Conference quark::mennotes

    Of course, the reverse is also true.  Many men judge women by their
    experiences with other women.  It's a general thing - when faced with
    something unknown, we rely on the known to define what is expected.
    The key is to stay together long enough to push aside the past,
    though that is not always possible, depending on what's back there.
    
    				Steve

      You get one chance to make a first impression!
      
.0>    Ever notice how women will judge you based on their
.0>    experiences with other men?
      That surely is a good thing. It means that they have given the situation
      a little thought and are not willing to make the same mistake again?

.0>				   Realizing that experience
.0>    is a valuable tool what about giving each individual
.0>    a fresh start?
      My advice to every woman willing to listen woman is that "fresh Start"
      is the *last* thing that she should do. From a specific angle I have
      always wondered why women keep ending up as victim in a relationship. I
      see this as a result of "fresh start syndrome".
      1 A woman is attracted to type of man.
      2 This man mistreats her.
      3 She leaves him.
      4 Attracted to the same kind of man. fresh start, give him a chance!
      5 The same treatment.
      
      Learn syndrome.
      1 The smarter women go from stage 1 -> 3 quickly.
      2 learn from  the experience.
      3 If they see anything which reminds them of the first experience.
      4 Top gear move out fast. 

.1>	Perhaps it depends on what you allow them to see in the
				       >>>>>
.1>	early stages of getting to know them.
      Allow, suggests hide, so what happens when she sees the things that you
      are hiding. One thing people hate is surprises.
.1>						 Should they see
.1>     something about you that they recognize as a problem
.1>	from a previous relationship, there appears suddenly
.1>	an obstacle.
      That surely is a good thing. It means that she breaks off immediately
      and you both save time.
.1>	From my experience the early stages are the time for
.1>	we men to listen carefully, and offer enough to keep
.1>	the woman's interest level stimulated, without revealing
.1>	what might be perceived to be our "prejudices" (lack of
.1>	better word obviously evident here).
      From my experience the early stages it is very important for men to
      behave normal. Any attempt to listen carefully when you are not a good
      listener will blow you out of the water at a later stage when you are
      bursting with your own opinion. And the oposite. For the listener who
      tries to be life and soul of the party.
.1>	Personally, I try to offer the best of polite, caring,
.1>	attentive behavior and take cues from my partner.  Of
.1>	course this does not preclude ensuring that we are
.1>	comfortable with who they are.
      One of lifes big problems is that we are attracted to women who are not
      attracted to us. The quicker men learn to read the signs and stop trying
      to be what they are not, the easier relations will be.
      e.g. A man meets a person who happens to be a woman.
		He wishes to treat her like a woman.
		She wishes to be treated as a person, ESPECIALLY BY HIM.
      If he ignores the chemistry there will be trouble.

.2>    The key is to stay together long enough to push aside the past,
.2>    though that is not always possible, depending on what's back there.
      Attempts to push aside the past is a little like pushing aside porrige
      with your bare hands.

      My comment,
      the sooner men learn to treat women as people first and allow themselves
      to discover the women in them the easier life will be. 
Rgds,

    For both men and women, change of basic habits, like most mortal
    animals, is hard to chance. Whether they are obvious or subliminal
    suggestions. 
    
    I find myself cringing when I see women who have certain habbits. I do
    a turn and run the other way too. Glad that I am, hopefully, wiser than
    I was the first time around.
    
    

.3>      always wondered why women keep ending up as victim in a relationship. 

Of course, there are also men who always play the victim role in relationships.  
To some extent your comments apply to all of us, men and women.

>      Allow, suggests hide, so what happens when she sees the things that you
>      are hiding. One thing people hate is surprises.

I agree mostly, but people who hate surprises should avoid relationships.  
Every human being has an infinite potential for surprising us.  Since I 
cannot reveal all my self in a first impression, I owe it to my self and my
partner to make a conscious choice of what I reveal, and how and when.  I agree 
that if I hide things which will have a serious negative impact on the 
relationship, I am just making trouble for later.

>      From my experience the early stages it is very important for men to
>      behave normal. Any attempt to listen carefully when you are not a good
>      listener will blow you out of the water at a later stage when you are

Again I agree mostly, but we all grow and change.  So "normal" for me will also
change, at least until I am dead.  I don't want to go too far beyond my habits
and experience, but a new relationship is an ideal time to develop new habits
and new experiences.

