I would like you to join me in my quest to put right sayings that, over the years, have become twisted around until they no longer make sense. That itself is not terrible... if people would only stop using them once they no longer make sense!!!
All I want is for you to start helping me spread the proper versions, so our grandkids won't think we're a generation of morons, senseless saying speakers... and to come up with at least one more example of your own here.
Here's one example: the proof is in the pudding. See what I mean? What purpose could it possible serve to say that to anyone? It certainly won't make you seem intelligent (though that's part of the purpose of using a witticism). Now... try the right version instead: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Now that makes perfect sense, and can be very useful at times.
Here's another: He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Well of course if I have cake, I'm perfectly able to eat it whenever I choose. The correct version, is: he wants to eat his cake, and have it too. Ah... you are starting to feel this along with me now, aren't you?
One more from me, and it's your turn: Money is the root of all evil. The correct version is: the love of money is the root of all evil. There's nothing wrong at all with money!
I look forward to your help, and to hearing your pet peeves in this area.
If you've read the book, it makes things much simpler... do we only experience emotional pain because of the way we think (is pain always self-inflicted)? Or can others do or say things that cause pain, the way pain can be inflicted on us physically (without our input).
The reason I ask, is that it's easy for others to behave any way they want to and when you're suffering as a result, tell you it's all in the way you're receiving it or responding to it that's giving you grief... and he or she has nothing to do with it.
When you feel pain in a relationship, is it all because of the way you’re looking at things?
Don Miguel Ruiz, in his book entitled “The Four Agreements” tells us that thousands of years ago the Toltec were known throughout southern Mexico as "women and men of knowledge." Anthropologists have spoken of the Toltec as a nation or a race, but, in fact, the Toltec were scientists and artists who formed a society to explore and conserve the spiritual knowledge and practices of the ancient ones. They came together as masters (naguals) and students at Teotihuacan, the ancient city of pyramids outside Mexico City known as the place where "Man Becomes God."
Sr. Ruiz, through this book, shares with us the five core philosophies that summarize “ancient Toltec wisdom”. One of these is “Don’t Take Anything Personally”. Personal importance (or taking things personally), Ruiz says, is the maximum expression of selfishness because we make the assumption that everything is about "me."
Ruiz goes on to say that when you take things personally, then you feel offended, and your reaction is to defend your beliefs and create conflicts. You make something big out of something so little, because you have the need to be right and make everybody else wrong. If someone gives you an opinion and says, "Hey, you look so fat," don't take it personally, because the truth is that this person is dealing with his or her own feelings, beliefs, and opinions. That person tried to send poison to you and if you take it personally, then you take that poison and it becomes yours. Taking things personally makes you easy prey. It is not what I am saying that is hurting you; it is that you have wounds that I touch by what I have said. You are hurting yourself.
Think back to the last disagreement you had with a co-worker, a sibling, a partner, a child or a parent. Are you able to remember that moment when things shifted from trying to express yourself to trying to defend yourself?
I just reacted a little defensively on another site after being accused of plagiarism. Was that because I thought it might be true… or that I knew it wasn’t true, but didn’t want anyone else thinking it might be? Or was it that this fellow sailed right over my point as if I didn’t have one? Maybe there was something in his general approach that triggered my response, and it had nothing all to do with his argument.
It seems clear that depending on my reaction to any of the above points, I could end up ‘hurting myself’, but aren’t relationships about both people? Is it possible for someone to hurt you independently of how you percieve the action?
If you touch something hot enough, it will hurt. Your flesh will burn, it will smell, it will eventually scar. That’s not all in your mind.
Can certain words or intentions from others hurt you in ways that are beyond your control?
I think the boldness of the approach, 'can I flirt with you?' can be either exciting or off-putting... depending on your impression of the individual.
If it's from someone I find attractive, it would probably make my heart skip a beat. I would likely respond along the lines of, "Well, that depends... have you got more in mind than just batting your eyelashes at me?"
If it's from someone I don't find attractive (remembering that attraction is a completely relative and mostly individual thing) I would probably thank her for the compliment and make up an excuse for having to leave.
@A_broad_abroad I apologise for not addressing your earlier post more openly. It was very articulate and I know a lot of readers will clearly identify with it. I guess I’ve been mulling over this part:
“I USED to be QUITE pushy years ago...and it came from exactly what I described in a previous post...I HAD TO BE TO SURVIVE.” “PUSHY will get the job done in a pinch.”
