Is There an Ideal Way of Acting and Being in Male-Female Relationships?

mkrnhr said:
I've been wondering if men and women have such a hard time understanding each other, how did we survive as a species! Part of the modern misunderstanding I think cannot easily be attributed to Hollywood and such alone without addressing the reduction of the family unit and family life in general. A man who had sisters growing up has a better understanding of the general proclivities in women and a woman who had brothers growing up has a better understanding of the general proclivities in men. That would offer a better chance of being prepared to the relative "weirdness" of their partners (provided these partners are not pathological or complete weirdos).
Click to expand...
That's a good question, but I suppose that survival of the species doesn't have to include understanding of men and women, perhaps base drives are there for that very purpose, and the fact that some of these base drives can override our reasoning indicates, to me, that survival was of the first importance to whoever designed our species.

Also, I think that most births, aren't from a couple who understood one another rather well, but not all of them were of genetic drive nature either, but in that sense... nature finds a way seems to apply, if nature's purpose is to live on, it probably made sure it would regardless of understanding between its members.

And yes, I agree about the influence of having a healthy family growing up giving you a better set of tools to navigate the weirdness of partners, but maybe that's the keyword.. healthy, or at least not destructive.
 
I just came across this and immediately thought of this thread... :lol: :lol::lol:

It's really not easy and when I think about how carelessly I used to jump into relationships... today I think I would be a bit more careful. Apart from that, it's not an issue for me at the moment. But you never know. In any case, it's good to think about what you want or imagine in a relationship. Thank you all for your comments, they are very helpful in getting clear about yourself.
 
Andromeda said:
Perhaps situations like in the babylon bee article come about often enough to be made fun of because, on average, men tend to want to avoid that particular kind of drama and women tend to want to play it out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's funny because it's true, generally speaking. Men tend to miss the point that, in the example in the babylon bee, the wife was not so much sharing a problem she has with her sister that needed a solution right then, but rather sharing how SHE was FEELING about the situation. The husband in that situation will hear a problem and focus on a solution to it, forgetting that he first needs to be aware that his wife is, first and foremost, sharing HER feelings with HIM (to an extent, it doesn't matter what those feeling are about, at least not right then). For him to go quickly to a solution makes her feel like he doesn't care much about her feelings, while he thinks he being caring by offering a solution to the problem that will make these strong, negative emotions she is experiencing go away.

The average man in the same situation would not, I think, have the same reaction if his wife (or anyone else) were to go straight to offering a solution to the problem, because for men, solving the problem with the sister would solve the problem (for him) of having to dwell on/deal with the negative feelings/emotions provoked by the problem with the sister.

Basically, women tend to be have more endurance for, and are more capable of sitting with, strong emotions, than men. That why learning to deal with women's emotional natures is a good idea for men, because other than teaching them that doing that is appreciated by women and seen as a sign of love and care, it also helps men to become more resilient to their own strong emotions, rather than stuffing them down and then having them show up as misdirected anger or aggression.
 
Joe said:
Yeah, it's funny because it's true, generally speaking. Men tend to miss the point that, in the example in the babylon bee, the wife was not so much sharing a problem she has with her sister that needed a solution right then, but rather sharing how SHE was FEELING about the situation. The husband in that situation will hear a problem and focus on a solution to it, forgetting that he first needs to be aware that his wife is, first and foremost, sharing HER feelings with HIM (to an extent, it doesn't matter what those feeling are about, at least not right then). For him to go quickly to a solution makes her feel like he doesn't care much about her feelings, while he thinks he being caring by offering a solution to the problem that will make these strong, negative emotions she is experiencing go away.

The average man in the same situation would not, I think, have the same reaction if his wife (or anyone else) were to go straight to offering a solution to the problem, because for men, solving the problem with the sister would solve the problem (for him) of having to dwell on/deal with the negative feelings/emotions provoked by the problem with the sister.

