PatrickC

Right, so I gather she is really good at avoiding the truth of things in her personal relationships. She is managing her own feelings here and certainly not processing yours at all.

Going from RoseCodex's excellent question. Did your mother mention anything about your previous conversations with her before your requested break from the relationship? I'm guessing not (perhaps wrongly), but I think it's important to remind her when you've already asked for space. That a coincidence meeting doesn't mean she gets to ignore that request. It's a breach of trust in that explicit agreement. You have my sympathy mind, as I had a very similar situation (after 7 years) occur for me recently. Except this time they showed up at my house with no warning whatsoever.

Yeah, it's funny, being thought of as 'discriminating' was once thought of as being 'learned'.

Yeah, I think the MRM see equality as their main 'gotcha' for feminists. But of course equality for feminists means equality of outcome (quota's). Whereas for the MRM it mostly means equality of opportunity (meritocracy). So the debate becomes an endless circle jerk about who gets to use this magical word 'equality'.

If as I suspected this relationship was a re-enactment of past trauma for the pair of them. Then without self knowledge it's unsurprising they both pursued it in the the way they did. However, regardless of that Joe is the one that has been punished the most for this and indeed the girls have actually even profited from it. So victim-hood in this case certainly remains with Joe.

Thanks Rob

I found a mirror for my opener on Vmeo which is currently being modded. Anyway, I thought this song was rather apt, given the situation. And works for either gender too. Although I think the woman in this video clearly protests too much, given her (Reservoir Dogs) reaction. Oh yes, that would be an honourable response for a female.

Well would you Adam and Eve it. It got mirrored on Vmeo.

I'm gathering it was probably a desperate last minute attempt to wipe away the evidence, after the faked apology video failed. The two girls that are involved in the saga have a YT following of 250K each, so I'm guessing these false accusations wouldn't have done much for their reputation. So they've gone hammer and tongs on him. It is way too easy to bring a channel down these days. Three strikes and they shut shop on you basically. I guess if enough people complain they might reconsider, but Joes channel only had 11K of subscribers, so it's unlikely to effect YT's decision. EDIT - He did actually go through her Instagram page, which I'm guessing would be a violation, since it's mean't to remain private to her and the people she added. Looking back the Instagram stuff wasn't really important and was mostly fluff talk around what he considered as a change in her personality over time. I think only he saw it or it was tenuous at best. That said, that was the only serious violation that I can make out. The rest would be considered as fair use normally, but hey YT doesn't give that much resources to such claims. So it's probably up to the channel to fight it out legally.

Looks like this guys channel no longer exists. Girl power I presume.

That's an interesting conclusion, which hadn't occured to me. Certainly, I get no enjoyment from circular arguments. Certainly when I've made a clear and rational argument I have no (dis)interest in correcting a continued irrational response. If I have to repeat myself more than twice, then I will ask myself why I'm doing that. Which might mean I'll finally drop my response out of disinterest or boredom if you will.

Yes, I think it's fanciful (magical) thinking from an Objectivist. It's why they reject anarchism, because they truly believe their kind of govt will be a 'good' and objective one. I understand the principle he is trying to apply to govts. Technically they should be impartial and apply the laws evenly. The reality is, this has never happened and govts end up discriminating all the same, as they do now. Another thing, discrimination is more than just race, gender and sexual proclivities of course. Govts quite happily discriminate between higher and lower income earners. Companies that recieve subsidy and those that don't. Taxing products or services differently. Cheap social housing provision for the few, whilst the rest of us have to join the market for accomodation. The govt literally disciminates all the time.

Yes sadly, you could easily understand how this guy ended up getting used by her. Throughout the sequence of too and fro messaging between them you could see him ignoring red flag after red flag. Preferring instead to join her in this fantasy she was creating. Thankfully he seems to get that now, just not sure he entirely understands why. He probably has a history of people creating fantasy around his relationships and probably lied to him a lot. Of course he does briefly mention that he was sexually abused as a child, which could make him highly suspectible to sentimentality. I'm hypothisising of course, but he certainly seems drawn to over sentimentality, even after the event. He has way too much empathy for others and very little for himself it seems. Which is why the accusations were so particularly crushing for him and he happily gave up 1,000's of dollars as a quick remedy too some pretty horrible feelings I imagine. It was quite a vile thing that she did to him frankly. Interestingly she did make an apology video after the one above. Realising of course that it was pretty damning of her. But get this she used it as a way for him to take down all his evidence videos and then claim she was forced to make the apology. With all his evidence videos removed she would have been able to easily discredit him thereafter. The short video below explains how all this happened. Thankfully he was starting to wake up to her by then and didn't follow through on the agreement entirely. But drama aside. I think it's quite clear that people not only have to be honest with their romantic partners, but they have to be honest with themselves about their romantic liasons. It's really no good trying to create a fantasy around yourself or fantasising about the other. This might well be the worst example, although I'm quite sure it could have ended even more badly, given the right set of circumstances. But it is an example of how dishonesty in relationships can turn out.

