I'm not sure where to post this but it's some art from a therapist video called "Man and Woman trying to touch"

[Argo]

So I wanted to post this because a common theme on these forums(usually in the suicide section) is an inability to connect romantically. And this art piece I found is about that, specifically with a man and woman but obviously all kinds of people and combinations have their struggles. I just found it really interesting as a fellow struggler, so I hope you do too. It came from a therapist who did the art himself and so that's why I'm posting it in recovery.

So the way this art was explained was, we as people, tend to want connection, intimacy, etc. We feel like we've succeeded in life on some primal level if we get that in some lasting way(I imagine). It's understandable, and not getting it causes a lot of human suffering. The problem is, and very often with suicidal people, there was/is lots of trauma. And even if there wasn't, humanity I think( this next part is my own take here, not the artists) is a deeply broken and flawed species and we make each other miserable in relationships as a feature rather than a bug. I think the things that prevent us from being happy, evolved to enhance our survival, while making us miserable. That's probably for another post though.

Anyway, back to the person who did this piece, he describes the man on the left and the woman on the right, and the man is shown taking out of himself, these ugly little creatures to try to give to her. People feel like they have something inside them that is ugly(even if you overcome any external insecurity, the real ugliness is on the inside), and no one would ever want to truly touch them because of this, or get to know them, because of these ugly things that live inside. And that's basically all some people feel they have to give. And no one is going to want that. So he's giving her these things almost like, "Here... would you accept this?" And of course, the answer is no. And then the woman is holding this serpent thing in front of her face, defensively, signalling something like "Don't try to get near me" and so it's almost like no one can get past it. So it's like this really... grotesque... and sadistic game, where no one can ever be happy, because we have these unresolved wounds, these horrible features and flaws as people(we believe), these defenses, these sabotaging behaviors, etc.

There's actually a lot of stuff going on in this drawing but I don't know anything about the other details because he didn't go into it. So yeah, not my own analysis I'm just kind of transcribing (crudely) what he said after doing this drawing after working with many of his clients.

 

[Celerity]

It's not a very flattering way to think about, but it makes me think of the porcupine paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedgehog's_dilemma

The OG, Schopenhauer, himself discussed this.

I am also drawn to think of the modern concept of The Self, if it can even be said to exist. The idea is that we know so little of our true selves and have so little awareness of how we present ourselves to others. We often also do not really know why we are drawn to certain people. Psychology offers some answers. Trauma does a lot of the legwork, of course. Being an anxious-avoidant person, I tend to chase the emotionally unavailable and am turned off by affection. Still, I don't know beyond the basics why some people work for me while others don't even when they have a lot of the same things to offer on paper.

With all this lack of self-knowledge or knowledge of others, I can't help but feel we're all like shadows talking about shadows chasing shadows - all looking for the real thing that isn't really there and cannot be had.

 

[penguinl0v3s]

I know that all people want connection and intimacy, but I'm curious on why people place so much importance on romantic intimacy. It's a societal norm and influenced by the media, but in practice is it better?

I notice it's usually heterosexual men putting so much emphasis on romantic relationships the most. Is it because of the way male friendships function compared to female ones?

As a woman, my friendships with women, and friendships with men that stay friendships, have always been more fulfilling than my relationships with men. They're also more stable and last longer. I prioritize my friendships over relationships.

People feel like they have something inside them that is ugly(even if you overcome any external insecurity, the real ugliness is on the inside), and no one would ever want to truly touch them because of this, or get to know them, because of these ugly things that live inside.

I feel as though even though everyone has something ugly inside, some have more ugly than others. Not everyone is a good partner to the same degree.

And that's basically all some people feel they have to give. And no one is going to want that. So he's giving her these things almost like, "Here... would you accept this?" And of course, the answer is no. And then the woman is holding this serpent thing in front of her face, defensively, signalling something like "Don't try to get near me" and so it's almost like no one can get past it. So it's like this really... grotesque... and sadistic game, where no one can ever be happy, because we have these unresolved wounds, these horrible features and flaws as people(we believe), these defenses, these sabotaging behaviors, etc.

This is honestly the type of man that I would flat out reject. Oftentimes, the biggest problem with these insecure men isn't what they're insecure about, but their low self-esteem itself.