Basically, women tend to be have more endurance for, and are more capable of sitting with, strong emotions, than men. That why learning to deal with women's emotional natures is a good idea for men, because other than teaching them that doing that is appreciated by women and seen as a sign of love and care, it also helps men to become more resilient to their own strong emotions, rather than stuffing them down and then having them show up as misdirected anger or aggression.
Click to expand...
It's actually funny, I have watched a decent amount of stand up comedy in my life, in two languages, and I have actually heard several bits made about the point above, the difference in approach and what a woman sees that a man doesn't and viceversa, I thought I'd just mention it because, it's a bit easier to deal with something if you are able to laugh at your own learning curve.

But also, it occurred to me that, for men at least, working to become acquainted with women's emotional nature and how to navigate it is kind of a way of seeing the unseen, because we are sometimes rather blind to it. And not just with romantic partners, sometimes with strangers or friends, family and coworkers. It's a good skill to learn overall.
 
I had another thought about the ideal of 'the knight and his lady'. One main issue with this is that it can quickly devolve into a white knight syndrome, where the dude gets lost in trying to be a saviour, which is a particularly easy thing for dudes with a people-pleaser program or low disagreeableness traits or perfection issues. The white knight throws his proper boundaries out the castle window, which in practical terms can look like an inability to express whatever of his manly needs are showing up. He kneels before her, and gets stuck there. This could lead to the female predator mind in any woman to unconsciously kick into gear and start feeding on him, even if its unintentional. So there's a balance to be struck with the kneeling knight ideal IMO.

I suppose this is all just another example of the necessity of work to develop emotional awareness. This includes the ability to express needs in a healthy way. In the parlance of The Narcissistic Family material, it would be a two-step statement of "I feel" followed by "I want". The first step is just recognizing feelings, which can be a big one for a lot of people. The second is being able to understand how to translate these feelings into the expression of a desired outcome. Again, that can take some getting used to. Underpinning all of this, tho, would be the recognition that both "I feel" and "I want" can be products of the predator mind or childhood programs, and may be not be appropriate to the reality at hand. They may be projections, the product of assumptions, pure fantasy, etc.

Side note, I actually had a pretty good experience once upon a time in a Non-Violent Communication workshop. We all sat around in a circle, and just talked about how we felt. There was a specific contentious topic for the convo, no one was allowed to go into teaching mode, and all the statements started with, "When you say that, I feel..." and it went around the circle. There was no attempt to problem-solve. It was interesting to see how easy it was to confuse thoughts for feelings. All in all, I thought it was a nice structure that allowed feelings to be expressed and actually heard by others, and also to get a sense of what it feels like to be actually heard in expressing one's own feelings. I'm realizing that this has been a pretty rare occurrence in my life.

Anywho, it seems to me that the ideal in relationships hinges on working to get to a low level of identification with emotions and thoughts. In other words, if there's a high degree of openness to being wrong and a sincere desire to receiving feedback, then all the bubbling internal stuff can be shared as part of an exploratory dialogue, instead of being hidden at one extreme, or trumpeted out as pronouncements at the other extreme. I don't really know how to say it, but the idea I'm getting at is sort of like a mutual agreement towards the sharing of internal hypotheses? Although that maybe doesn't sound particularly romantic! Or does it?
 
Alejo said:
That's a good question, but I suppose that survival of the species doesn't have to include understanding of men and women, perhaps base drives are there for that very purpose, and the fact that some of these base drives can override our reasoning indicates, to me, that survival was of the first importance to whoever designed our species.

Also, I think that most births, aren't from a couple who understood one another rather well, but not all of them were of genetic drive nature either, but in that sense... nature finds a way seems to apply, if nature's purpose is to live on, it probably made sure it would regardless of understanding between its members.

