| exclusivity vs. "love" | |
|
+3inkus2000 Jeiro Sijakeuigwan Watermelon 7 posters |
which do you believe? | I believe that you must commit to have truly strong feelings for a person | | 21% | [ 3 ] | I believe that you don't have to commit to have truly strong feelings | | 71% | [ 10 ] | I am not sure | | 7% | [ 1 ] |
| Total Votes : 14 | | |
|
Author | Message |
---|
Guest Guest
| Subject: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:12 am | |
| what do you think?
i know many people that think if you don't commit then you care less about them
exclusivity being
no sexual interaction with any other person no flirting no touching no dating no ********
Last edited by Shabazz Freeman on Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:21 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| |
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 29 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:15 am | |
| What does commit mean does it mean you will never see any other girl because if thats what it is then I pick the 2nd one. Actually no matter what it means i pick that. | |
|
| |
Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:22 am | |
| sorry
i was unclear
exclusivity is what i mean i guess |
|
| |
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 29 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:27 am | |
| Okay but I don't know what that means either. | |
|
| |
Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:30 am | |
| - Quote :
- exclusivity being
no sexual interaction with any other person no flirting no touching no dating no ***** |
|
| |
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 29 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:38 am | |
| Yeah so like what I thought commiting was so I still pick #2. | |
|
| |
Jeiro Sijakeuigwan Experienced Party Member
Posts : 974 Join date : 2008-02-03 Age : 33 Location : The Circle of Flow
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:40 am | |
| I picked the first one. ^^ | |
|
| |
Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:05 am | |
| - Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:
- I picked the first one. ^^
why do you feel that way? just because you have other acquaintances does that make your close friends any less important? |
|
| |
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 29 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 1:07 am | |
| He feels that way because he is being indoctrinated by bourgeois propaganda to give him false consciousness. | |
|
| |
Jeiro Sijakeuigwan Experienced Party Member
Posts : 974 Join date : 2008-02-03 Age : 33 Location : The Circle of Flow
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:35 am | |
| - MarxistFreeman wrote:
- Jeiro Sijakeuigwan wrote:
- I picked the first one. ^^
why do you feel that way?
just because you have other acquaintances does that make your close friends any less important? I feel that way because communist values tell me too. To me, love is a part of communism as it is a part of human nature. On the flip side, humans are like viruses. We live only to reproduce. lawls | |
|
| |
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 29 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:37 am | |
| Communist values are not authoriatarin. Exclusivity is an authoritarian social custom. | |
|
| |
Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:47 am | |
| communists hope to break up the reactionary institute we call "family" |
|
| |
Jeiro Sijakeuigwan Experienced Party Member
Posts : 974 Join date : 2008-02-03 Age : 33 Location : The Circle of Flow
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:50 am | |
| - MarxistFreeman wrote:
- communists hope to break up the reactionary institute we call "family"
But Kenzu said families are communist in nature. Without family, just how will humans exist? *ist shot* | |
|
| |
Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 2:58 am | |
| Kenzu was wrong *gasp*
Soup kitchens Healthcare Childcare and the abolishment of economic elements in marriage
are key in destroying the reactionary nature of monogamy and the "traditional family"
everyone says it takes a village but no one adheres to that
cause it ain't profitable |
|
| |
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 29 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:12 am | |
| Kenzu was actually sort of right in that families cooperate and care for each other (ideally), but more often than not the parents are authoritarian and always they have power over their children, which is not communistic. | |
|
| |
Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:19 am | |
| the fact that only your biological parents can properly give care is not communistic as you like to call it |
|
| |
Watermelon ZEK in siberian gulag
Posts : 2650 Join date : 2008-04-05 Age : 29 Location : springfield, il
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 3:26 am | |
| Yes it is. Communistic means resembling communism. Parents provide for their kids even though there is no reward for doing so. This is like communism so it is communistic. It is not communistic that parents are evil. There are communistic and not communistic parts. | |
|
| |
Jeiro Sijakeuigwan Experienced Party Member
Posts : 974 Join date : 2008-02-03 Age : 33 Location : The Circle of Flow
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:28 am | |
| - MarxistFreeman wrote:
Soup kitchens Healthcare Childcare and the abolishment of economic elements in marriage
are key in destroying the reactionary nature of monogamy and the "traditional family" Well, I can understand that families today are unfortunately like the above in capitalist states, but some familes remain commited to each other despite the system... OMG. Comrade Emy is half-right! D: It's the end of the world!!! XD | |
|
| |
Guest Guest
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:45 am | |
| the problem is that reactionary values are instilled upon the family
and reinforces the oppression of women, children, and feeds the male chauvinist attitude and assertion over society.
