A philosophy for arguing with wives

[henry quirk]

"My advice for a man on the street is to stare for as long as he can, at woman, man, girl, boy, infant -- until they meet his eye or look away. How does that strike you?"

If a woman is showing the goods, I openly look. If she objects, I ask her why she's showin' off the goods if she dislikes the attention?

The rest: have to be doin' sumthin' to pique my interest

[Walker]

Walker --- I am glad you agree that men are in dire straits when it comes to arguing rationally with their wives. But you are avoiding the issue: it’s not when you want to do something yourself that the problem arises, it is when you want her to do something for you. Come out to diner with you, for example, when she’s feeling like staying at home.

In an open, non-manipulative relationship, the husband evolves to either unstated preferences, stated preferences unattached to desire, or no preferences. This is a result of setting the other free by cherishing the other as much if not more than oneself.

At that point your wife knows all of your preferences anyway, along with the temperature of your attachment to any particular preference. If she then denies your preference, then her reasons rather than a conflict with you become her own spiritual evolution towards cherishing you as much, if not more than herself, and in time you can trust that her judgment considers more than you know, since she is not you. Maybe she knows you aren't superman and are not immune to the effects of tucking into yet another fatty T-bone.

At this point the marriage has synergized into something composed of, but also other than, each individual which still exists as about a 60% shadow of what was before the evolution that fed ego to the vow.

[Duncan Butlin]

Sir-Sister-of-Suck --- I am very sorry, I am trying to reply to everyone in turn, but somehow I missed you out. Thank you for replying, despite my murky past. As far as me thinking that men desire to be free of women, you have me wrong. I think that MGTOW is a very unnatural movement. Men desire women, and should occasionally desire to control them (when they go wrong). I do not think a man is a complete man until he has taken responsibility for a woman of his own.

I agree that social engineering by the state is very clumsy, but I want us to socially engineer each other -- interfere with each other, love each other. There are very sound evolutionary reasons why instincts to control others evolve far more easily than instincts to control ourselves. Look at a one-year-old baby: he minutely controls his mother, but you could hardly call him very self-controlled.

Pornography. I think many men don’t much feel like sex for a couple of days after a proper orgasm? Not so after masturbation to pornography. I suspect, along with the lust for more porn, is a shunning of real women. You may be immune to this for some reason, or perhaps I have got it wrong. Not sure. Sorry again for forgetting to respond.

henry quirk --- Yes, I agree that one should be easily distracted by someone else who stands out for some reason -- but you had to have your eyes up, looking elsewhere, for something to catch your attention. My stare has only been objected to five or six times in my life, to my knowledge. The worst occasion was a sexy lady in America in 1996, but she relented a few seconds later and came over to talk to me. I want to get this clear, I’m talking about staring constantly at a couple who are talking to each other, for example, for 30 seconds or more. Would you really go that far?

Walker --- It sounds as if you are handing over all control to the wife. No wife is that perfect, so she cannot ‘know all of your preferences’ -- you still need to tell her, sometimes. More importantly, if she ‘denies your preferences’, you say that this, ‘becomes her own spiritual evolution’ -- ‘not a conflict with you’. Again, you are treating the wife as an angel (while the husband is definitely ‘not superman’), and leaving all the decisions to her. Okay, the woman wins most of the time, but occasionally the husband has to tell her what to do. In this way the wife can become nearly perfect.

[Kayla]

"My advice for a man on the street is to stare for as long as he can, at woman, man, girl, boy, infant -- until they meet his eye or look away. How does that strike you?"

If a woman is showing the goods, I openly look. If she objects, I ask her why she's showin' off the goods if she dislikes the attention?

The rest: have to be doin' sumthin' to pique my interest

what do u mean by 'showing goods'?

i live in a rather hot climate and i go for a daily run basically no matter what and dress appropriately for that - shorts and a tanktop or even a halter top - and some guys do see that as deliberately 'showing goods'

a short summer dress can be a practical garment for the weather i have to deal with - i wish there was a similar, acceptable garment for the guys, would make their lives easier - again, some guys see that as 'showing goods'

[henry quirk]

"Yes, I agree that one should be easily distracted by someone else who stands out for some reason"

That's not what I said, Duncan.

#

"I’m talking about staring constantly at a couple who are talking to each other, for example, for 30 seconds or more. Would you really go that far?"

If the couple is doin' nuthin' extraordinary: beyond my noticing they're there, no I won't stare: I got no reason to.

If you're doin' that kinda shit, Duncan (starin' at folks without good reason) you're bein' weird.

##

"what do u mean by 'showing goods'?"

Low-cut, tight, blouse on an impressive bosom; spandex over an impressive keister: two obvious examples.

"some guys do see that as deliberately 'showing goods'"

This is true, but I ain't talkin' about what men do; I'm tellin' Duncan what I do.