And yes, I agree about the influence of having a healthy family growing up giving you a better set of tools to navigate the weirdness of partners, but maybe that's the keyword.. healthy, or at least not destructive.
Click to expand...
I agree. I don't think there ever was truly understanding. However, I feel like biology/ nature as always overridden everything. By that I mean that the desire to have sex/ sexual relations for pleasure combined with desire to reproduce (which I guess sometime is due more to hormones/ biology than genuine desire) and perhaps also desire to not want to be alone, even if subconsciously seems to me what has mostly driven male-female relation since the beginning of times.

I think what has really changed in recent times is the arrival of social media combined with women's economic independence. The reality is that despite what the media says, these days a woman can really become whoever she wants career-wise. Also, even if she doesn't become a CEO of some fortune 500, she can be financially self-sufficient. Also, women are fairly resourceful, and what I've noticed is that even if someone is single with children or if she married the wrong person, most of the time, if there's a will, there's a way.

With all the opportunities we have these days combined with less societal judgment, being a single mother (which can be a major setback) isn't a deterrent to achieving goals or even finding a new partner. Objectively speaking, aside from isolated cases, a woman doesn't need a man in this day and age to become who she wants to be, and history is littered with the lives of women who did amazing things on their own despite living in more prejudiced society than now. But when it comes to men, you see many cases where they became who they are in great part thanks to being with a woman (either she made sacrifices while he was building his career or her presence made him more serious and stable...etc).

And I think what is happening is that women are increasingly aware of this at some level, and many feel that men aren't rising up to the challenge. The word "provider" keeps being thrown around when it comes to men, but this rarely match reality. It seems like in this day and age, there's a lot of Peter Pan syndrome, even though the opportunities are there. Then there's other issues, such as cheating which is so common I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about it and casual belittling/ disrespect that many women seems to experience in relationship no matter how accomplished they might actually be. Also, generally speaking, I think you see way more women putting their children/ family needs above their own desires than the reverse.

Against this backdrop, you have social media, which by the nature of what it is, can be fairly toxic and lacking in nuance. You have women who vent their frustrations with men (often rightly) and some of them who go into misandry territory, and a vocal group of men who bash women and insist that women need a man. Also, many of those men don't have anything to bring to the table but insist that by virtue of being male, they are kind of owed a woman and needed. You also have the "high value" crowd which is full of open misogyny, narcissism and entitlement. It seems like this "movement" has some traction with men, especially the young one, probably because it doesn't require any work on oneself and put all the blame on women while ensuring that the men remains on top. You have Conservatives who insists on differences between men and women (and are correct to a certain extent) but don't seem to take into account current realities where in many ways imo women exhibit more masculine traits in their lives than men themselves.

Saying this, there are many women who will never admit it, but the vast majority want male approval/ presence in their life, or so it seems to me. Sometimes, based on how I see a lot of women act in real life, it seems to me as if women are hardwired to want a man in their life, no matter how little this man may contribute to their life or how negatively they may impact it or how accomplished she is. I have seen many cases where the woman earns the most money/ has the better career and takes care of pretty much everything in the home (children, housekeeping, cooking) while the man is just there and do very little in his career and himself (he's a Ken, lol) but she insists on hyping him up to the outside world and would never leave despite often being frustrated. Perhaps this is the emotional side of women at play or fear of loneliness. Also, maybe our biology is at play. Again this isn't something that most women want to admit but "baby fever" which again is probably mainly hormone/ biology driven is very real.

So in that sense, you could say that yes a woman needs a man. My theory is that this is one of the reasons behind how feminism is today and why there's so much messaging around women independence.

