions very soon, because otherwise I'd have a very complicated situation on my hands. Two of the girls I liked a lot, and they seemed to feel the same. So I broke it off with the others, and started working through which girl I wanted to commit to.

It was tough. Both were smart, funny, attractive (though on totally opposite ends of the looks spectrum... one was blond and fair-skinned, while the other had black hair and was dark-skinned). One was spontaneous and fun-loving, and we had hit it off immediately; but the other was very creative and insightful, and fascinated me. When actually faced with the situation, trying to attach any kind of rating is useless. Each had such great potential to be a happiness-inspiring, rewarding relationship, and I had so little information and personal contact with them to go off of. I was a wreck as I tried to decide what to do, not wanting to make the wrong decision and risk missing out on a wonderful relationship.

I was just starting into this emotional obstacle course when I met Brittany. Normally, I'd have deflected any new entrants into the fray, but she was... awesome. Beautiful, intellligent, funny, creative.. but not only that, there were underlying qualities I could detect but not describe. I just really liked her right away. On our first date, we were just going to go out for a short evening of dinner, but we ended up talking for about six hours. They had to kick us out of the restaurant. On our second date, we experienced the same phenomenon. It was the first time in a long time that a girl made me nervous, and gave me butterflies in my stomach. I liked her immediately, earned great respect for her quickly, and fell in love with her inevitably. After only a handful of dates with Brittany, the prospect of a meaningful realtionship with her easily overcame the risk of missing out on something with the others. I was stricken. So I broke it off with both Kasi and and Jennifer, and never looked back. And now Brittany and I are married! Very happily.

My point? I have one. In my initial elimination effort, I tried to apply a semi-mathematical model (though not quite as scientific as yours) to the girl-selection process. It can't work. When looking for happiness in a relationship, it's not what qualities she has or what qualities you have that matters, but what you have together, what develops between you. Both of the girls I had previously been dating scored very high when evaluated on their qualities, but the relationship is an unmeasurable abstraction.

For me, meeting Brittany made me realize that though I had been dating some really cool women who had most of the qualities I desired, they weren't quite right for me. Though each was probably just right for someone else, the relationship I had with each of them lacked that spark to make us more than the sum of our parts, as it were. What Britt and I have between us blew the other relationships away. Besides having all of the qualities I was looking for, in some ways which I can't easily describe or quantify, she was (and is) more special to me. And no mathematical rating system could have reliably predicted that.

So, in short, logic and reason make a poor foundation for love. Heheh.

hope this helps. (tongue in cheek, ladies!):D

By jove, I think you've got it.:beer:

i'm not sure about the rating system, although it makes sense to me. maybe i'm crazy, but i'm trying to patch things up with my ex-wife. i know where our marriage went wrong and am working to fix those problems (main one was drinking too much beer). albeit not for her but for 1. my son and 2. me and my health. i sent her an email today explaining how i felt and can only hope that she sees eye to eye on the matter. of course it takes two to tango and i can only hope that over time we can dance again. i'm not going to get into the details on this thread, though. i will though probably start one for advice.

hmmm, i'd put her at an 85 and myself a 75.

Ack. Did I forget to post yesterday?

a) Undertoad:
pff! I learned something and found thinking fodder in your post which you besmirched. I've heard that before, but never so well put; hopefully I will realize and remember your lesson.

b) Riddil:

Have you read <u>The Little Prince</u>? What you've written sounds like the passage where the Renard (the Fox) tells the Little Prince about friendship, and how to tame a fox.

approximated: When we first met, you were a little boy among millions of little boys, and I was just a fox among millions of foxes.

It's the relationship that makes one important to the other. Not whether or not he is the most splendid of foxes.

if you're in a relationship, how would you even get to know a person and be able to rate them romantically, without spending time talking with them and thinking of them sexually? i'm married and i can't think of anyone i could rate, because i don't even look at other men like that. if you're rating other people in competition with your partner, you are being mentally unfaithful, and of course you'll rate others higher, because you know your partner's flaws, but you would do yourself a huge favor if you a) decided if you want to be with your partner or not and b) if yes, stop rating other people like that, problem solved.

That's a basic difference in male sexual response: we seem to have such a strong sex "rating" instinct that it's almost pointless to turn it off, better to just admit it and get on with life.

Oof. I'll resist the temptation to post a dry, sarcastic reply to your post, staceyv.