You can often sense the self-hatred radiating off of certain people, and those people often aren't able to love you. They cling onto you because you can make them feel happiness and give them emotional support they have for their feelings, but they don't truly love you and quickly become emotionally codependent. In a way that I'm not anymore, because I feel pretty secure in myself now and put romantic relationships 2nd or 3rd priority.

I'm happy to support any men with emotional issues as friends because men often don't get the support they need due to gender roles, but I would not consider a romantic relationship with them because they don't have the emotional maturity to be able to be a good long term partner.

Rejecting men doesn't make me unhappy because I'm already happy not being with anyone, and it's moreso that I would reject a certain type of man, precisely the one depicted in the image.

 

[SexyIncél]

I know that all people want connection and intimacy, but I'm curious on why people place so much importance on romantic intimacy. It's a societal norm and influenced by the media, but in practice is it better?

Yeah, romantic love is a peculiar mix of fairly recent social movements, that combine depressingly. (Like the romantic movement of the early 19th century + modernist movement of early 20th century)

The top figures in today's redpill movement basically tell men not to be like the dude in the painting. Desires just give you a pretext to improve yourself into a greater being. Then the things you once desired now come to you as side-benefits, that you can take or leave

 

[Celerity]

I know that all people want connection and intimacy, but I'm curious on why people place so much importance on romantic intimacy. It's a societal norm and influenced by the media, but in practice is it better?

I notice it's usually heterosexual men putting so much emphasis on romantic relationships the most. Is it because of the way male friendships function compared to female ones?

As a woman, my friendships with women, and friendships with men that stay friendships, have always been more fulfilling than my relationships with men. They're also more stable and last longer. I prioritize my friendships over relationships.

I feel as though even though everyone has something ugly inside, some have more ugly than others. Not everyone is a good partner to the same degree.

This is honestly the type of man that I would flat out reject. Oftentimes, the biggest problem with these insecure men isn't what they're insecure about, but their low self-esteem itself.

You can often sense the self-hatred radiating off of certain people, and those people often aren't able to love you. They cling onto you because you can make them feel happiness and give them emotional support they have for their feelings, but they don't truly love you and quickly become emotionally codependent. In a way that I'm not anymore, because I feel pretty secure in myself now and put romantic relationships 2nd or 3rd priority.

I'm happy to support any men with emotional issues as friends because men often don't get the support they need due to gender roles, but I would not consider a romantic relationship with them because they don't have the emotional maturity to be able to be a good long term partner.

Rejecting men doesn't make me unhappy because I'm already happy not being with anyone, and it's moreso that I would reject a certain type of man, precisely the one depicted in the image.

I can see your perspective. No one wants an emotional leech. Ngl though, the idea that I'll never bond with a romantic partner well enough to surpass my friendships kind of kills me. I dread the idea of recreating something like my parents' marriage which has been like that of roommates for years.

 

[Argo]

I know that all people want connection and intimacy, but I'm curious on why people place so much importance on romantic intimacy. It's a societal norm and influenced by the media, but in practice is it better?

I notice it's usually heterosexual men putting so much emphasis on romantic relationships the most. Is it because of the way male friendships function compared to female ones?

As a woman, my friendships with women, and friendships with men that stay friendships, have always been more fulfilling than my relationships with men. They're also more stable and last longer. I prioritize my friendships over relationships.

I feel as though even though everyone has something ugly inside, some have more ugly than others. Not everyone is a good partner to the same degree.

This is honestly the type of man that I would flat out reject. Oftentimes, the biggest problem with these insecure men isn't what they're insecure about, but their low self-esteem itself.

You can often sense the self-hatred radiating off of certain people, and those people often aren't able to love you. They cling onto you because you can make them feel happiness and give them emotional support they have for their feelings, but they don't truly love you and quickly become emotionally codependent. In a way that I'm not anymore, because I feel pretty secure in myself now and put romantic relationships 2nd or 3rd priority.

I'm happy to support any men with emotional issues as friends because men often don't get the support they need due to gender roles, but I would not consider a romantic relationship with them because they don't have the emotional maturity to be able to be a good long term partner.

Rejecting men doesn't make me unhappy because I'm already happy not being with anyone, and it's moreso that I would reject a certain type of man, precisely the one depicted in the image.