But coming back to my first paragraph, no matter how flawed male-female relationship might be, biological drive will ensure that we keep on reproducing and that the humanity survives. In some ways, I suppose reproduction/ ensuring that human life on this planet never cease is kind of the primary purpose of male-female relationship, and all the rest (love, feelings, understanding...etc) is secondary/ by-products. We are animals first, and human second, lol.
 
iamthatis said:
I had another thought about the ideal of 'the knight and his lady'. One main issue with this is that it can quickly devolve into a white knight syndrome, where the dude gets lost in trying to be a saviour, which is a particularly easy thing for dudes with a people-pleaser program or low disagreeableness traits or perfection issues. The white knight throws his proper boundaries out the castle window, which in practical terms can look like an inability to express whatever of his manly needs are showing up. He kneels before her, and gets stuck there. This could lead to the female predator mind in any woman to unconsciously kick into gear and start feeding on him, even if its unintentional. So there's a balance to be struck with the kneeling knight ideal IMO.
Click to expand...
I concur, and I think this is where the term "simp" comes from, a by default white knight who can't stop. Not that you shouldn't be a knight, or a gentleman, but if it's your by default reaction when in a relationship, or you can't stop yourself from being one, then there's something not properly regulated. Being nice all the time is as detrimental to a relationship, and to the individual, as being nasty all the time. So, yes.. balance is the key. You gotta find out where these tendencies come from, fear, ignorance, trauma, arrogance.. so many places.
 
Well,

yes and no @DianaRose94, I think you could make the case that technically a relationship, or marriage and even children, is a luxury and not a necessity. Both men and women can bring themselves, and I am sure we have all seen cases, to the point of having enough financial independence where a partner is not really needed. With that you gain stability and true, what would you need someone by your side for?

But I think reducing human relationships to those very components, and nothing else, is precisely what both sides of that conversation are doing and the reason why we have glorified mysoginist, like Tate, and glorified feminists, both claiming that what's wrong, and has always been wrong, with human relationships, is the other side.

I have, much like you, met independent women and men who are decently well regulated, on their own. I think purely biological reasons for reproduction or mating, or holding on to a partner for providence or protection will always be there, we're still biological beings. And that changes with conditions, some women are born with great access to society and education, and to good parents, some are not, the same applies to men, and as such.. a partnership will always, at a certain level and in certain cases, represent pure utility. Some are born with or develop character traits that grant them success, however you measure it, and a partner becomes a luxury.

However, as you yourself brought it up, if it were pure utility cheating wouldn't be so traumatic, even in very well off partners. Just like we're more than primates, our relationships are more than about resources. I think there's a cognitive, emotional and even spiritual dimension to our relationships. One could make the case that being self reliant makes a person terribly self centered, being in a relationship where you get to work on yourself, and your drives, is an opportunity to grow beyond your purely biological needs and live above them.

The same can be said for children, it could be the way in which a human being realizes that there's reasons beyond self preservation that can influence choices. Moreover, I think because of our differences, not just biological, but psychological and emotional, men and women are indeed made for one another, we regulate each other emotionally and provide the other with opportunities to grow, learn about ourselves and the world, sacrifice our beastly nature, and become human.

So, what I am saying is that, there are things that can't be measured that influence our growth that can only be obtained by interacting in a romantic way with the opposite sex. Cheating hurts so much, because of something that can't be measured, which we give to someone else, trust.

Trust, is not something one can create, or become self reliant about, without someone else, and family or friends can't quite provide the level of trust that only a partner can.

my two cents.
 
Ina said:
👎
It might sound like a funny joke, but it would be nice if you’d change the ‘animals’ to at least....’biologics’ as per the recent Congress Hearings on UAP, see Grush testimony.

P.S. Do you really consider yourself an animal first and human second?
Click to expand...

i have ALL the functions of an animal minus those capabilities an animal has but not i. and to become a real human asks for a lot of effort. i see my cat is more clever than i...
 
At one point I thought that the ideal couple was like a hot-air balloon whose flight depended on the wind, and the only manoeuvre you could make was to go up or down to take the most appropriate current to go in the same direction.

