Summary

  1. “They are totally irrelevant requirements….” How one disingenuously claims that the history of personal conduct is irrelevant to ascertaining said person’s mindset is ridiculous (regardless of how many times one repeats it). Future behaviour is readily predicted by past behaviour. This is not news to anybody.
  2. “Not a single person in the world can be perfect…” It is to say that perfection isn’t achievable, so therefore, any amount of errant behaviour should be forgiven since it is all outside of one’s control to be absolutely perfect. Not only that, you are essentially removing personal responsibility from the equation. If we were to apply your rule, everyone is the same. The petty thief, the drug dealer, the vandal, the fraud artist, etc… they are no different than anyone who avoids criminal activity. Why? That is because nobody is perfect, and, various issues in the past are merely being human and all moot if one decides to live right today.
  3. “What breeds destructive behaviour in people…” Destructive behaviour isn’t bred by a perception or a reality of too much liberty or control. It may be given room to grow by such conditions, but the impetus is wholly the voluntary action of the individual.
  4. “The fact that you talk down self-empowerment…” You have now resorted to revising history in order to refute your opposition. It is clearly NOT a fact that self-empowerment was talked down in the post you are attempting to criticize.
  5. “The only reason why I say this mindset means he won’t always be there is because her breakdown might not fit what the author perceives as acceptable…“ No. That is really just a bit of back-pedaling. You used the term “broke down” in the same metaphoric sense the article did in the “ride or die” section. It was saying meant as something that life threw at her, and not the literal emotional “break down” or a loss of decorum. You can’t try to change your intentions now, as it was clearly not the case.

Model Citizen

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

They are totally irrelevant requirements. Not to mention, the guy expecting a keeper who’s had less than 10 c*cks and isn’t materialistic is the one who proudly states that he f*cks models, which is both materialistic and sounds like he’s had his c*ck in certainly more than 10 women. (Or, he could be exaggerating for a cover of assumed masculinity, which screams an insecurity.)

Answer:
How one disingenuously claims that the history of personal conduct is irrelevant to ascertaining said person’s mindset is ridiculous (regardless of how many times one repeats it). Future behaviour is readily predicted by past behaviour. This is not news to anybody.

The filters include things like:

  1. A good relationship with her dad: That speaks to the maturity of understanding that he who you perceived as “controlling” you in the past, was really providing guidance. This guidance, though sometimes at odds with your sense of “freedom”, was really through of the benefit of more experience and better judgement at the time. There will be times that you may think your “equal” is over-reaching their authority, a good relationship with a former authority figure, should temper that with the humility that perhaps they may know better in those circumstances. There will be mitigating circumstances, but each case is evaluated on it’s own. Incidentally, having to “change wording in order to falsely represent something you are at odds with in order to refute it” is more an indication of the inability to accept that one is at fault.
  2. She has not been relatively promiscuous: This refers to the reverence one has for their intimacy as well as the integrity to wield power with responsibility. Young women generally have the strength of sexual attractiveness. How she uses or abuses that power is a good indication how she will wield a position of advantage in the future. Look at how many critics here quickly abuse the power of freedom to post by merely casting insults and name-calling. Some will even resort to trolling and cyber-stalking when their need to be “right” is not met. The fact that practically all of these critics are women is noticeable. If one quickly draws their sword merely because they perceive they can with impunity, it is clear they abuse power. That is critical to any future relationship where one puts their heart at stake.
  3. She has no kids: While there are exceptions, one has to question why the father of these children is no longer in the picture. Having children is a long-term commitment that usually means both parents are present and involved. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Where there is now a vacancy, there had to have been issues. If it was wholly the guy’s fault (as in “he was a total jerk”), then how did she get to the point of carrying his child? If it was wholly her fault… well, the answer to that should be obvious. Certainly if the reason is because the father was awarded a DSO posthumously, that would be a mitigating circumstance, but generally speaking, the scenario is usually trouble.
  4. She is not materialistic: This is an important one. It doesn’t mean that she isn’t appreciative of a finer home or the latest fashions. But it does mean that she puts those things in perspective. What it means is that she doesn’t measure her worth based on the how she is perceived by others (you know, like how adolescents think that only this fashion statement or that device makes you cool). It should be obvious that low self-esteem is closely linked to needing bling to feel special.