I mentioned earlier that as much as you say it’s necessary for survival, being pushy isn’t conducive to long-term relationships. I’m thinking now that I’m not so sure it’s necessary for survival, either. Strong women survive by making sure no one craps on them, or pushes them into something that isn’t right for them or their children. Not allowing pushy people to overpower or control us is, at least the way I see it, hugely different than being pushy yourself. Forcing others to see it your way, or to do it your way (being pushy) is about something different than survival... as we’ve been learning in this thread.
So I guess I’m saying that on the one hand, I’m not sure you were pushy, just because you strongly resisted people from time to time... and on the other hand, if you *were* pushy, I’m not convinced you needed to be, in spite of the circumstances.
“Your original question asked for insight into WHY a woman may be pushy...or maybe even HOW she got that way...I believe that question has been answered.” “Your insight is here, friend...you just have to absorb it.”
I have both appreciated and absorbed what has been put across so far. The question has certainly been answered, and very aptly, from a few angles... which is not to say there aren’t other perspectives still out there. You don’t suppose Einstein got to the theory of special relativity but stopping at the obvious, do you?
So, I’m picking up that it’s been decided there’s nothing more to say on the subject?
@taboo, you know I also appreciated your eloquence here... as I expressed privately in an email.
See, I don’t get this. These are nice people (meaning I don’t think that their behaviour is deliberate or malicious) and I even asked them nicely to refrain from it when I started the thread. I knew it would happen because most, if not all, of my threads have ended with people chatting, rather than with people discussing the topic... that’s why I rarely post on this site anymore.
They must really not understand that most people aren’t going to bother reading pages of “hi, how are you” and “I’m going to the fridge now”... even when they know and like the people who are chatting.
When you go to a thread about abusive husbands, you’ve got your reasons for being there. You want to see how others feel about the subject, and maybe pick up a few pointers. I think they should be emailing each other to chat, or using a chat thread.
I don’t want to be unkind, but there’s got to be some way to minimize this kind of thing. I’m starting a thread about it (just in case I’m tilting at windmills).
General McArthur, it’s said, was fond of laying a piece of string out on a table, when asked about leadership. He would get someone to push the string, which of course would behave erratically and pile up on itself. Then he would grab an end of the string, and lead it in a nice straight line, anywhere he pulled.
“Describe what you mean by pushy?” OK, Let’s have some fun here. How about, “quit complainin bout women seraphim you are no angel and every victim needs a criminal....you obviously find yours!” This seems to have an ‘I will brook no nonsense’ tone, and leaves little room for rationale discussion. : )
“good afternoon from pakistan what is on your agenda today seraphim!” The agenda is to have some spirited discussion about the fine, sometimes indiscernible, line between a strong woman and a pushy one. I hadn’t though about this, but I suppose one objective might be to allow victim types a chance to see more clearly how they allow themselves to be trapped. Another might be to present some interesting insight into the subject, for those strong women who haven’t yet succumbed to the dark side.
Women see being strong as being independent, self-sufficient, someone who knows what she wants and who’s unwilling to settle for less... someone with clear boundaries firmly in place.
Most men recognise those qualities, but also experience it as being controlling, unwilling (or unable) to admit she’s wrong or that there are other equally valid ways of looking at life... someone who maybe plays minds games, and plays them well.
Being a guy, I have to admit there are things about strong women I really admire, but I’ve noticed a disturbing tendency for strong women to be pushy... which tends also to destroy the intimacy in relationships. By pushy, I mean hammering away at something based on the assumption it’s the right thing to do, until you force it to happen.
So I want to know how an intelligent woman would see an advantage in pushing her partner into *anything*... whether it’s folding the laundry properly, or taking that new promotion he’s not comfortable with. Does it confirm that she’s right, and therefore superior in some way? Is there some sort of satisfaction in being able to work a man like a puppet? Is this behaviour really about being weak... attempting to compensate for feelings of inadequacy?
And yes, I know men can be pushy. I’m not that type, so I’m specifically interested here in what drives pushy women.
Oh, and can I ask a favour? Please try not to get into fun banter between you and another member in this thread. When people see that, they figure the thread's now about you two, and they won't post... so everyone loses the benefit of what might have been more interesting outlooks and advice. Thanks!
“why is it sooooooooo difficult to find a single guy, that does'nt have a psyco ex, or has issues with his ex wow some of the stories,... am I dreaming or does this man really exsist ?”
I’m confused. You ask this question, and then when you hear from men who have no baggage or issues with their exes, you respond with “but where are the got it together men ?”.