I'd also thought that the ideal couple was like mountainers roped together, where everyone knew their limits and those of the others, the ascent itself remained personal, and to reach the summit, you needed a sharp group effort and coordination, where every misunderstanding, or wrong move could be fatal, but in the everyday life of the ideal couple, it's rather an extreme ideal, imagine the couple at dinner: "Darling, you've overcooked the entrecôte, our married life is ruined forever. ...", "It was already ruined, at the butcher's you asked for 750g, and when it was weighed it was 755g, and you didn't say anything!".

I'd also thought of drawing a parallel with work, in fact there are only a few people who manage to fulfil themselves through their work, for most people work resembles a more or less cool form of slavery.
For a long time now, I've been making sure that there's a good atmosphere with my work teams, there's no risk premium in treeworking, it's all part of the job, getting up every morning to find yourself 25 m high with a chainsaw, and your only lifeline is a rope, and you're happy, and you're even paid for it, in advance I'll tell you that climbers aren't crazy, to be fair, there's a whole lot of thought and passion put into learning about trees.
In the city, the climber finds all the expression of his work, taking care of the trees and pruning them while respecting their biology and the safety of the inhabitants, serving as a link between the trees and the people who have a limited horizon and mentality when it comes to verticality, depth, expansion and geometry, and precisely mastering the equipment to be able to carry out the work with professionnalism and diplomacy

So, I've compared the ideal couple to a great friendship, but for this example, I'm going to stick to work.
Among the various treeworking companies, there was one that had 7 pruners, so there was a girl in the team, she had a certain leadership, she was intelligent, funny, cute, professional and she was also a lesbian, no I'm joking!
And on top of all that, she was above all a climber, of course in the team she was looking for the same camaraderie as everyone else, and what had to happen happened, her kind attentions were misinterpreted, and there were a few settlements of scores in the households.

Then I had imagined the ideal couple as two planets passing each other in the universe.
The cataclysm of their meeting that we can see at our level in our life as a couple.

I have an old friend who, for his own reasons, felt that the 'esoteric side' could not be discussed in his couple, and that for this he had a special group, whereas at the time I firmly believed that a couple should share this 'esoteric side' to help each other progress.
Of course, context is relatively important in all this.

In most of the novels in this thread, the relationship of the 'ideal couple-to-be' begins with conflict, misunderstanding, fear and even hatred of each other.
Unlike in 'normal' life, it's quite the opposite: it's love at first sight, it's a crush, it's a programme hit, it's a shotof something, and the couple is formed...
Of course things are more complicated, I never take heartbreak or the tears of my nieces and nephews lightly.

In most cases the devil ends up getting into the details, where he becomes the judge and the prosecutor.

And lately, I've been wondering whether the best way to interact in a relationship wouldn't be to tame a fox.