If you're in a blissful marriage and you can honestly say that you have never, ever imagined a single man you've known/met/seen as to whether they would be a good partner either sexually or romantically then it means you're in very, very strong relationship. Whether or not you walk around and "rate" people is immaterial. The stronger the relationship, the fewer the times that you'll feel those impulses.

If someone finds themselves in a weak relationship, like I did, it doesn't matter if you choose to be "mentally faithful", all you'd be doing is wearing mental blinders in some puritanical hope that see-no-evil --- vis-a-vis --- think-no-evil. But it's not true. If the relationship is weak then it simply won't last, blinders or not.

That said, I agree with you somewhat. I strongly believe that people should strive to stay out of situations with temptation. If you constantly put yourself in a situation where you are tempted to cheat, either mentally/physically/emotionally, then the odds go up and up that one day you will follow through with it.

Even so, that only covers situations you control. Life has a funny way of thrusting people upon us unexpectedly. I don't care if you made a choice to stay mentally faithful. Impulse, temptation and desire are human nature, and there is no way to simply choose to not acknowledge them. (I'm not saying you'll act on them, but they will arise). It's the strength of your relationship that dictates how often those instances occur. But they will occur.

Anyhow, my point still stands. Focus on building the strongest relationship possible. The stronger the relationship the fewer the temptations you will have, and the more likely that when those temptations arise they will be passed off as nonsensical flights-of-fancy.

I don't know if you intended it, or if it's just me be over-sensitive after the break up, but I take great offense that your last post seems to insinuate that the reason my last relationship ended because I was "mentally unfaithful". That's bullshit. I rearranged my life for this woman. I would have rearranged the stars if I could have, I was totally dedicated to her. The relationship ended b/c after enough time giving love without receiving it I was left emotionally bereft. I didn't even conceive of the stupid rating system until after the break up as a stupid effort to try to justify the break up. And two days later I threw it out the window anyhow!

Don't proselytize. There is no "problem solved" with mental blinders.

It also means that she has been married very briefly. Staceyv is a newlywed.

Puh-frickin'-LEASE.

"Mentally unfaithful" sounds like Carlin talking about sin in Catholicism:

"You had to wanna! In fact, wanna was a sin all by itself. Thou shalt not wanna! If you woke up in the morning and said 'I'm going down to 42nd St. to commit a mortal sin,' save your carfare, you did it! It was a sin for you to want to feel up Ellen, it was a sin for you to plan to feel up Ellen, it was a sin for you to figure out a place to feel up Ellen, it was a sin to take Ellen to the place to feel her up, it was a sin to try feel her up, and it was a sin to feel her up! It was six sins in one feel, man!"

There isn't a human being on the planet who, at one time or another, won't be attracted to people other than their partner. There's no shame in thinking "Gee, I wish my partner was more like [whoever] in this particular aspect," or the simpler version, "DAMN, [whoever]'s got it GOIN' ON!" The attraction can be physical, it can be based on personality, it can be a "Hey, lookit THAT ass!" spur-of-the-moment thing, it can grow over time... whatever.

The test of unfaithfulness is whether you _act_ on that desire, or whether you value your commitment more than the potential in acting on that desire. That's it in a nutshell. If you value the commitment, then window-shopping doesn't do any harm, because you know who you're coming home to REGARDLESS of how attractive the new person is, because you're happy with who you have.

That doesn't mean that your partner has to WIN every "competition," so to speak; to borrow the original crude system that started this thread, just because my partner is a 95 doesn't mean that I can't appreciate a 98 that I meet for the 98 that she is. I love my wife, but she's not the only woman in the world with a body or a mind that can excite me.

Does that revelation make me "unfaithful?" Not hardly, because it doesn't _matter_ if someone else excites me; I know I'll pick my wife ten times out of ten regardless of what the other person's like. I found my wife first, I'm happy with her, I'm attracted to her, I'm committed to her, and that's the bottom line. That overrides outside attractions. But that doesn't mean that those outside attractions can't _exist_, or that they're inherently wrong to exist.

what about thinking of someone else that you know while masturbating? is THAT mentally unfaithful?


for the record, i NEVER masturbate, and if I ever did, I would only think of jinx! really...you believe me dont you?

Depends, there, Jimmy. Are you lusting in your heart?

Only if thinking of your spouse while having sex with someone else is being mentally faithful.

