I guess the reason why we keep "fishing for sex" anyway is that if we don't then there is none forthcoming.
I asked you a few days ago if you wanted to do a workshop. You said sure. Nothing has happened since.
According to your logic above, if I really want or need a workshop that badly, and lets say for discussion sake you are the only person with whom I can have a workshop, then it's my job to 'hound' you about it until you cave and decide to participate with me.
Ah... but we all know me, and if we're going to have a workshop, it's going to be a good one, with lots of deep thinking, lots of writing, and lots of enthusiasm.
If your heart is only half-way in it, or let's imagine you say, 'yeah, sure, let's have a workshop,' and you never bother to come back and ask me about it, for gosh sakes... then my experience of the workshop is going to suffer as well... because I NEED you to be enthusiastic. After all, you SAID you would have a workshop with me.
Obviously, you must not care a great deal about me... I've known you for how long now, on these boards... no, we've never met, yes, it is only a BB, but there is some form of relationship that exists between you and I...
Okay... was there a grain of a moment, before you realized what I was up to, or that you decided my example is NOT comparable... that you had an honest feeling/reaction to my words here?
What was that feeling(s)...? Did your wanting/willingness to have a 'workshop' with me drop?
I really like Chrome's take on this, the "numbers game" illustration. I think the key is having your "base number" up high enough that nobody's opinion matters *more* than yours ... but that's a far cry from being completely immune.
If I love something someone has done, either for themselves or for me ... maybe this is narcissistic, but I *want* my compliment to matter to them, make them feel even better. Conversely, if they've really pissed me off or are doing something harmful or dangerous to themselves or others, I want them to at least *consider* what I say. Being totally immune to other's input implies that we always think our own judgement is best. Ultimately it's our own judgement we have to use and live with, but that doesn't mean we can't gain/grow from outside input, positive or negative. Isn't that the point of being differentiated? that we are secure enough in our basic sense of self to be able to truly accept the opinions of others? Literally, for what they're worth ... not more *or* less.
I can use a mirror, but I'd still like to be told when I have spinach in my teeth.
I can use a mirror, but it's still nice to hear that my cleavage is likely to cause traffic accidents.
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
Understand what 'immune' means. Immune means you are the captain of your own ship. It does not mean you don't listen when the guy in the crow's nest tells you there's an iceburg in front of you.
Immune measures susceptibility. If I get chicken pox once, the odds are 99.9% certain that I will not get chicken pox again. I am now immune to it.
That does not mean that I do not have empathy for those who do catch it, and for their suffering. It does not mean that I now take my children who do have it around other people who are NOT immune to it.
Back to the captain and his/her ship. Let's say my guy in the crow's nest is busy telling me how great a captain I am... and in so doing, doesn't see the iceburg ahead. Is his/her job to validate me, or be on the look out? How about timing? Is it wrong for this person to validate me, or is there a time and place for everything?
Or... let's say, conversely, the guy is up there in the crow's nest, and he decides he needs to tell me what a crappy captain I am.
As captain of my ship, I don't NEED him telling me what he thinks or doesn't think of my captaining skills. I need him to be the best person for the crow's nest job. If he can't do it, get out of there, I'll put someone up there who can do it. You don't like my job as captain, find another boat.
There is a difference between exchanging and discerning information (communication), and throwing value judgments (good or bad) at one another. I am not suggesting that people be immune to the exchange/discernment of information. I am saying that as captain of your ship, you need to operate with a certain level of judgment immunity in order to effectively navigate your ship.
I'm not saying as captain of a ship, it doesn't feel good to hear that your crew thinks your a great captain... or that, they thought you sucked...
Immunity to value judgments allows you to sift through information and compare it to your own, without letting your feelings cloud your actions or responses.
It doesn't mean we should aspire to be robots. It means you get to decide at any given point what feelings YOU have DECIDED to let come through, at any given moment.
No one can make you happy/sad/angry/glad, whatever, without your permission. Whether you give that permission consciously or unconsciously is something else.