There are other things too, but there is no need to re-hash all the points that the article makes.

Whether a guy who beds models and loves expensive cars and wine is unattractive, or a keeper in his own right is not relevant. If you believe it is a double standard, then feel free to explain how women don’t fawn over the “bad boy” with the bucks (by the way, that isn’t the case).

To err is Human, to use that, as an excuse, is purposely irresponsible.

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

Errant behaviors now. Not a single person in this world, can be perfect or have a perfect past He or she might fit many of these ‘requirements,’ but may not fit all of them. And who knows: a partner ready to commit may have had various issues in his/her past, but with a true willingness to not let their baggage weigh down the person they choose to be with is what matters. A great person is measured by the behaviors, compulsions, and circumstances they choose to overcome. And if a person chooses to overcome those things in order to have the very best relationship they could have with another human being, then that is wonderful.

Answer:

This is resorting to the “perfect world” fallacy.

It is to say that perfection isn’t achievable, so therefore, any amount of errant behaviour should be forgiven since it is all outside of one’s control to be absolutely perfect. Not only that, you are essentially removing personal responsibility from the equation. If we were to apply your rule, everyone is the same. The petty thief, the drug dealer, the vandal, the fraud artist, etc… they are no different than anyone who avoids criminal activity. Why? That is because various issues in the past are merely being human and all moot if one decides to live right today.

Wrong.

Your next notion is equally as wrong. (Baggage is more about unresolved issues in one’s psyche. Let’s cover that off in a moment). You don’t eliminate past transgression by simply “overcoming them”. If that were the case, any thief can simply “forgive” him or herself and be done with it (and decide to steal again, when it is convenient).

Furthermore, people usually don’t “change their ways”. In fact, they generally choose not to avoid those things, and instead, hide them. Those choices are what is measured. You are responsible for past actions regardless of how you personally decide to forgive them, ignore them, or rationalize them as just part of the human condition.

Whether one wants to become a greater person because of the desire to be with someone is another thing altogether. You cannot ignore the importance of doing these things for yourself to begin with.

Baggage.

Psychological stress that has been laid down over a long period isn’t something that is easily removed. One may be willing to not weigh down their significant other with this burden, but in practice “wanting to” is rarely enough. Look at how so many hostile posts betray pent-up frustration and unresolved anger. This kind of “baggage” didn’t come onboard overnight. It will take a lot of effort to unload it.

Waffle Irony

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

What breeds destructive behavior in people is too much leeway OR too much control in an environment. To have a healthy mindset would mean this: You can do and be whoever you are at any time, but to remember that all choices come with a responsibility, and with an outcome you may or may not like. To choose the higher road and use the great power and freedom you have responsibly is the best way to be. To try to train yourself by simply replacing what someone perceives to be a destructive behavior with a newly perceived ‘good’ one is only going to limit you and create a new compulsion that is just as bad. In this case, the compulsion to let your man take the reins and take advantage of you constantly.

Answer:
Destructive behaviour isn’t bred by a perception or a reality of too much liberty or control. It may be given room to grow by such conditions, but the impetus is wholly the voluntary action of the individual.

Initially, your opposition introduced the notion of actions and their inherit consequences. You choose to deflect from this and instead surreptitiously lectured on about how the pursuit of life ambitions is not reckless or destructive (something your opposition did not state or imply). You now pronounce the reality how one’s actions have consequences, as if it were a new discovery in this conversation.

It is unlikely you are not aware that this was mentioned to you and ignored. Hence, it is clear that you are selectively acknowledging points to suit your argument as you see fit. This is the actions of someone who fully realizes they have no position and are choosing only to wage a campaign of being contrary.

Being harmonious in a relationship may mean acquiescing at times. That hardly means a need to defer leadership to the point of constantly being taken advantage of. This type of exaggeration is more evidence of an agenda to promote a biased point of view.

Retreat to Fiction

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

The fact that you talk down self-empowerment is exposing you and your motives clearly, unfortunately. Self-empowerment is not just about being independent, free and brave, but also using the greater power and freedom you have attained responsibly, consciously, and knowing what will happen in mind.

Answer:
Really. You have now resorted to revising history in order to refute your opposition.