Not by my standards. If what goes on in your head stays in your head, it's all good. Now, if you call out the name of the person you're thinking of and your partner happens to hear it, you may have some 'splainin' to do... but that should be more embarrassing than relationship-breaking.

The logical follow-up is "Does watching porn make you unfaithful?" Again, in general, I say no. STARRING in porn, maybe...

Lust is natural. Lust is part of life. ACTING on lust inappropriately is what dissolves relationships and bank balances.

it was a purely hypothetical question. ..... let's keep me out of it.....i only have eyes for jinx.

Nobody can tell you what your morals are... if it feels like you're doing something wrong, you're doing something wrong. Now come out of the bathroom, you've been in there for at least twenty minutes now.

Oh knock it off! Who are you jerking off to? Inquiring minds want to know...
It's my sister isn't it? Pig dog...

Since I'm not lumberjim, do you mind if I use your sister?

Jinx has a sister? JPGS PLEASE

OK now that is fuckin uncanny.

EEEWWWW!!! not that she's gross or anything, but that's incest isn't it? i mean shes my sister in law.

as i said, if i was to partake in that particular habit, i would think of you....maybe with that friend of yours that's bi. but mostly you! promise!

Ok, but just this one time.

Huh. Is that normal?
I'd be thinking of angelina jolie I think.

when have i ever done anything normal?

and the question referred to some one you know. plus, i'd never follow billy bob thornton.

i knew when i asked that question that i'd weather a bunch of probing masturbation questions, but i really DID mean it hypothetically. i have a strict don;t ask dont tell policy about what i do in the bathroom

Oo, now that's an interesting point. I know it grew out of a joke... but still... is a sin only a sin if your moral compass defines it as one?

I knew an over-zealous Christian kid in college who admitted that every time he had "impure thoughts" he felt a deep, deep shame. Therefore, by his definition, he is sinning. But for lumberjim, no such sin occured.

What about moral beliefs that involve actions? What if you thought, "My elderly neighbor just passed away, and since he has no immediate family it's ok to take the rocking chair on his porch. (I know someone who did this.)

But if that's ok, then how about, "While visiting Bill Gates I found a dollar on the floor. If I take it, he'll never miss it."

And then how about, "Best Buy is a massive company. If I lie and return this new big-screen TV after the superbowl they'll never miss the money it cost them."

You see where I'm going. If a "sin" is defined by our own personal moral compass, then how far can it go? Is there a difference b/w "personal sin" and "social sin", defined solely by a difference b/w thought and action?

And the rules for a social-sin must by necessity change over time as the social mind changes. (eg, masturbation was once seen as a social sin, but is now accepted).

Faaascination.

*returns thread to discussion about masturbation*

Actually, I thought it was just par for the course! ;)

"Sin" and "Ethical failure" are different beasts. The former applies to those of religious faith; the latter does not require religion to operate. ("Violation of the law" is yet another related concept.)

with regard to thinking of someone else while alone in the bathroom i think it is in a way cheating. i lived with my last boyfriend for 2 years. and in the last few months i recieved a 300 dollar phone bill (i was the payer of the phone bill).. and when i checked the last few bills and the large recent one, i discovered he had been making phone calls to some quite unsavoury (and expensive) girly lines .. and the times all co-incided with around 10 mins after i left for work each day... and i had been paying for this for 6 months totally unaware! i FELT so betrayed. it made me feel WORTHLESS and as though he didnt respect me. It ruined our sex life completely because i then felt like i wasnt enough for him, like he would prefer something else.

Adding hot fudge doesn't dilute my love of ice cream.:)

Maybe you could just use her?

(Poor jinx's sister.. her ears must be burning)

Hrm. You're probably pulling from accepted published works, so my arguing this is pretty stupid... BUT... I'm not so sure that definition matches. Otherwise it is impossible for an atheist to "sin". He could only have a moment of "ethical failure". But aren't they really the same thing? A religious man has his ethical structure based in his religion, so a 'sin' is just another name for an 'ethical failure'. It simply lets us know that the foundation for that particular ethics breach was based upon that man's religion.

And since they're equal, your comment is an unrelated point to my original comment. How do you deal with a person who's ethical boundaries may be a little too broad? Breaking a man's leg to steal his wallet would be an ethical failure for me, and later I would feel guilt. But breaking a man's leg that is attacking me is not an ethical breach, and since no breach occured, and I feel no guilt or remorse for the action.

