Харьков Форум
  Харьков Форум > Дневники > LinkDog

Оценить эту запись


Запись от LinkDog размещена 7.10.2019 в 19:59

As a psychotherapist with 30 years' experience, and hundred of clients in "couples therapy", I can tell you for certain that relationships based on this dreamy-eyed notion of altruistic concern for the other, these are the ones that almost invariably fail. It is easy to build trust in a relationship that is based on what each party needs. It is naive to assume that these are mutually exclusive. Even trust itself is overrated and not a prerequisite of a functional relationship. You seem to prefer the word "trust" to the more functional and useful word, "honesty".
The real world does not have an "idea" of sex. It is something that all humans and all animals do. It is only humans that imbue it with some mystical, magical, moralistic, "purposeful" attribute. When you wake up in the morning with an erection, there is no "idea" behind it.

It is a natural disposition of men to want to have sex. We are biologically evolved not simply to have sex, but to have lots of it. From the age of puberty to the expiration of the "positive drive" (around 40), we have the biological capacity to have around six full orgasms a day. That is more than 60,000 of them. We retain the capacity to continue to have ejaculations until our 90s, although the percentage of viable sperm does reduce. The notion of "one man, one woman" is a very recent invention of the modern human. Even in biblical times, men were even expected to have many wives AND concubines. David had over 500. Solomon had over 800. The more righteous that one was, the more wives and lovers.

There is no requirement for sex to be accompanied by intimacy. That is an even more recent invention, from around the late 1800s and the advent of psychoanalysis, which promoted the moralistic stance that sex is not biological but psychological. To date, there has never been a single competent research study that has verified that. People are trained, through the fictions of our times and through the popular social mythologies, to believe that one cannot possible have sex without it "meaning" something, and something of an intimate and emotional nature. Again, there is no evidence to support this, only the minister from their pulpit and the social moralist from their uneducated soap-box telling us that we "should" be feeling a certain way.

Part I: You have hit the nail on the head, as they say. There is no "point" to a relationship or to marriage. Marriage was created as a contract between two fathers (the meaning of "chathan" in the Bible) to secure a relationship between them by giving away the child of one to the child of the other (and in ancient Jewish and Babylonian times it was NOT exclusively one man and one woman). For this reason, to this very day the father still "gives his daughter away" even during our modern wedding. It is the residue of a classical property transfer, because until as recently as the start of the 20th century, a woman was the property of her husband. In some cultures this is still so. This whole thing about a "lifelong partner" is a romantic invention to fulfill a desire that we all have not to be alone in our old age. Whether that is friends, family, associates or a "life partner" is immaterial. My neighbour in my complex is 90, and his wife died over 20 years ago. Despite the creeping onset of dementia, otherwise he is coping with his widowhood very well, by having at least four people A DAY visiting him. Good grief, I am 35 years his junior and I receive fewer visitors than he does! The lack of a marriage partner (and of children) is no problem for someone who has wonderful support from elsewhere. Like many people, I myself have no desire for either marriage or a relationship I see no "point" to it, personally or rationally.

Part II: There is no need for intimacy Intimacy is pleasant and rewarding, but people are mistaken if they think of it as a necessity. That is what the Victorian and Edwardian psychoanalytical school taught us, promoting the continuing 20th century Christian values. Psychologically, "connection" is more important than "intimacy"

Part III: What the girl thinks is irrelevant Each gender has its own requirements, based partly on natural biological needs and partly on learned social patterns. One of the by-products of the feminist movement is the increased awareness by women themselves that they are sexual beings without the need for intimacy The notion that women are somehow innately more emotional than men and in need of emotional intimacy is only marginally true and very much a learned behaviour from men who create the gender allotments. There are just as many women out there who when they have sex, simply want a good old root and none of the frills But they are too afraid to identify this, because WE will simply refer to them as "sluts, whores," etc.

