Always, I am forced to return to the essential observation, and the main underpinning of the forum: puritanical rejection of 'the world'. All your mental and philosophical armaments are gathered together, are arrayed along the frontier, and you will fight to the last drop of blood to defend your personal choice
as to what constitutes 'spirituality', what constitutes the more elevated domains of human thought and thinking, what are the most important values for all humankind, and in with what specific ethics one has to have in order to realize these goals. But, when you look at the individual who is defending that choice, that neurosis, it is pretty much the same person: a boyish, isolated, unstable, over-intellectual, over-certain (to the point of hubris and mental imbalance), Calvinistic youngster who most likely has really never experienced enough of life to be even able to reject it, in such absolute terms.
"I couldn't feel comfortable in a spiritual romantic relationship unless she was getting something at a similar (or at least reasonable) level out of it as what I was getting. I'd just feel rotten if she wasn't. It would be a mild form of the self-disgust that holds me back (along with the obvious rational reasons) from rape. Are you saying that that's what you did, or was it more that she was getting something great out of it too but that you couldn't have cared less about that?"
The key to all this is in the use of the word 'romantic'. Even without knowing it, the word is linked to ideas and ideals that are part and parcel of ourselves, our culture, our literary and philosophical traditions, our modern institutions. In order to understand the polarities that appear time and time again on this funny little forum, I think you'd (one would) have to go back over the Romantic ideal, the romantic movement, and understand what it proposes, what ideas informed it, what its effect has been on modern relationships, on our modern institutions. You see, I would answer the questions you propose quite differently, because I can speak through and beyond the romantic ideal, and am not limited to it, it is not a Law that binds me, not a group of chains that determines, like in some 'Court of Love'
(see 'court of love' on the page), what I must and must not do. In all of what you write, Laird, you seem always to idealize from the platform of what is 'right' and 'wrong', and I'll opine that too you are pretty substantially informed by romantic political notions. That is not a criticism, necessarily, but the more that a person understands what, in fact, informs them (consciously as opposed to unconsciously) the better that we can actually represent who we are.
I assert that just as you (and others here, and me to a certain extent) give voice to romantic idealisms
(as defined in the 1700s and 1800s), that the clever, solo-masturbators of this boy's-club forum are also deeply captivated by romantic idealism. Ha! Ha! Ha! Their romantic idealism is just in that stage where it turns inward, where it recoils in pain from the senselessness of the outer game. Mostly, what I am proposing is far more classical, and somewhat more sober, more balanced, more 'realistic', because I have lived in each pole and (feel I) know the advantage and disadvantage of each.
Laird, from a seducer's
point of view, what you have written above is way off. The seducer's ideal is to storm another person like sacking a foreign city. You don't ask permission to love, you walk right in and take it. Women do not expect you to 'play fair' and if the truth be told they secretly hold you in contempt when you 'play fair'. If anything, most of them would happily sacrifice the game played fair for the exquisite tribulations and soaring emotionalism of the marauder-lover who roars in on his Harley and says, 'Get on bitch, we're leavin' this dirt-bag city behind'!
(I'll stop now and let the Puritan Squad have their say. It is after all their forum
, their supervised road to the Absolute!)PS
: I think it might be a good idea that each of us, in our personal profile, list the medications
that have been prescribed to keep us more or less sane, say like a by-line that appears at the bottom of each post. Also, a line indicating if we actually work for a living and 'earn our keep' or if we depend on the state. To me, these are very important bits of information when I analyse the person who is discussing 'enlightenment' and making sweeping generalizations about spiritual life, life, relationships, etc.