Being a "good listener" is mostly a matter of skill, which is fairly easy to
learn.  The attitudes of respect and empathy behind the skill are less easy
to learn, but until we learn and use the skill, it is easy to assume that
we don't have the attitudes.  See _People Skills_ by Robert Bolton for details.

>      Attempts to push aside the past is a little like pushing aside porrige
>      with your bare hands.

A better image might be growing beyond the past.  We all do this, as long as 
we are alive.

>      the sooner men learn to treat women as people first and allow themselves
>      to discover the women in them the easier life will be. 

Just a quibble, I think women are people.  So I try to treat them as I try to
treat male people, with empathy and respect.

    
    This is another example of the difference between the mental and
    emotional parts of our being, and how strongly we are governed by the
    emotional part of ourselves even when then emotional part may not be
    hitting on all four cylinders of reality.  Being governed by the
    emotional part has been strongly encouraged over the last few decades
    ("well how do you feeeel about that", or we had to be "in love" for a
    relationship to work).  Having gone through a period of my life where
    how I felt about something was significantly different than what I
    _knew_ it to be, I believe I have a pretty good understanding now about
    how it works.  It's a bit difficult to explain, though. I also have a
    good understanding about how incredibly difficult changing how you
    _feel_ about something can be.  Even when you know what is going on.  

    Although, I  am not advocating a return to that method, there is
    something to be said for arranged marriages if the goal is indeed
    marriage.  Arranged marriages tend to be as, if not more, successful
    (probably depending on the definition of successful) as any other 
    method.  Partially because of the society where this takes place and
    it's view of marriage, but also because those arranging the marriage
    will usually try to take the best non-emotional interests of the person
    in question (something often not taken into consideration by the person
    themself).  Whereas, in marriages "for love" the "in love" part tends
    to wear off eventually, then you are left to deal with he other stuff
    anyway.  Often a nasty shock to one or both participants.   Also 
    partially because in a arranged-marriage society the participants are 
    more locked into the marriage and will try harder to make the marriage 
    work. 
    
    fred();

    re .7, I'd rather be married for a few years to somebody I love, than
    spend my entire life with somebody I don't love.  My marriage only
    lasted for 12 1/2 yrs, but for the first 7 yrs. we were romantically in
    love and very happy.  Looking back, I wouldn't give up those 7 yrs. for
    a lifetime with somebody that I never loved.  (Of course, the ideal
    would be a lifetime with somebody I was in love with.)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    re .8
    
>    re .7, I'd rather be married for a few years to somebody I love, than
>    spend my entire life with somebody I don't love.  My marriage only
    
    Who says that you'd spend your entire life with someone you didn't
    love?  Why would/should arranged-marriage == no-love?   
    
    fred();

    re .9, I'm talking about romantic love, which also includes physical
    attraction.  I'm talking about learning to love someone, as a friend or
    brother, overtime just because they turn out to be a decent person. 
    That's nice in friends, but doesn't quite cut it when it comes to
    husbands.  
    
    I couldn't imagine marrying somebody just because someone else (like my
    parents when I was 18, for example) decided they would be a good match
    for me.  The only reason that I could ever imagine marrying somebody is
    if I realized I was madly in love with them.  Otherwise, why put up
    with the hassles of living with somebody else.
    
    The thought of unromantic marriage turns my stomach.  I'd rather be
    free than tied to somebody I didn't have the hots for.
    
    Lorna
    

    re .10, my second sentence should have been "I'm *NOT* talking about
    learning to love someone, etc."
    
    Sorry.
    
    Lorna
    

Reply 7 is an interesting turn in the discussion.

.7>    This is another example of the difference between the mental and
>    emotional parts of our being

The complexity of thinking and feeling can certainly add to the confusion, but
a pure rational thinker could still show the problem in .0  There's a 
fundamental conflict between past experience and present experience.  When a
rational thinker first experiences a cute black and white striped creature
in the woods, the response may be based on past experience with kittens.  When
the same rational thinker next meets a black and white cat, the response may
be based on the experience with the skunk.  After a while the rational thinker
learns discernment from experiences with cats and skunks, and talking with 
others about their experiences.  The problem comes when a rational response
to one set of experiences cuts the thinker off from the further experiences
which might correct it.

Emotions like fear and disgust often add to the rational response, making the
correcting experience even more unlikely.