The Little Prince (excerpt) by Antoine de Saint-Exupery​

It was then that the fox appeared.
“Good morning,” said the fox.
“Good morning,” the little prince responded politely, although when he turned around he saw nothing.
“I am right here,” the voice said, “under the apple tree.”
“Who are you?” asked the little prince, and added, “You are very pretty to look at.”
“I am a fox,” said the fox.
“Come and play with me,” proposed the little prince. “I am so unhappy.”
“I cannot play with you,” the fox said. “I am not tamed.”
“Ah! Please excuse me,” said the little prince.
But, after some thought, he added:
“What does that mean — ‘tame’?”
“You do not live here,” said the fox. “What is it that you are looking for?”
“I am looking for men,” said the little prince. “What does that mean — ‘tame’?”
“Men,” said the fox. “They have guns, and they hunt. It is very disturbing. They also raise chickens. These are their only interests. Are you looking for chickens?”
“No,” said the little prince. “I am looking for friends. What does that mean — ‘tame’?”
“It is an act too often neglected,” said the fox. “It means to establish ties.”
“‘To establish ties’?”
“Just that,” said the fox. “To me, you are still nothing more than a little boy who is just like a hundred thousand other little boys. And I have no need of you. And you, on your part, have no need of me. To you, I am nothing more than a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But if you tame me, then we shall need each other. To me, you will be unique in all the world. To you, I shall be unique in all the world…”
“I am beginning to understand,” said the little prince. “There is a flower… I think that she has tamed me…”
“It is possible,” said the fox. “On the Earth one sees all sorts of things.”
“Oh, but this is not on the Earth!” said the little prince.
The fox seemed perplexed, and very curious.
“On another planet?”
“Yes.”
“Are there hunters on this planet?”
“No.”
“Ah, that is interesting! Are there chickens?”
“No.”
“Nothing is perfect,” sighed the fox.
But he came back to his idea.
“My life is very monotonous,” the fox said. “I hunt chickens; men hunt me. All the chickens are just alike, and all the men are just alike. And, in consequence, I am a little bored. But if you tame me, it will be as if the sun came to shine on my life. I shall know the sound of a step that will be different from all the others. Other steps send me hurrying back underneath the ground. Yours will call me, like music, out of my burrow. And then look: you see the grain-fields down yonder? I do not eat bread. Wheat is of no use to me. The wheat fields have nothing to say to me. And that is sad. But you have hair that is the colour of gold. Think how wonderful that will be when you have tamed me! The grain, which is also golden, will bring me back the thought of you. And I shall love to listen to the wind in the wheat…”
The fox gazed at the little prince, for a long time.
“Please — tame me!” he said.
“I want to, very much,” the little prince replied. “But I have not much time. I have friends to discover, and a great many things to understand.”
“One only understands the things that one tames,” said the fox. “Men have no more time to understand anything. They buy things all ready made at the shops. But there is no shop anywhere where one can buy friendship, and so men have no friends any more. If you want a friend, tame me…”
“What must I do, to tame you?” asked the little prince.
“You must be very patient,” replied the fox. “First you will sit down at a little distance from me — like that — in the grass. I shall look at you out of the corner of my eye, and you will say nothing. Words are the source of misunderstandings. But you will sit a little closer to me, every day…”
The next day the little prince came back.
“It would have been better to come back at the same hour,” said the fox. “If, for example, you come at four o’clock in the afternoon, then at three o’clock I shall begin to be happy. I shall feel happier and happier as the hour advances. At four o’clock, I shall already be worrying and jumping about. I shall show you how happy I am! But if you come at just any time, I shall never know at what hour my heart is to be ready to greet you… One must observe the proper rites…”
“What is a rite?” asked the little prince.
“Those also are actions too often neglected,” said the fox. “They are what make one day different from other days, one hour from other hours. There is a rite, for example, among my hunters. Every Thursday they dance with the village girls. So Thursday is a wonderful day for me! I can take a walk as far as the vineyards. But if the hunters danced at just any time, every day would be like every other day, and I should never have any vacation at all.”
So the little prince tamed the fox. And when the hour of his departure drew near —
“Ah,” said the fox, “I shall cry.”
“It is your own fault,” said the little prince. “I never wished you any sort of harm; but you wanted me to tame you…”
“Yes, that is so,” said the fox.
“But now you are going to cry!” said the little prince.
“Yes, that is so,” said the fox.
“Then it has done you no good at all!”
“It has done me good,” said the fox, “because of the color of the wheat fields.” And then he added: “Go and look again at the roses. You will understand now that yours is unique in all the world. Then come back to say goodbye to me, and I will make you a present of a secret.”
The little prince went away, to look again at the roses.
“You are not at all like my rose,” he said. “As yet you are nothing. No one has tamed you, and you have tamed no one. You are like my fox when I first knew him. He was only a fox like a hundred thousand other foxes. But I have made him my friend, and now he is unique in all the world.”
And the roses were very much embarrassed.
“You are beautiful, but you are empty,” he went on. “One could not die for you. To be sure, an ordinary passerby would think that my rose looked just like you — the rose that belongs to me. But in herself alone she is more important than all the hundreds of you other roses: because it is she that I have watered; because it is she that I have put under the glass globe; because it is she that I have sheltered behind the screen; because it is for her that I have killed the caterpillars (except the two or three that we saved to become butterflies); because it is she that I have listened to, when she grumbled, or boasted, or even sometimes when she said nothing. Because she is my rose.”
And he went back to meet the fox.
“Goodbye,” he said.
“Goodbye,” said the fox. “And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”
“What is essential is invisible to the eye,” the little prince repeated, so that he would be sure to remember.
“It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important.”
“It is the time I have wasted for my rose — ” said the little prince, so that he would be sure to remember.
“Men have forgotten this truth,” said the fox. “But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. You are responsible for your rose…”
“I am responsible for my rose,” the little prince repeated, so that he would be sure to remember.
Click to expand...
 