What is it you’re looking for, exactly? I mean, if you’re talking specifically about trying to find a guy who doesn’t have a psycho ex (as I don’t) and who gets along with his exes just fine (as I do) what would I need to do to qualify as a “got it together” man in your eyes?
It feels like we (guys) can be exactly what you say you're looking for... only that's not really what you're looking for.
It's pretty hard for us to meet that kind of standard, dontcha think? I'm guessing you'll be looking for a loooong time.
So, this is good. I'm getting something I wouldn't have expected. So far no one cares that this guy is hitting on her (that's not seen as negative) which means it's all about what he does after 'first contact'. Plus, he's getting numbers... without even asking? I'm likin' it.
Hey Honey... as you can imagine, the New Orleans thing took a turn for the worse, since it'll be at least a year before it's published and my guys were supposed to be going down there for fun. Nice to be back. Thanks!
I read your ad. The fact that shared your “unusual body composition” in such a public place got me thinking right away that: a) you think looks is mostly what men are going to be attracted to you for, and b) maybe, because you’re so focused on looks, you would expect a lot from me in that category.
But then I read the rest of your ad. My Dear, you seem very attractive... inside and out. I say that, of course, without seeing a picture... which is important, from my perspective. I’m not going to establish a connection with someone only to discover once I start getting excited about her, that she just doesn’t have the kind of look that grabs me (been there, done that... it doesn’t work, long term).
Bottom line? Besides the picture, the only thing that would keep me from finding you interesting enough to contact would be the fact that you live so far away. Poor me!
(I would lose the “body composition” thing from your profile, though. Its pretty intimate, and that kind of thing should be shared only with those who you already know care about you and respect you... just one guy’s opinion).
By the way, there are lots of people (and some men among them) who are not at all superficial. : )
"But should she be embarrased to meet me given her unfortuante condition at this moment?"
I'm a bit confused about what you're asking. Do you want to know how long to exchange calls before meeting? Or do you want to know if you should meet her for the first time when she's laid up.
My advice on the first is to suggest a meeting when it feels completely comfortable to you to do so. If she's not ready, she'll say so, and you’ll still be fine, normally. If it scares her off, then the two of you aren't really in tune anyway, in spite of this 'first flush' of excitement.
On the second point, people usually feel their least social when they’re laid up (if for no other reason than because they’re unable to keep up their appearance the way they normally do). It would be a very rare women who would see meeting you for the first time under these conditions as a positive thing.
So you’re in a nightclub with a couple of girlfriends. You’re there to just get out for a night, to let down your hair, and maybe dance a little... you’re not ‘looking for love'.
A good-looking guy suddenly appears next to you. Over the next fifteen minutes or so as he talks to you, you notice he has a good sense of humour, is intelligent... and he seems pretty focused on you. You’re not feeling any sparks or chemistry, but you *are* enjoying his company. Now remember... you’re not looking for love:
Are you inclined to include him in your night out... to ‘make friends’ with him... or do you just carry on with your girlfriends (being polite enough not to snub him)?
But I’ve seen tons of profiles where people state specifically that they want to get married, or at least have a long-term relationship. This makes sense on the surface... on some level it’s probably the biggest reason for us being here, and it’s probably why internet dating sites are exploding.
But I’ve got a struggle. On the one hand, I believe very strongly in ‘visualizing’... picturing exactly what I want so as to attract it, or at least to construct my thinking in a way that gets me unconsciously working toward it.
On the other hand, I’m wondering how much “looking” for something can prevent us from finding it.
When we’re so focussed on finding that four-leaf clover, don’t we miss a lot of other cool things growing in the grass... things that might be prettier, feel nicer, be ‘good for us’? In the same way the ‘lucky’ four-leaf clover is a perception created by society, the image of ‘the one’ we are so intent upon materializing in our lives is just a perception too... and one that may not even exist in reality.
I might overlook the perfect woman for me by being too selective. But I’ll probably keep attracting the ones that aren’t right for me unless I become very specific.
Oh wait... you probably meant flirting oneliners, like: Do you believe in love at first sight, or should I walk by again? Yup, I've heard of them... never use them though. How about you?
Hmm... I guess I’m not much of a flirt, regardless. I have to be in just the right mood to feel sassy (rather than shy) with someone I’m attracted to. But if I were going to flirt, what would be a better place than here? I mean, it’s wide open, right? What’s the worst anyone’s going to do here... publicly chastise me?
