Relationship Desires M

Basically, I want this too.^
Plus, a little domination and kink on the side would be a definite bonus
But it's actually not my primary goal at this point. I'd just settle for a little intimacy, love, romance, and stability.

Solace, it's interesting that you asked for things men desire in general but want to drill down into a "significantly unique perspective" ladies offer.

Then you say you "believe it will be most effective if we allow comments to accumulate and when it does appear appropriate to respond we reply respectfully and keep the space safe for their dialog and thoughts even should we disagree with their world view."

And then you correct all of their opinions?

What do you want Solace?

That's what I'd like to know.

IMHO I think desires need to mesh and they are fluid. If you're a sadist, you want to inflict pain, so you'll mesh with a masochist. But you asked generally speaking, so I'd agree with Rose, that men want to be heard.

You sure want to be heard. I do too. Why woyld you post this and would I respond? We want to be heard.

Bonnie is right, too. We generally do want the same things. Maslow didn't distinguish between male and female in his hierarchy of needs. Whereas needs and desires overlap, we desire and need the same things.

Not all desires are needs, though.

Maybe that is what you are looking for. Fantasies are desires. Maybe there are more older men that want younger women than younger women that want older men. Maybe men desire security less from women than women desire it from men.... IDK.

But everyone's opinion is valid and should be accepted without a ton of scrutiny. I really want to hear what everyone has to say.

It's a discussion worth having.

I am perhaps confused. I don't believe I have done anything off hand.


Yes, I posted a question asking what men wanted in a relationship, phrased in a such away that may allow ladies some breathing room to comment. A comment appeared which devalued the discussion points premise of male and female perspectives being unique. I defended the premise with dialog after a couple of idle days when it didn't appear the forum would go much farther. These things have tendency to sink I find. In order to defend the point, yes I did have to make an argument which validated a significantly unique perspective between ladies and men to justify the original question. I don't see any logical method of counterpointing ladies and men being the same without a solid point on them being distinct.

I also don't believe I've corrected anyone's opinions. Unless I truly have been that convincing. Certainly not in a disrespectful way. I offered dialog which may perhaps further the discussion or become something else entirely. How a typical conversation would go.

I am a bit confused and taken aback at this line of inquiry. At a surface value it appears participating and adding to a discussion has been perceived as rude Yet I don't believe I have insulted or belittled any lady who offered her valuable insight.

Perhaps you can illuminate where my own vision on these matters fails?

I take issue with your use of the word "devalued". My comment didn't devalue anything. You said you wanted to open a dialogue about this subject and that's what I did. I responded to your original post, stated an opinion that differed from yours, and you responded by saying you disagreed with me, to which I also responded. This is the open dialogue you said you wanted.

We can disagree with each other all day long. This is the problem that everyone in Western Civilization has right now. Someone disagreeing with your fundamental premise is not devaluing you or the discussion. You have your opinion. I have mine. I didn't devalue you or your opinion or the discussion. I simply participated in the discussion and I disagreed with your premise. You also did not "correct" me by offering your contradictory opinion. I just don't accept the logic of either your original premise nor do I think you supported it in your follow-up argument.

I believe you used a straw-man argument by emphasizing men's and women's unique perspectives when that wasn't the topic of your original post. You asked what men and women want. You didn't ask for their unique and differing perspectives. It was a logical fallacy for you to deflect my comment by saying men and women have different perspectives when I never said they didn't. You changed the direction of the argument to something completely different to make it seem like I was saying something that I wasn't. If the fault lay anywhere, it was in your original post when you asked a question you didn't actually mean to ask instead of the one you actually did want to ask.

Yeah, it is confusing. That's what it is. Not anything offhand, rude, disrespectful, or, belittling. Solace those are your words, not mine.

Perhaps, "correcting" was the wrong characterization for your responses, but I don't see you valuing their insight, either. I just see you arguing with their responses ... and to me, making arguments where there were none.. but if it's all just to further discussion... okay ...

You say blondie's comment... "devalued the discussion points premise of male and female perspectives being unique."

If that's a premise in your OP, it's not very clear, well, at least not to me, but I'm no PHD. That’s why I said you're making arguments where there are none and maybe getting a little defensive. This could be a good discussion about perceived desires and I guess I'd like to hear more about that.

I think a lot of women want money and a lot of men want beauty. I thought those would be the kind of lines the discussion would follow.

But maybe you wanted to have more of a debate.

But yeah, it's confusing.

[quote="intenseoldman"]
I think a lot of women want money and a lot of men want beauty.


I would argue that even this is contradictory. As I pointed out earlier, women might say they want money and go after rich men, but if they get lucky enough to get these men, the women don't respect them or treat them well--so that isn't what they want at all. Same with men wanting beauty. If that was the case, men wouldn't be more interested in talking to adult dancers about their problems than in watching them dance.

So I think we need to look at the superficial noises both sides make with their mouths versus what they are actually looking for in the opposite sex--because these are usually vastly different.

[quote="B L O N D I E"]

I agree the superficial noises and actual desires are vastly different, and, that... I tossed out to further discussion. I don't actually believe it except in the sense you frame it, that that's what they think they want. There's a lot we think we want until we know our true desires.

It always amazes me how many men on here say they want long term relationships with someone they love, trust, and connect with. The younger ones are looking for people they can start families with. This is a kink site. Outsiders might expect us to be all about jumping into bed with whoever, but when it really comes down to it, our truest desires are to feel connected, to feel loved, and to have long-lasting relationships that feed our souls. This site has taught me that more than anything. Men are just as interested in security and long-term family connection-building as women.

I think a lot of what you mentioned about "women want money and men want beauty" is a function of immaturity. Both sides drop this as they get older and realize what is really important. They drop what they think society wants them to want and realize that the true wealth is in the heart connection and building something that is going to last, not all that superficial stuff.

Hi B L O N D I E,

Unfortunately I don't think I'm giving the attention you deserve in this discussion. I appreciate your feedback, especially as a first through the fence individual. Unfortunately, this week exploded into a busy week and I'm skimming mostly to now it seems do damage control.

I think Devalue is the right word. Or perhaps " attack the premise" as one might use for terminology in a discussion or debate. The stance of the question is phrased as men and women desire different things, what generalities do we believe can be drawn about what men want. A reply which states men want the same things as women, digs at at least some of the foundation of the question, partially invalidating some of its outline.

I am not upset by your response, I think its an excellent point for discussion. I don't think you are devaluing my opinion. I do want the open dialogue you offer and a I appreciate it.

I don't believe I'm using a straw mans argument, as if men and women have different perspectives they will inherently desire different things. What people want is intimately tied to their perspectives in life. I am by no means saying that men and women are too different from each other to understand. I am certainly not demonizing ladies or men. I think that is a line readers will draw if they do not engage with an intent to understand and empathize.

Rather I personally acknowledge that there are difference, and I think it is much braver, compassionate and useful to face them. I think we can understand each other, but I really only feel that way if we can communicate with each other about these things. A core tenant of our community, communication. Men will not know how ladies think if they do not ask. Ladies will not know what men think if they do not ask.

I completely disagree with you still. You're assuming that your original post didn't contain any opinions and that it was completely neutral, but it wasn't. Your question (if we take it at face value) presumes that we want different things, which I believe is problematic within itself. I completely disagree that it's braver and more compassionate to focus on the differences rather than the commonalities. I believe it's asking for trouble and will only sew division.

I stand by whatever principle of your original post I may have undermined or dug at. I believe the principle to be false and even dangerous to our harmony as a species.

From a logical point of view, any premise is available for attack in a civil debate. Therefore, any premise you offered in your post is up for disagreement. There are no sacred cows here.

You said, "The stance of the question is phrased as men and women desire different things." I disagree that they desire different things. I think this is flawed, divisive, and fallacious thinking. I believe all the rest of your arguments rest on this bed of sand and will and should therefore be torn down so no one agrees with them.

You contradicted yourself later in your response when you said, "I don't believe I'm using a straw mans argument, as if men and women have different perspectives they will inherently desire different things."

This is in fact exactly what you just said earlier in the same post. You're telling me that they have different perspectives and this entire thread should be focused on those. Now you are changing it to say the exact opposite. It sounds to me like you don't really understand your own thinking, which is why you aren't making coherent arguments to support your position.