That's pretty theoretical, so I'll balance it with practical advice for Jim:
When you meet someone like that, back off and give them a chance to see that
you're not a skunk.  If they can't see it, move on.

.7>    something to be said for arranged marriages if the goal is indeed
>    marriage.  Arranged marriages tend to be as, if not more, successful
>    (probably depending on the definition of successful) 

This is the key point, as Lorna's replies show.  Her goal is not marriage
but marriage-with-love as a first choice and single life as a second.  So
she would not consider marriage without love as successful.  And by this 
definition, we would probably find that most (but not all) arranged marriages
are unsuccessful.

There is nothing rational or irrational about a goal like Lorna's.  Often 
we can show that some goal or value is rationally derived from another, but
if we continue the reasoning, we quickly reach goals or values which cannot
be derived from anything.  In some cases we may show by reason that a person 
has several goals or values which conflict with each other.  It doesn't sound 
like that is the case with Lorna.

        re .12

>she would not consider marriage without love as successful.  And by this 
>definition, we would probably find that most (but not all) arranged marriages
>are unsuccessful.

    Again I ask to define _love_.  My point about arranged-marriage or
    marriage-for-"love" is that all too often infatuation is mistaken for
    love.  Even eating inch-thick char-broiled t-bone every night will
    become common-place eventually.  Sooner or later, both
    marriage-for-love or arranged-marriage comes to the same point.   That
    of having to deal with the other stuff.  In he end, it's how you deal
    with the other stuff that will determine a successful marriage.

>There is nothing rational or irrational about a goal like Lorna's.  Often 
>we can show that some goal or value is rationally derived from another, but
>if we continue the reasoning, we quickly reach goals or values which cannot
>be derived from anything.  In some cases we may show by reason that a person 
>has several goals or values which conflict with each other.  It doesn't sound 
>like that is the case with Lorna.

    Nearly all reports that I have seen (no I didn't think I'd have to
    quote them chapter and verse when I read them, and it's been a few
    years, so I don't have the exact "documentation") show that
    arranged-marriage is indeed successful.  The reason for that is that
    being married and staying married is a priority for the participants.
    In Lorna's case  being married is apparently not a priority.  "Love"
    is a priority.  As I've stated before, that type of love _cannot_
    last.   It has to evolve into the longer type of love ( the same goes
    for both types of marriage ) or the relationship will fail.

    Again this more of a critique on how we choose our mates than 
    on the benefits of arranged-marriage.  

    fred();

    re .13, so what if a relationship doesn't last forever?  To me, the
    priority is that it's good for as long as it does last.  I will never
    consider 7 yrs. of love & happiness a failure.
    
    Lorna
    

	.13:	
	>it's how you deal
    	>with the other stuff that will determine a successful marriage

	I agree, wholeheartedly. 

	I don't really know if the "being madly in love" type of loving can 
	actually turn into the "loving" type of love; I suspect that they're
	too much different. But I think that the "loving" type of love
	has to be there, for a relationship to work long-term. Being in love,
	the physical attraction, the excitement, is very, very nice, and
	I'd surely think twice about a potential intimate relationship that 
	was entirely lacking in this dimension. But I don't believe that 
	physical attraction alone, or being in love/infatuation, is sufficient 
	to sustain a relationship over time.

	There's a very interesting book called "We" (author is, I think,
	Robert Anderson...memory is a little foggy on that point), which
	deals with the issue of "being in love" and "loving." The author's
	thesis in general terms is that "being in love" is a state of
	infatuation, where the love object is regarded as in some way
	completing the lover. The separateness of the two individuals gets
	lost as they try to submerge in one another. As such, this 
	relationship is necessarily self-limiting; no one can complete 
	another person. 

	Loving, on the other hand, is a conscious choice, a decision to 
	act in a loving	manner or with love, hopefully clear-eyed. 
	(Scott Peck also deals with this issue in his newest book.) 
	