Combined with the economic conditions of capitalism and the family values that are perpetuated to reinforce bourgeois rule makes it a terrible institute |
|
| |
inkus2000 New Party Member
Posts : 541 Join date : 2008-03-31 Location : I woke up this morning and I dont know where I am.
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:14 am | |
| if you have strong feelings youl prob feel more like committing
Fight the urge!!! fight it! | |
|
| |
solpacvoicis Young Komsomol Member
Posts : 136 Join date : 2008-05-18
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Wed May 21, 2008 5:29 am | |
| - Shabazz Freeman wrote:
everyone says it takes a village but no one adheres to that
felt like i should jump in at that part.. you will be raised by a "village", so to speak, no matter what, right? i mean...as long as you aren't thrown into the woods the day you are born and by some extraordinary means, survive, you are going to be interacting with people. Interacting with people as a child means learning. That means you are being raised by those around you, in that they are preparing you for your life ahead...whether or not this is to your benefit is a different matter. so...family, in a communal sense, will always exist... and there will always be at least one main figure that is guiding you, which, if you take the most stripped down family, the single parent, then...in that sense, family will always survive the society in communism protecting the family will help to weed out the bad parents ^_^ all that said...i think committing is probably optimal, since it keeps complications out of the way...however, whatever is comfortable for all parties involved, is good, yeah? | |
|
| |
Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Wed May 20, 2009 1:48 pm | |
| Thread necromancy, cause this one's interesting. | |
|
| |
CoolKidX Chairman of the Supreme Council
Posts : 4639 Join date : 2008-02-14 Location : Netherlands
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Wed May 20, 2009 5:14 pm | |
| "I believe that you don't have to commit to have truly strong feelings."
Last edited by CoolKidX on Wed May 20, 2009 8:21 pm; edited 1 time in total | |
|
| |
Tyrong Kojy Member of the Supreme Council
Posts : 2142 Join date : 2008-04-11 Age : 37 Location : Canada
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Wed May 20, 2009 8:04 pm | |
| - Quote :
- no touching
Not even hugging? I hug all my friends! | |
|
| |
Zealot_Kommunizma Hero of the World Republic
Posts : 5413 Join date : 2007-12-06 Age : 35 Location : Mexico/Russia/Worl
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" Wed May 20, 2009 10:35 pm | |
| While it's true that comitment is not necesary to have strong feelings I do consider comitment important for my relationships.
As for the rest, my premise is simple: so long as all the parties involved in a relationshipare informed about all the implications of the relationship and are consenting, it's ok.
In my relationship I require a lot from the other party(ies) (in plural as my ideal relationship would be to have two female bisexuals that are couple as my partners) and it includes comitment understood as no flirting, no sexual intercourse with others, no sexual interest in others, no erotic interest in or contact with others, no greater intimacy with others than the one had with me, being willing to spend 1,440 minutes a day with me and unable to spend less than 960, no secrets. And all this not as something forced upon them or accepted forcibly and/or as part of a negotiation but because so they enjoy and want it, otherwise it's undesirable for me.
As for hugging and even kissing on the cheek, that's fine by me. | |
|
| |
Sponsored content
| Subject: Re: exclusivity vs. "love" | |
| |
|
| |
| exclusivity vs. "love" | |
|