You, dressed in shorts and a tank top or even a halter top: I'll notice, mebbe appreciate, but probably I won't stare.

[Walker]

Walker --- It sounds as if you are handing over all control to the wife. No wife is that perfect, so she cannot ‘know all of your preferences’ -- you still need to tell her, sometimes. More importantly, if she ‘denies your preferences’, you say that this, ‘becomes her own spiritual evolution’ -- ‘not a conflict with you’. Again, you are treating the wife as an angel (while the husband is definitely ‘not superman’), and leaving all the decisions to her. Okay, the woman wins most of the time, but occasionally the husband has to tell her what to do. In this way the wife can become nearly perfect.

Naw, I was thinking more in terms of riding the currents of wu wei free of the known.

Look at it this way.

You’re standing next to your car at a highway service plaza on a busy travel day. You would like to make tracks but your wife is strolling around wasting time, enjoying the climate, taking what you consider to be too much time drinking coffee and wandering about, what with so much to do. So, you just let her waste time free of any anxiety that you could have thoughtlessly dumped on her by telling her to hurry. You pass the time by gazing at what reality presents which is a blue sky and people on their journeys. You notice some particular people, for whatever reason, and note the car they are climbing into. Nice car.

When you and your wife do leave a short time later, you are caught up in a traffic jam after a few miles. When you finally inch up to the trouble you see that the car you had noticed leaving the parking lot has been in a bad accident. It’s upside down on the highway.

Had you left the rest stop when you wanted to leave, you both would have been very close to the accident, likely in the accident.

But you weren’t close to it because for some inexplicable reason she dawdled. From your standpoint of non-interference, the impetus for any movement becomes more a matter of joining in a conflict-free flow which subsumes duality through submitting to the proper ordering of priorities. In this case, allowing the uninterrupted enjoyment of her present world took priority over your arbitrary time-table, and this ultimately saved both your hides.

[duszek]

But it might have been just as well the other way round:

because a couple stay longer in a place and relax a gangster or a terrorist shows up and starts shooting at random and they are dead.

We can control a lot of things but most of them we cannot control, like tornados, bad guys, and the like.

It´s not always the wives who are a "nuisance", it can be men who talk for hours on end because they want to hear themselves speak, who want a third ice-cream even though they weight too much, who stick to some useless routines.

[Walker]

But it might have been just as well the other way round:

because a couple stay longer in a place and relax a gangster or a terrorist shows up and starts shooting at random and they are dead.

We can control a lot of things but most of them we cannot control, like tornados, bad guys, and the like.

It´s not always the wives who are a "nuisance", it can be men who talk for hours on end because they want to hear themselves speak, who want a third ice-cream even though they weight too much, who stick to some useless routines.

No, that’s illogical. To be the other way around would have required different conditions for a different outcome, whether or not those conditions are named, or even known.

If you want to try and derive known rules from the unknown and project logical outcomes from that machination, for the purposes of prediction, then you can come up with real silly doozies of hypotheticals that have no bearing on reality.

[Walker]

It’s the quality of the discourse, not the quantity of the chatter.


Bill Burr on women, marriage, and brunch.
(R: language)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imZ52DHBtug

[Duncan Butlin]

henry quirk --- Not quite sure of the difference between, “The rest: have to be doin' sumthin' to pique my interest", and my, "one should be easily distracted by someone else who stands out for some reason". Can you explain? I thought I was just rephrasing.

Staring at people. Ah, I thought you’d find me weird at some point! I really am most unusual, and my eye contact theory upsets people (not when I practice it, but when I tell them what I am up to).

Here’s some reasons why you should stare at people for no reason: to make them feel appreciated, to show you are interested in them. To reassure them you will act with them if something untoward goes off (Erving Goffman: the accordance of civil inattention). There are lots of reasons why you should go poking your nose into other people’s affairs, when they are out in public. They are very often on display -- especially the girls -- hoping to be noticed. The two second test: stare for more than two seconds and they will automatically trust you. Here’s how I put it in my essay, ‘Talking Truthfully’:

“How can it possibly be right to stare at everybody for as long as you dare?, until they avoid or meet your eye? Even at a criminal or the most beautiful young girl? First, it is because anyone who means harm or is thinking of it, cannot stare -- they feel too guilty. That means that when people notice you staring they know beyond doubt (subconsciously) that you are a good person, and that you can be trusted to have their best interests at heart. Second, most people out in public are on display -- they have especially dressed for it -- and it is only right to show them that they are appreciated.”

Walker --- Mr. Walker, what are you thinking of? Not only is your wife an angel, now she’s a soothsayer into the bargain! Do you really believe in such things? I don’t think you do. I think you actually want to confront your wife -- linking to that Bill Burr piece proves as much -- but you just don’t dare, so you make up these incredible stories to distract yourself. Please forgive me if I’ve got it wrong, but that’s how it seems to me.