Where do you get that strange historical "fact" from? "For thousands of years" there has been NO universal, consistent format for the running of relationships. Every period, society and environment has produced relationships manifestly different from so many others Some anthropologists have spent their entire academic careers simply noting the vast differences between how various cultures throughout time have organised their "family", social and intimate structures.
The so-called "committed relationship" is very much a by-product of the Christian invention of monogamy, which was virtually non-existent outside of Christianity. As recently as the Chinese Revolution of 1911, the Chinese, the most populous nation on earth, approved of polygamy and concubinage, which were not fully suppressed until the second Revolution of 1949 (because Mao Tse Tung thought that polygamy was an element of capitalist property indulgence).
As for "producing stability within our society", if that were even remotely true, people like me would have been out of work decades ago
Your entire argument is built around the fallacy that I have supposedly declared that relationships are of no use at all. I have said no such thing I have instead responded to your absurd and unfounded notion that relationships are so holy, pure and elevated above all other considerations that watching pornography destroys this supposedly basic fabric of society.
I am not suggesting that the human race has got it wrong. I am suggesting that YOU have got it wrong Your research is sorely lacking, and is based on a lot of presumptions

I recall the article several years ago, when it first came out. It was almost immediately panned and dismissed by psychologists and researchers alike (After all, Psychology Today is an interesting "popularist" news-agent magazine, but not always the highest calibre of scientific research) The fault is that the research (and the researchers themselves) start with a presumed premise that "the relationship" is unquestionably the way to go, the thing that we all ought to be striving for. And that is a moral predeterminant disguised as a scientific given. It predetermines what constitutes "healthy" and "desirable". It examines the impact on the emotional stability of the relationship, without ever questioning how those emotional perspectives came into existence to begin with. It is little different that suggesting that motoring legislation is harmful because it interferes with men's emotional need to get drunk, therefore there should be no ban on alcohol and driving. Nobody would assume that a man's emotional desire to get drunk is legitimate in its own right, let alone as a premise for a further conclusion. The assumption that we all have a drive to have intimate, emotional relationships with the people with whom we are having sex is a Christian-based invention that does not exist in other theistic cultures. In other words, the research is thoroughly flawed because it lacks the one thing that all research MUST have... a control group, that is to say a group of people who have not been previously indoctrinated into believing the conclusion which was being sought. And that, of course, leads to the second major flaw... you cannot use your conclusion, or any element of it, as one of your premises. The only valid research can only take place with people who have no prior concept, learning or indoctrination as to what a relationship is, whether it is desirable, how it should be run, or what criteria belong to it. They would also need to have no preconceptions about issues such as sexual morality, trust, intimacy, personal contracts, and many other factors If you start with the premise that a relationship is the way to go, and that the sexual control of one's partner is important, and that objectified sexuality is innately destructive, then you will obviously achieve whatever conclusion you have engineered. And that is why no professional cites this research.
As a final point, Skinner is a notorious anti-pornography person, essentially making a career out of his personal moral perspective. This has led to widespread criticism over his lack of scientific impartiality.

Your response defies logic, reason and research It starts with your acceptance of an unproven myth, that if a certain amount of people crave intimacy with the people with whom they are having sex, then that must be "natural", and not simply the reinforcement of a popular morality through a popular monopoly. The intensity of the monogamy claim, which is based on property rights, has gained traction only in the last century or so. It has then been extended not only to people who are married or engaged, but even to people who are simply in a relationship, AS IF they were married I think that my 30 years experience as a psychotherapist working in this area outweighs the dreamy-eyed romanticism of how the fairy-tale books say that this "prince meets princess" story is supposed to go.
Sex is NOT "an expression of intimacy and trust" It CAN be, but in essence it is not It is one of the greatest myths of our time, and is (in your own words) no more than in your humble OPINION

This idea that certain things "set us apart from the animals" is a quasi-moralistic comment that constantly gets inserted when people do not have a real argument or real evidence, that we and our behaviours are somehow supposedly "elevated", designed, special or superior They are not
You also give a fraudulent comment when you accuse me of claiming that monogamy and relationships are "incorrect". I make no such comment. Observing the reality of one's history, of the origins and processes of one's action, is not the same as evaluating them in terms of morality or of correctness. What I am aware of is that this heterosexual paradigm of the modern western world is a widespread failure, propagated by the Church, by Hollywood and by the social media It is a train-wreck, and people are far too invested in the train to see what has happened.
As for the contemptuous and disrespectful inclusion of an analogy to child-killing and paedophilia, I shall ignore the contempt in the way that it deserves
Finally, the lack of a control group is NOT "an issue for both sides, including mine", because I am not the one proposing the primary assertion. I take the default position of the null hypothesis. And Skinner's (and your) theory has yet to prove its case AND disprove the null hypothesis. I do not need a control group, because I am not the one proposing an hypothesis. I simply identify that your moralistic assertions are ill-founded and historically, sociologically and anthropologically unsound. I do not need a control group to claim that Skinner's hypothesis fails... he needs one to prove that it doesn't.
Размещено в Без категории
Просмотров 345 Комментарии 0
Всего комментариев 0



© 2003–2020, Харьков Форум™