Given the definition of immunity as you are using it, I agree with your POV. And being immune as you define it can cause a person to radiate strength of character and purpose, which are attractive qualities. So not only does it help YOU, it helps your R's.
When I see the word immune, I think "unresponsive" (e.g. immune to persuasion) or "not subject to" (e.g. immune from prosecution) neither of which I think is healthy for personal relationships. I think if a person sees they have NO EFFECT on you, it will lead to distance. But that is not what you are talking about ...
Cheers, Chrome
p.s. And if you are serious about a workshop and not just making a point, I'll be happy to join in. I know I don't have the greatest track-record of responsiveness (re: our QM discussions), but I'll do my best.
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
Been wrapped up a bit with that pesky work thang, not to mention another round with S17 (good grief, he can be so draining).
Anyway, Yup my initial reaction was Ah sh!t, I got Corri ticked at me, and while I was looking forward to said workshop (and not sure if it was for real or not), life got in the way. Now she's ticked, and I guess I better mosey on up to the plate even though I don't have the time at this instant. That, and I felt I owed you a "it's not you, it's me". It did kind of turn me off to the workshop, in fact it felt like a huge kick in the Azz. After letting it soak in though, I realize what you are up to, and the light began to filter in (I can be pretty dense at times).
Since MB involves no validation, then this would mean that to reomve the validation from a couples sex life means that sex will become nothing more then mutual MB. To go above that means that validation rises its ugly head.
Given that definition of "immune", I agree. "Immune" just seemed like such an all-or-nothing word to me, I misperceived your meaning.
"Immunity to value judgments allows you to sift through information and compare it to your own, without letting your feelings cloud your actions or responses." -- yep, yep, yep.
You might even say, "Immunity to emotional responses to value judgments allows you to sift etc."
Because I think there can be merit in considering the value judgments of others, as long as you keep a clear view of what *your* values are. Someone else's value judgments can sometimes confront you with a way in which you are *not* living up to *your own* values.
All this is sort of assuming the other person is speaking in good faith and not (consciously or unconsciously) just trying to bring you down.
But I guess that's another reason not to be *unduly* influenced by their opinions in the first place.
"Show me a completely smooth operation and I'll show you someone who's covering mistakes. Real boats rock." -- Frank Herbert
Since MB involves no validation, then this would mean that to reomve the validation from a couples sex life means that sex will become nothing more then mutual MB.
That's logically incorrect: "A implies not B" does not mean "not B implies only A". A canoe involves no motor. If one removes the motor from a motorized sailboat, the motorized sailboat does not then become nothing more than a canoe.
I also don't see how adding validation to sex makes it "more" than mutual MB. You want the validation to make you feel good, right? What's the difference?
All that said, I think I could make a pretty good case for a sex life that was nothing more than mutual MB being a Very Good Thing. I'll have to think about that. Meantime, consider how one's sex life might unfold if neither partner needed validation from it. My vision of that is pretty awesome; yours may differ.
Stop WaitingFeel EverythingLove AchinglyGive ImpeccablyLet Go
Because I think there can be merit in considering the value judgments of others, as long as you keep a clear view of what *your* values are. Someone else's value judgments can sometimes confront you with a way in which you are *not* living up to *your own* values.
I agree. If it weren't for someone else's value judgements of me I wouldn't be hanging out here with all you cool people.
ETA: And what I mean is that reading the BB HELPS me become more in touch with my sexuality, and that is a very good thing.
I wasn't talking about MBing instead of sex with my H, I was talking about MBing when my drive is higher than his. Say I would like to do it 4 times a week and 2 is enough for him. That means I can have awesome sex with my H 2 times a week and MB 2 times a week. It also means that I do not have to go around whining that he's not up for it 2 more times a week.
I am different from him. One time a week I like to eat fish, as he hates the stuff and I love it. I choose to do that on the night he spends at the scuba club. If I chose to do that on a night he is home for dinner I think it would cause marital strain. If I choose to nag at him for not boinking me 4 times a week instead of 2 it causes marital strain.
Fran
if we can be sufficient to ourselves, we need fear no entangling webs Erica Jong