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

[henry quirk]

"Not quite sure of the difference between, “The rest: have to be doin' sumthin' to pique my interest", and my, "one should be easily distracted by someone else who stands out for some reason". Can you explain? I thought I was just rephrasing."

It's only natural, when entering a room, to 'see' everyone there. If nuthin' unusual is noted, one goes about his business. If sumthin' is unusual, one notes it and perhaps looks longer. If sumthin' unusual happens, it's natural for one's attention to be drawn to it. This, however, is not the same as distraction. Distraction means your concentration is broken. What I'm sayin' is you should be aware of your surroundings no matter what, so you aren't distracted but merely shift your attention when sumthin' happens.

#

"Here’s some reasons why you should stare at people for no reason: to make them feel appreciated, to show you are interested in them. To reassure them you will act with them if something untoward goes off (Erving Goffman: the accordance of civil inattention). There are lots of reasons why you should go poking your nose into other people’s affairs, when they are out in public. They are very often on display -- especially the girls -- hoping to be noticed. The two second test: stare for more than two seconds and they will automatically trust you. Here’s how I put it in my essay, ‘Talking Truthfully’ "

Here's the thing, Duncan: I'm plain-lookin', unimpressive, 'anonymous'...I like it that way...so: you pull that shit with me you may not get the reaction your lookin' for.

That you haven't had to deal with an overtly hostile reaction so far means (1)you've been damned lucky, or (2)I'm in a minority on these kind of things.

[Walker]

Walker --- Mr. Walker, what are you thinking of? Not only is your wife an angel, now she’s a soothsayer into the bargain! Do you really believe in such things? I don’t think you do. I think you actually want to confront your wife -- linking to that Bill Burr piece proves as much -- but you just don’t dare, so you make up these incredible stories to distract yourself. Please forgive me if I’ve got it wrong, but that’s how it seems to me.


My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

You have it wrong, you’re forgiven, that was no story although I made it relateable with the “you” pronoun, Bill Burr is hilarious, and we’ve been married so long that we are in the telepathy realm rather than the confrontational word realm which is the elementary, toddler stage of relationship.

That’s why this is funny. You do think it's just funny and not some message trying to scratch its way out, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_FdncYXRjs


Key on wu wei to get it right.

[Duncan Butlin]

henry quirk --- I like your description of how to behave when entering a room very much, and I think you are right that ‘distraction’ was not quite the right word. What you do as you enter a room is crucial to the following conversations -- you can never fully recover your presence after a spoilt entrance.

On public staring you are in a huge majority -- I’ve never met anyone else who thinks it’s a good idea to stare/gaze at other people -- nevertheless you are wrong. Not wrong in the sense that you are being rude to people; wrong in the sense that things could be so much better.

Even so, I think you must be right about me being lucky: I’ve increasingly flirted with every girl on the planet I’ve encountered, over the last 50 years. I have found that, if it is done elegantly, even accompanying parents, husbands and boyfriends will approve. They take it as a compliment to themselves. In fifty years I’ve never been slapped and I’ve only had three adverse reactions to my most forward behaviour.

Walker --- Thanks for forgiving me. Congratulations on your long marriage -- ours only lasted 22 years. Quite an experience you had with that car accident.

I confess I am guilty: I do think there is a truthful message in what Bill Barr says, but, because it is said jokingly, nobody takes it seriously. Somehow they receive the truth as they listen to him, only to dismiss it by laughing at it. I know I sound like a killjoy, and I can still enjoy a good comedy show like The Big Bang, but even then I see a lot of truth in the relationships portrayed, and wish it could be brought out into the open.

My website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/

[henry quirk]

I see another major difference between us, Duncan, that being: you court attention and I avoid it.

For you: all that staring and flirting is a pleasure and method.

Me: I mostly wanna be left alone.

So: more power to you.

[Duncan Butlin]

henry quirk --- You are so right: I seek attention for myself all the time, as well as give as much as possible to other people. I call it ftfiipws: face-to-face interaction in public with strangers, and I believe it is the pinnacle of human achievement -- at once the most complex yet easiest thing a human can do, once he gets started.

But you yourself are seeking attention to some degree, by posting on this forum -- an electronic version of ftfiipws. And, without the non-verbal communication channels to provide feedback, it is actually more challenging to keep things civil. The electronic version, in other words, is a tougher, degraded medium for ftfiipws, compared to real life.

I am the freak, you are normal. Returning home after work on the train, the last thing people want to do is converse with a stranger. People think how wonderful, now I can relax and read a book, listen to music, etc. Well, I am hoping to change all that, so they see commuting as the most important and interesting part of their day. I know it sounds impossible, but I always found people responded delightfully, when I wore a conversation-starter sweatshirt out in public. Here’s the artwork:

Back of sweatshirt: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... ZjNjVhOWRj
Front of sweatshirt: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid= ... jY3ZWUzYjU


Website: https://sites.google.com/site/suffrageurbutlin/