But that situation applied to an ethical breach in my own mind. What about a breach to a set of ethics as defined by our society? What happens when an action breaks either the personal ethics or societies, but not both? And since societies eithics are defined by the ever-changing social mind, would it be possible to purposely shape society to alter it's eithical structure... therefore rendering past "sins" into accepted actions? (euthenasia, anyone?)

Hmmmm.

Well, that's not _thinking_ of someone else. That's spending three hundred bucks (plus whatever was on the previous bills) on someone else. Last I checked, fantasizing about someone who'd say the things he wanted to hear was free...

That's also him not communicating with you that he enjoyed "unsavory" conversation, and paying good money to _avoid_ discussing that with you; for all he knew, you might've provided it for free if you knew he liked it. ;)

The moral of the story is: if you want something bad enough, ask for it. If you get a "no," at least it's out in the open and you can talk about it, instead of getting caught with your pants down and causing major feelings of betrayal.

In a way, we're both right. (This is off the top of my head, not out of Webster's, btw.) It is impossible (IMHO) for an atheist to "sin" from his own perspective, because the concept of "sin" itself is irrelevant to the atheist. The same act that a religious person calls "sin" may well be an "ethical failure" to the atheist, and the atheist may be well aware of that fact and feel just as badly about it as a religious person would. But an atheist can no more "sin" in a religious sense than a male can have menstrual cramps; it's simply a concept outside of his realm of experience.

It's like comparing a Catholic eating pork to an kosher-observing Orthodox Jew eating pork. The latter would be scandalized; to the former, it's no big deal at all. Is the Catholic wrong in that he doesn't view the meal as a transgression? No, because in his worldview, it simply isn't; it doesn't violate any of his established and respected codes of conduct. Likewise, the atheist is not bound by Catholic, Jewish, or any other religious guidelines; he may feel that a particular action is "wrong," but "sinful" simply does not apply. (How religious observers would classify said action is another matter.)

Different ethics apply to different situations, obviously.

I'm no Wiccan, but the old "An it harm no one, do as thou wilt" homily makes a lot of sense to me. I prefer the Frank Zappa version, myself...

It's partly a matter of scale. The more people you're talking about, the harder it is to pin down what "society's" ethics are, because it's a collection of individual ethics that often vary quite wildly. What would pass for normal or acceptable behavior in one social circle would scandalize another, and who's to say which group is "right?"

As such, societal ethics change all the time. When enough people try a particular behavior and lightning bolts from the heavens don't blow their legs off in retribution, the behavior tends to become more acceptable to the society at large. How quickly those changes occur (if at all) depends on how firmly the resistance insists on adherence to the old moral code, and what influence they have on those around them. Religion in general is a powerful force for retarding social change, though again, it depends on the particular church, congregation and issue involved.

My opinion; if it's not illegal and it's not directly hurting anyone, "society" should mind its own business, and if individuals within that society disapprove of a behavior, they're free to avoid engaging in it. If enough others in society agree with that disapproval, the behavior will not become widespread. If more people find value in the behavior, it will.

Well... I think that law is a totally seperate issue. Law is simply a system developed to enforce social ethics. To this day it is illegal to sell beer on Sundays before noon here in NC. Is that necessary? It's a law to enforce a religious belief that's not even close to being universally shared.

But it's changing. That law will eventually be repealed since enough people disagree with it.

Law exists for several (very good) reasons. Protect the citizens. Maintain a power structure. Keep the peace. Unfortunately it is also a tool to enforce social ethics on the ENTIRE population, regardless of individual beliefs.

That's why sometimes law can be so frustrating to me. Even though 99.9% of the time it's a boon, it is also a tool to enforce a nonsensical and unjustifiable ethical code on people that do not hold similar beliefs.

If I want to buy beer at 10am on Sunday I should be able to. If a cancer patient in California wants to smoke weed so he's not in pain every minute of his life, then dammit he should be able to.

Heh, anyhow, all that jargon was a response to your one comment stating that "if it's not illegal and it's not directly hurting anyone, "society" should mind its own business." Because you *can't* accept that... society will create laws to force their beliefs upon you.

Oh, and last quick comment, I liked your comment at the end, " If enough others in society agree with that disapproval, the behavior will not become widespread. If more people find value in the behavior, it will.".... I see the logic and I agree. But! Food for thought... is that resultant behavior a product of free choice by every individual? Or is it an example of some sort of massive peer-pressure? Exploiting the human urge to conform?

Eentaresting.