Someone on this site told me a while back that she was amazed I hadn’t sent anyone else a flower. I thought about that, and realised that I rarely do because it seems bold somehow. Isn’t that silly!? What’s so bold about sending a one-dimensional profile of someone a fake flower? So today I took the plunge, and sent someone a flower... someone I have had no contact with of any kind before.
Anyway, I guess the reason I don’t flirt here is also because when I witness it, it doesn’t come across as genuine ‘flirting’ (i.e. humorously suggestive of something meaningfully deeper) but as friendly banter... and I don’t feel like I know anyone well enough yet.
I think a pic makes a huge difference to the whole process. There are a couple of women I’ve corresponded with who I enjoy emailing, and it eventually gets to the point where we’re talking about meeting... but I still haven’t got a clue what she looks like! That pretty much qualifies as a blind date... but without the advantage of having someone who knows you having set it up. :(
It’s true that there’s no real way to tell from a pic what the person will look like when you meet. It’s also true that looks aren’t everything... but does it make sense to pretend they don’t matter at all?
Here’s the way I see it. If we’re holding back on a pic because we’re afraid the other person will shy away when he or she sees it, we’re further ahead to get that out of the way before meeting anyway. If there’s going to be a disconnect over looks, that sort of thing is much more uncomfortable in person.
If we’re holding back because we don’t want 2000 emails in our inbox, then it’s completely appropriate and sensible to send a pic along in an email, once we feel a connection.
If we just don’t have a pic, then we’re not serious about making a romantic connection... we’re just here to make friends. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that... and Connecting Singles is a great place to do it.
But once we make a connection, and we think we want to pursue it... I think we owe it to ourselves, and to the other person, to provide a picture.
“Put your lips on mine, while the music blends... we’re no longer strangers, now we’re more than friends.” The Drifters, “Dance With Me”, circa 1960
The couple obviously just met, but I’ve found myself in this position (in spite of the fact that I normally take things very slowly). When someone attractive kisses me while we’re dancing, it’s pretty difficult not to get caught up in it.
Question #1: If we’re interested in a relationship (rather than a one-night-stand) should we allow ourselves to get carried away by our emotions.... let them lead us to wherever on that first encounter? Or should we assume this is just something in the moment, get her (or for the ladies, his) number, et cetera, and build things slowly?
Question #2: Is this real (is it romance) or just the drinks, loosening us up?
Sorry, I'm a pretty pathetic poet (hey, was that alliteration?)
Solitare... you have a very interesting mind (believe it or not, one of the women I was corresponding with mentioned you, for that reason)... and we both know this reflects on your ‘heart’ too.
I’m with OT on " whatever one occupy's one's mind with , one can create ! " except the way I’m accustomed to hearing it is “Thoughts held in mind, produce after their kind.”
I’m guessing you meant they *don’t* rush things. : )
There’s an element no one’s picked up on yet, and it’s the reason Harrison Ford and Sean Connery are still box office draws. Certain older men give women a huge sense of security... the feeling that as long as she’s with this guy, she’ll never have anything to worry about.
That’s extremely important to women, and younger men just can't cut it there.
But something I'm picking up here is that some people think they’re wiser *because* they’re more sceptical. I disagree.
I think that to experience love the way most of us want to, we have to leave ourselves open and receptive... which means vulnerable. Not guarded, not defensive, not jaded or sceptical.
I am wiser. That’s a good thing. I am sceptical... that gets in the way of what I want.
Seraphim Forum Posts (62)
fix the saw
Hi there,I would like you to join me in my quest to put right sayings that, over the years, have become twisted around until they no longer make sense. That itself is not terrible... if people would only stop using them once they no longer make sense!!!
All I want is for you to start helping me spread the proper versions, so our grandkids won't think we're a generation of morons, senseless saying speakers... and to come up with at least one more example of your own here.
Here's one example: the proof is in the pudding. See what I mean? What purpose could it possible serve to say that to anyone? It certainly won't make you seem intelligent (though that's part of the purpose of using a witticism). Now... try the right version instead: the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Now that makes perfect sense, and can be very useful at times.
Here's another: He wants to have his cake and eat it too. Well of course if I have cake, I'm perfectly able to eat it whenever I choose. The correct version, is: he wants to eat his cake, and have it too. Ah... you are starting to feel this along with me now, aren't you?
One more from me, and it's your turn: Money is the root of all evil. The correct version is: the love of money is the root of all evil. There's nothing wrong at all with money!
I look forward to your help, and to hearing your pet peeves in this area.