It is clearly NOT a fact that self-empowerment was talked down in the post you are attempting to criticize. The exact phrase was:

“Incidentally, the credence on self-empowerment is likely why many who flock to feminist movements forget that the exercise is really more about finding balance, and not vengeance.”

This is absolutely not talking down self-empowerment. In fact, it is saying how misguided feminists pervert self-empowerment as a means to mete out retribution for perceived past transgression.

Let’s be clear here. Self-empowerment is a tool. It can be wielded responsibly or otherwise. It is no different than any other licence. Again, look at how some choose to abuse the freedom to post by resorting to name-calling and casting dispersions. It should be apparent to all that the consequence of such cavalier attitude is that of a complete loss of credibility. Speaking of which, the amount of misrepresentation you have used as a means to refutation is another vehicle of integrity assassination.

Balancing Act

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

I like your balance talk, but are you still defending this article? It’s clearly and absolutely not balanced.

Answer:
The article doesn’t need defending. Most of the things pointed out make sense. When one considers the amount of poor logic, obfuscation, deflection and bullying in lieu of any counter argument, the article is apparently quite unassailable.

Most of my posts have been to clearly outline how your reasoning is either unsupported or wholly ludicrous in construct. Though it is clearly to dismantle your “argument”, any continued attempt to defend those arguments via fallacy (straw man fallacy, perfect world fallacy, etc…) will take your personal integrity along with it.

As far as “balanced”, again, the conditions that make a man a keeper are not discussed here because it is not the focus of the article. This cannot be construed to mean that such conditions do not exist.

Rise of the Machines

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

Machines are about control for a specific expected result. Although you want a machine that says ‘I will love you indefinitely,’ you want it to be a magic machine that creates an indefinite love that transcends all the other bullshit. And what this is advocating is still serving one root cause – letting a man take the lead and the woman blindly follow him as he uses her. She is just as capable of leading as he is, and she deserves good things from him as well. These filters are totally not about self-conduct. Like I said: self-conduct is about rising above your complications and choosing to take the higher action, the higher road, where you act for the best and highest good – and it’s not defined by what you did in the past, what your daddy was like, if you married someone already, if your parents stayed together, how many c*cks you have had, or anything else. It’s accomplished only by doing what you know is right, remaining positively conscious and aware of yourself and each situation you are in day, doing that ‘best and highest good’ not out of guilt, but by the deeper yearning we all have for a good life.

Answer:
Again, this “machine” talk is the invention of your own mind. No one here is looking for the kind of master and slave relationship you are talking about.

“These filters are totally not about self-conduct”

What? Are you saying that a woman who has had a several dozen intimate relationships by the time she is 25 is not self-conducting in any way? Please. You are no longer making any sense.

“…not defined by what you did in the past”

What? What YOU DID is not a definition of what YOU DID? At this point, you have removed any doubt that you are merely trying to filibuster, as this is a pure contradiction.

The fall of the human

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

Nobody can complete anybody. That is something only you can do by exercising your own potential. It is soul sucking to be in a codependent situation. Do you still defend this article? Because you make more sense now.

Answer:
It is not clear what you are trying to get at here. You are just repeating what I said about relationships and how they can become dysfunctional in some cases. That was in the context of putting self-help section notions like “soul mate” in perspective.

As far as the article is concerned, it is agnostic to whether or not a relationship is a co-dependent one. It is merely a guideline on what types of behaviour represent red flags as far as “keeper” material is concerned.

As was mentioned above, the article needs no defence, nor have I had to provide much. Most of this post and previous ones were to dismantle the façades that you were creating.

The Price of Dating a Deity

CC (aka you’ve got to be kidding) wrote:

The only reason why I say this mindset means he won’t always be there is because her breakdown might not fit what the author perceives as acceptable, in which case she becomes ‘crazy’ or ‘delusional.’ Especially if she breaks down because she’s tired of him treating her the way he does, and challenging his idea that he is god and deserves her is too much for him to handle.

Answer:
No. That is really just a bit of back-pedaling. You used the term “broke down” in the same metaphoric sense the article did in the “ride or die” section. It was saying meant as something that life threw at her, and not the literal emotional “break down” or a loss of decorum. You can’t try to change your intentions now, as it was clearly not the case.

This whole “idea that he is god” is your concept. You cannot expect your misconceptions to be defended.