	Lynn

    

    re .14

    >    re .13, so what if a relationship doesn't last forever?  To me, the

    I think there's a lot to be said about the benefits of marriages
    lasting.  Especially when there are children.  I can't imagine being
    in a marriage where physical gratification was the only goal/benefit.
    Not that physical gratification isn't nice.  I wouldn't want to be
    in a marriage without it either.  But a good marriage is so much
    _more_.  In order to achieve that, marriage itself has to be enough
    of a goal to carry you over the rough spots.  There is also the
    problem of choosing the right "other" that has "the right stuff".
    Choosing that mr/miss right often gets clouded by infatuation.
    
    fred();

    to .14
    You are right on target! a marriage of self-gratification cannot
    last... infatuation does not have a long life. A long lasting marriage
    has certainly tender moments, it also has a strong commitment and
    usually more "love-giving" than "taking"  and that's the beauty of it!
    
    Physical beauty lasts too little to base our lives/future on it alone,
    and after it goes... what is left? there's certainly -MORE- to life
    than that.

In a recent article in Time magazine the "LOVE" experience was reduced to
a chemical process. In the article it gave specific names and results of
chemicals released by the body during attraction, physical contact and
long term relationship. Although I personally feel that love is also a
state of mind the article was very specific in the ways human chemistry
is involved in attraction and the chemicaly induced desire to procreate.
The article also gave examples of how in the animal world after the
procreation phase is completed the parents often part to find new mates
thus mixing up the gene pool. In the case of long term relationships there
was another chemical called endorphans which scientists beleived could keep
the couples together longer after childrearing. These endorphans can be
released by mere close comfort of each other. Endorphans can also be released
during lovemaking and afterwards and this chemical can cause a peace and
tranquility effect keeping the couple together for life. So is love just
a drug? and if so a conscious effort by two committed spouses could infact
keep the love drugs flowing over a lifetime.

 Neil....  

re several previous:

Several noters express goals and values which are different from Lorna's.
That's fine with me, but please don't make it sound like you're right and
she's wrong.  There is no right or wrong at this level of discussion.

.18> So is love just a drug?

I don't know, and the evidence in .18 does not help me understand.

Assume first that love is just a drug.  Then given time we can identify the 
chemicals involved and determine the effect they have on our bodies.

Now assume that love is not just a drug, that it involves some mental,
emotional or even spiritual processes.  Because love ultimately affects our
bodies, it must at some point cause chemical processes.  Then given time we
can identify the chemicals involved and determine the effect they have
on our bodies.

The fact that we are beginning to identify a few chemicals is consistent
with both answers, so it doesn't help answer the question.  I suspect that 
there is no "scientific" way to answer that question.

> and if so a conscious effort by two committed spouses could infact
> keep the love drugs flowing over a lifetime.

We know that there are long-term loving relationships, and that they usually
report that conscious effort was required.  I assume that a suitable blood
test would show different chemistry for satisfied and dissatisfied people.
If it helps you to think of love in terms of chemistry, that's fine.  
Whatever works for you.

    
    re .19
    
>re several previous:
>
>Several noters express goals and values which are different from Lorna's.
>That's fine with me, but please don't make it sound like you're right and
>she's wrong.  There is no right or wrong at this level of discussion.
    
    and vice-versa.
    
    fred();

 Love is a Drug?

 I found the article interesting in that it gave scientific data on
 chemicals produced by the body in the attraction through physical
 relation phases and long term companoionship of humans. We all know how
 the bodies chemical system affects us in anger, competition, strenuous
 exercise and stress. It was interesting reading to see what chemicals are
 involved in what is considered the "LOVE" or physical attraction process.
 The information I presented is by no means complete and I certainly don't
 think that we as humans are ruled only by our bodies chemicals. I do feel
 that there is a lot of things we don't understand about ourselves and how
 our bodies chemistry affects our thinking and vice versa. If you know anyone
 who has a body chemistry abnormality you can see how it can affect their moods
 and their state of mind depending on the chemical imbalance. As far as long term
 partners I agree that consciuos effort and understanding is extremely important
 and consequently there may be a chemical result of this conscious unconditional
 love which maybe the glue which bonds the couple together for life. Unfortunately
 the chemicals released earlier in life during the reproductive years could
 possibly be the solvent that loosens the bond between couples that do not have
 the mental relationship needed to withstand or overide their chemical dependancy
 on what the article calls the "LOVE DRUGS".

 Neil...
 

Some animals do mate for life.  I used to raise homing pigeons.  Pigeons mate
for life.  If there isn't forced separation (by humans) or death, a pigeon keeps
its mate for life.

If mate dies, pigeons go through several days of mourning (yes, they actually
sound like mourning doves)

/Eric