Unfortunately this video is rather long, but worth a listen if you have the time. Particularly in light of all the talk around PUA and relationship building recently. It's basically the defence case of a guy in the vegan community that was wrongly accused of sexual harrasment by several young women in that community, but one in particular. Not only that, but they also managed to blackmail him out of some significant money too after they made the accusations to him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bwWHH2P-p8 I think it's a salutory lesson for many guys out there, whose eyes can often glaze over when persued by a pretty young woman. Useful to know the games some women can and do play to get a hold of some guys resources. What's particularly interesting in this guys case. Is it could be argued that partly why he was drawn to her, was because her historic trauma resembled his own. Rather than rejecting the relationship, he ended up replaying his own historic trauma all over again. Very glad that he has now finally resolved it, although I'm unsure he really understands what happened to him. But for the men in this community, it's a useful lesson about understanding the difference between your genuine feelings and the feelings that resurrect past trauma.

I'm sorry guys and you know feel free to ignore me here of course (I hope not). But why oh why are you engaging this fella. Irrational people like to trouble the rational amongst us and waste our damn good time on hyperbole, superlatives and all the flaming rest. Apart from the OP, I hope you see my intervention as helpful. This conversation is a dead duck frankly chaps.

I'll be honest Archimedes and you can reject my comment here if you like of course. But you made a very well reasoned argument earlier why you should dismiss MMX's assertions of you. Don't let his snake oil imbed.

LOLosophy! Have you ever actually bothered to ask members of this board what relationships they've had with women (or men). Or are you just assuming again? Seriously man, you wonder why people downvote you with these kinds of bassless (board (borg) collective) assertions. I know myself that Stefan and Mike aren't the only ones to be having (or have had recently) relationships with the opposite sex on this board. But hey, as I've asked you before, where are the ladies you've been drawing to philosophy recently.

You make a great point Joel. Which is why I struggle to now relisten to much of it. This was the music of my era in my 20's I suppose. I've often reflected in recent years on the depressing lyrical content that was highly popular back then. Musically it was one of the better era's I think. Certainly an improvement from much of the 80's new wave. Although it was probably heavily influenced by 80's bands like Joy Divsion and The Smiths. Both of which thrived on melancholy. Lyrically it reminds me a lot of the blaxploitation and northern soul greats of the 60's and 70's. Music I still love, singing which was often some of the most supreme, but lyrics of which will often leave me feeling quite empty and make it quite unlistenable. An example of which is here. Where is the agency ladee. With mothers like this, who needs enemies.

I have no problem admitting I felt emotional about the latter discussion in this thread from this poster. I've been pretty reasonably insulted by the insinuations that have been made against this community. As my previous song suggested, 'like a kick in the balls', with no reason. In fact if I hadn't felt emotional about it, I would be wondering at what point could I actually hold someone accountable for their poor arguments and continued insulting.

Yeah, I have no sympathy for any them, as you can well imagine, being a private tenant in London.

Sperm Wars as already mentioned. But I got most of my learning around this topic from Richard Dawkins books, 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Extended Phenotype'. Although some of his ideas have been rebutted quite well so I hear, but I've yet to read them. But these books are still a good starter into gene theory.

The thing is I or no one else is here to hold your hand or wipe your arse. Stop relying on other peoples videos and then speak to this community like an adult. Until then, you remain at sea.

Kind of annoying I have to repeat myself, but just letting you know, because you have mischaracterised my position twice now. I'm assuming (as opposed to agreeing) of course that polyamrous relationships are just fine with multiple partners. At least supposedly so. Therefore any fear from the females in this agreement that resources would be lost due to males having other female partners would seem to be, at least on the surface, to be thourougly misplaced. Unless there was a direct risk of her being usurped from that relationship. However, the reality of the situation is that women who put themselves in this position of polyamory (like your old self perhaps) are in all likelihood probably unable to distinguish between a man that says I'm yours, but I'm sharing you with this other lady will still fear the risk of losing his resources allowing jealousy to surface. This I do concede is entirely plausible and in most cases I think is probably true. So I don't disagree with you. I'm just working out the kinks of those that would suggest polyamory to be a viable alternative to monogamy. Which frankly I consider as bonkers myself.

I did explain the differences between male and female jealousy in regards to polyamory specifically, if you carefully read my post again. All said and done, I personally think you're probably right to assume that females will be as jealous of their male partners female partners too. Polyamory just seems like a disaster in waiting. At least in the long term.