zak said:
And lately, I've been wondering whether the best way to interact in a relationship wouldn't be to tame a fox.
Click to expand...
Maybe, there's a lot of meaning one could extract out of that.. tame a fox could be seen as becoming self aware enough of one's own nature so as to tame it in the interest of becoming a particular individual in someone else's eyes.. to differentiate oneself from the millions of others out there.. and viceversa.

I came across this video today, which I thought was very well made, since we have discussed Aragorn in this thread, in relation to masculinity and potential archetypical ideas to model oneself after. It discusses what was brought up here, a healthy protective masculinity, in mastery over it's violent potential nature, capable of healing, where strength isn't a vain search, but because it serves a purpose, a purpose in relation to others.

I think the guy summarized it rather well, he also mentions the constant drag of the two extreme camps that seem to have designs upon men.

 
Alejo said:
Maybe, there's a lot of meaning one could extract out of that.. tame a fox could be seen as becoming self aware enough of one's own nature so as to tame it in the interest of becoming a particular individual in someone else's eyes.. to differentiate oneself from the millions of others out there.. and viceversa.
Click to expand...

We can add, using the fox's secret:
“And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.”

“What is essential is invisible to the eye,” the little prince repeated, so that he would be sure to remember.

“It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important.”

“It is the time I have wasted for my rose — ” said the little prince, so that he would be sure to remember.

“Men have forgotten this truth,” said the fox. “But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. You are responsible for your rose…”

“I am responsible for my rose,” the little prince repeated, so that he would be sure to remember.
Click to expand...
Responsibility in an age when not everyone wants to take responsibility for what they say or do, and when something bad happens is the fault of others.

Let's take the example of Aragorn again, keeping the words from the video posted by Alejo.
He starts out as a man responsible in good or in bad, and ends up as a king, magnifying and concretising his status as a responsible man.
At the same time, Arwen, an immortal elf, chooses to become human.
Each having taken and accepted their responsibility consciously and voluntarily in the name of good beyond the self.

I've got a boxing bag that's almost two metres high, and on it is written the phrase 'What Will You Fight For?
Well, the first time I paid attention to that, I thought that as a reflection written on a punching bag, it wasn't too difficult and not very useful!
As training progressed, I began to push myself to my limits by doing several sets of affiliate exercises, in cardio, resistance, precision, speed... Then one day in the middle of a set of abs, I was more than done, I couldn't do one more, and my lost gaze fell on the phrase on the bag: "What Will You Fight For?", spontaneously and mentally I replied: "I would fight for... "and guess what? Bam, Boom I finished the series, and I could have run a marathon if I had to.
It's faith in others that carries us through and enables us to cross the gaps that we'd never manage alone.

In any relationship, responsibility is important, and in a couple it takes on an even greater dimension.

By taming a fox, we can make it unique, and the fact of taming one links us to the other untamed foxes, so we can also be responsible for all of them, if they want us to, of course, and in this case these foxes become tamed without being tamed...
A fox is a complicated creature!

I'll give an example with a cat, as I know cats a little better:

Not tame 😾
Tame 😻
Tamed without being tamed 😹
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom