Men Should say I love you first...pfff

[Upside]

I just had to post this article I found. This just reeks of BS.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/personal/12/26/tf.women.say.love.you/index.html?iref=newssearch

If I have a daughter one day, among the many things I'll teach her will be how to tie her shoes, to look both ways before crossing the street, to never end a sentence with a preposition, and to always let the man say "I love you" first.

 

[KontrollerX]

Law 8

Make other People come to you – use Bait if Necessary

When you force the other person to act, you are the one in control. It is always better to make your opponent come to you, abandoning his own plans in the process. Lure him with fabulous gains – then attack. You hold the cards.

This woman is trying to teach women to observe and practice Law 8 to benefit women.

Just as we must observe and practice Law 8 to benefit ourselves.

So what she is advocating is fundamentally good advice but of course her being a feminist its good advice aimed at putting women in the power position over us and clued in guys will always refuse that scenario.

So yes keep silent boys and make your girl say this first as it gives you more power in the relationship as the person with the most power is always someone who appears to need the other person the least.

 

[Ganondorf]

I said it first

never hurt me

She asked, that's why

 

[KontrollerX]

"Regardless if you're a man or woman, if you love somebody, you should say it without reservation and let the chips fall where they may. Risk rejection, pain, etc."

A person can do that if they want but I wouldn't consider it a very intelligent action to take on their part as if the girl feels the same way about you she'll eventually say it herself anyway giving you the most power moving forward in the relationship and if she doesn't say it you dodged making a fool out of yourself.

Its a win win but as is common of the morality crew you demonize power while propping up altruism (which is ultimately a self destructive force) as virtue.

I can't disagree with you more.

I am a believer in Ayn Rand's version of selfishness where you neither sacrifice yourself to another or sacrifice another to yourself.

The selfishness of Rand is that of a virtuous and intelligent self preservation.

A quote of her's that I agree with is...

"A man properly lives with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life."

So I suppose you could then respond to that quote by saying it makes you happy to take risks at which point I would then say to you to have at it but because I subscribe to Rand's whole philosophy on her idea of selfishness, altruism and rational self interest I simply cannot agree with what you are saying and specifically what I am most against you about is your altruism.

What you are proposing a man do is simply not intelligent and is counterproductive to those who seek power and the best deal possible for themselves.

 

[DonGorgon]

Regardless of who says it first modern males and females need to better job of showing it through loving actions.

 

[Ganondorf]

Regardless of who says it first modern males and females need to better job of showing it through loving actions.

Amen to that

People can SAY anything. doesn't mean the mean it

Showing you love someone is more powerful than Just saying it

If you can't except love without playing games, than it's not love IMO

Racing to say it last is but a game

 

[KontrollerX]

"Racing to say it last is but a game"

Actually that all depends on each person's individual intent.

For men I think it would be a tactic and for women a game as women enjoy games in general and men want to deal with as little amount of bullsh!t as humanly possible.

Also espi I understand you bro and hey we all have different ways of doing things.

To close out though I just want to explain a bit more of Ayn Rand's view of selfishness and self preservation for any lurker out there interested.

She is not saying you shouldn't do acts of kindness for others she is simply saying do not put yourself at a complete disadvantage for the sake of others.

Thats all.

Like say you could give a thirsty man some water if that would not leave you completely devoid of any water to drink yourself or to use even another example say you have a food supply in some country that has been hit hard by a famine.

You could reasonably give food to certain people to help them out but don't give up your whole supply to them.

Give a little if you like here and there but do not sacrifice or put your own life and well being in danger to help others.

To give even yet another example don't be the soldier that jumps on the grenade so that the other soldiers don't get killed.

Instead yell for everyone to get the fvck out of harm's way and hope for the best as you are jumping to safety as well.

Don't believe or engage in altruism as though it has been painted up to be noble in reality it is a self destructive force.

 

[oakraiderz2]

This reminds me of the philosophy polluting this site that women should make things exclusive, which i disagree with. Last time i checked girls are more afraid of rejection than men. If its our job to approach, should we keep the control and decide when these particular events will take place? Ive had a girl tell me she wants to be with me, two actually, and it seemed needy and turned me off. When girls approach i get an ego boost and have been given the power to do as a please to an extent. I knew i wanted to be exclusive with my current gf a month after we were dating, but i wated several months to do so. Shes told me that she loves me when she was drunk, but when shes sober i can tell she feels the same way but WILL NOT say anything due to her fear of being rejected. HOWEVER, there are some people who do this things FAR too early and f*ck everything up. So with respect to that possibility, i think those individuals should wait, the ones who get overly excited and dont really know what theyre doing.

 

[TheRealSupreme]

On a cold day in h*ll!!

 

[slaog]

in fact, a natural, great relationship should not be fair, should not be 50/50. Indeed, a most fulfilling relationship should be judged on how willing I am to devote my life to another person without expecting anything back, much like how a father would die for his children or a soldier would die for his country...sacrifice makes life most meaningful and sacred.

I function best when I'm thinking more about others' well being than my my own...I'm happiest doing things for the people closest to me, sacrificing for them, without expecting anything in return...

Paradoxially, the more focused I am on my own interests, and my own self-preservation, the less happy I feel.

Very true.


AFC's are needy (always wanting something).
DJ's are the opposite (Always looking to give) i.e they give people good feelings.

 

[DonJuan11]

Kontroller...Your belief strikes me as being steeped in logic and self-preservation, which, to a point, are obviously essential to life, but I've learned that, for me, being in a fulfilling relationship is hardly predicated on logic and self-preservation; in fact, a natural, great relationship should not be fair, should not be 50/50. Indeed, a most fulfilling relationship should be judged on how willing I am to devote my life to another person without expecting anything back, much like how a father would die for his children or a soldier would die for his country...sacrifice makes life most meaningful and sacred.

I function best when I'm thinking more about others' well being than my my own...I'm happiest doing things for the people closest to me, sacrificing for them, without expecting anything in return...

Paradoxially, the more focused I am on my own interests, and my own self-preservation, the less happy I feel.

I've learned that sacrifice is what makes for an optimal relationship. Besides that, it's impossible for me to withold my most significant feelings...I believe in expressing what I feel, wearing my heart on my sleeve, so to speak.

The problem that can arise by wearing your heart on your sleeve and not withholding your significant feelings in a relationship before the girl does, or any feelings at all, ("I think I love you, don't leave me, we are one soul, I'll do anything to make you happy") is that if your girlfriend or wife comes to realize you are more emotionally involved in her and the relationship than she is, your life will become a living hell. She'll think "He is emotionally involved in me and won't be able to let me go very easily, thus I can start critizing, complaining and putting him down and slowly start to get away with it!") When logic has gone out the window and she knows, watch more for the put downs, for the insults, for the nagging. You cannot be more emotionally involved in the woman than she is in you, that way she knows she can't get away with what she wants to.

You may be gettiing confused between charm (making people feel good about themselves) and doing anything to make others happy. If you are continously doing the latter, you will eventually get smoked out of the water in almost every aspect in life. Yes you should make others feel good about themselves, but you shouldn't sacrifice it for your own well being. "You complete me" may work in movies and make $300 million dollars, but that's not real life.

 

[slaog]

Always let a woman know that no matter how much you like her, you also expect her to behave properly and if she doesn't you can walk away anytime.


You let them know you like them but it also means they can not do as they please.

 

[LovelyLady]

I am a believer in Ayn Rand's version of selfishness where you neither sacrifice yourself to another or sacrifice another to yourself.

The selfishness of Rand is that of a virtuous and intelligent self preservation.

A quote of her's that I agree with is...

"A man properly lives with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life."

So I suppose you could then respond to that quote by saying it makes you happy to take risks at which point I would then say to you to have at it but because I subscribe to Rand's whole philosophy on her idea of selfishness, altruism and rational self interest I simply cannot agree with what you are saying and specifically what I am most against you about is your altruism.

What you are proposing a man do is simply not intelligent and is counterproductive to those who seek power and the best deal possible for themselves.

"Love, friendship, respect, admiration are the emotional response of one man to the virtues of another, the spiritual payment given in exchange for the personal, selfish pleasure which one man derives from the virtues of another man’s character. Only a brute or an altruist would claim that the appreciation of another person’s virtues is an act of selflessness, that as far as one’s own selfish interest and pleasure are concerned, it makes no difference whether one deals with a genius or a fool, whether one meets a hero or a thug, whether one marries an ideal woman or a slut."

"To love is to value. Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone."


A few relevant Rand quotes.

---

Some of my random thoughts and reflections:

So fascinating to me that there is concern about 'losing power' by saying "I love you".


I

Love

You.



The true foundation of power in this statement is in the "I".

When I say "I love you", the value is in the recognition that I am of value. I know who I am - I know my own heart - I know my own mind - I know my own value.

And because I have self esteem/a sense of my own value - I am able to identify and appreciate the value of another person. I am capable of loving him for all that he is. I am operating from a position of strength in loving a man who is worthy of my love... worthy of the "I" in the statement: I love you.


My sense of centeredness, of power, is not threatened by the final word: "you".
The specialness of the statement is the fact that I have found him to be worthy of my love. My love matters.


I

Love

You.

It is a statement of appreciation; of gratitude for him having a sense of his own value and sharing that value with me.

It is a statement of recognition: My sense of value recognizes the value in him. I appreciate his value.

Because I have not compromised my "I"/my self in the act of loving - or in the act of the stating of a truth.

It is said because it is a truth: I LOVE YOU.

It is incredibly empowering to love. There is no self lost. No true power is lost.

 

[Mavrick]

What's more important is who is saying

I

Love

Me?



I know I have a hard time with this one.

Do you approve of you?
Do you see yourself as valuable?
Do you accept yourself?

These are more important questions than the question of whether or not you should say "I love you" because once you and I love ourselves first, all that other stuff doesn't matter. Everything falls into place once we love ourselves first. I know I'm learning to love myself more each day, but I can't say that I'm in love with myself yet.

To love yourself is to treat yourself with respect and dignity. Once you learn to do that, you can do the same for others as an extension of your on self love.

 

[LovelyLady]

What's more important is who is saying

I

Love

Me?



I know I have a hard time with this one.

Do you approve of you?
Do you see yourself as valuable?
Do you accept yourself?

These are more important questions than the question of whether or not you should say "I love you" because once you and I love ourselves first, all that other stuff doesn't matter. Everything falls into place once we love ourselves first. I know I'm learning to love myself more each day, but I can't say that I'm in love with myself yet.

To love yourself is to treat yourself with respect and dignity. Once you learn to do that, you can do the same for others as an extension of your on self love.

I agree, Mavrick.

The person behind the "I" is the foundation of the statement. That person's sense of his/her self defines the manifestations of the loving - and it also chooses who the "you" is (Who the recpient of the love is).

If there is a lack of self knowledge, self love, self esteem, self respect, "selfishness" in the pure sense of the word that Rand uses it - there is lack in the rest of the statement.