There are a lot of interesting points there and a lot of them make sense. After thinking about it for a bit, some of the points there are gendered issues, like when you mention how you struggle to understand placing what you see as a high value on romantic intimacy-- and that just seems like the normal human desire for intimacy, plus male sexual desire. As far as only heterosexual men, you can see this in gay male spaces too. Any time spent in many gay male space will show a distinctly horny environment, and that's just the reality of male sexuality.

Other points you make are true but I don't think are gendered(I'm not saying you necessarily think that, though). It's true that someone who can't accept themselves can't love someone, and so any relationship there will fail. I would even go farther to say that any egocentric person(which seems like everyone, broadly) can't love someone insofar as they can't drop their ego, because true love is unconcerned with oneself. It's not inward at all-- it's the gift of attention towards someone. It's not about getting something in return, but it often is expressed that way as a subtle transaction. I think that's very hard to separate from our wiring and our nature, but drugs seem very promising.

Another problem with the egocentric model of love, is that egos constantly want more. So we could get something amazing and satisfying, but we will need to neverendingly sweeten the deal on the transaction, which is doomed to fail.

Self-hatred, insecurity, inability to love oneself, seems like a human issue generally, and it's pretty rampant, but it's one of those things that can be buried deep because confronting it is so painful, inconvenient, destabilizing. That touches on what Celerity wrote on shadows. We perceive ourselves one way, we present ourselves another way, but what we are actually like is alien or unknown to both ourselves and others; we either don't relate to it, forget it, or don't know it.

What is a person loving in that context? Because we can't love and accept that thing we can't even know. All we can usually love and accept is some sort of constructed self, which no one will ever see in a way that's in touch with reality, because it's fictional. Yes, people can become infatuated with a false image, but that rosy picture will have cracks form in it with time, one person will blatantly pull away, etc.

 

[penguinl0v3s]

Yeah, romantic love is a peculiar mix of fairly recent social movements, that combine depressingly. (Like the romantic movement of the early 19th century + modernist movement of early 20th century)

The top figures in today's redpill movement basically tell men not to be like the dude in the painting. Desires just give you a pretext to improve yourself into a greater being. Then the things you once desired now come to you as side-benefits, that you can take or leave

Nice read, I love that author! I find it weird that people think that love is harder to find than ever, when in most of history, people didn't marry out of love, but out of obligation. Look at boomers who complain about their spouses. Our generation has the very new idea of 'finding love' and only marrying if there's love. Perhaps people find marriage in itself meaningful? I personally don't.

That's a good idea, I agree with that message wholeheartedly! Too many pickup artists in the manosphere. It's very sad because it's sending the message that you need to seek external instead of internal validation, which is the formula for low self-esteem.

I can see your perspective. No one wants an emotional leech. Ngl though, the idea that I'll never bond with a romantic partner well enough to surpass my friendships kind of kills me. I dread the idea of recreating something like my parents' marriage which has been like that of roommates for years.

Ah I'm not trying to say that a romantic relationship will not be intimate, I think that it should be. But I also do think that while partners will come and go (just the nature of dating and testing compatibility), your friends will be with you the entire time and have known you for longer. Of course it will have intimate things that a friendship doesn't, like dates and physical intimacy, but as for motional closeness I feel as though romantic partner doesn't have to be #1.

There are a lot of interesting points there and a lot of them make sense. After thinking about it for a bit, some of the points there are gendered issues, like when you mention how you struggle to understand placing what you see as a high value on romantic intimacy-- and that just seems like the normal human desire for intimacy, plus male sexual desire. As far as only heterosexual men, you can see this in gay male spaces too. Any time spent in many gay male space will show a distinctly horny environment, and that's just the reality of male sexuality.

Ah, I think it would be helpful to add that I'm on the asexual spectrum and can't speak for average female sexuality. That's a good point, I remember reading about how gay couples tend to be more sexual than lesbian couples. What role do you think sex plays in the conversation? And do you consider lust separate from romance, or hand in hand?

Other points you make are true but I don't think are gendered(I'm not saying you necessarily think that, though). It's true that someone who can't accept themselves can't love someone, and so any relationship there will fail. I would even go farther to say that any egocentric person(which seems like everyone, broadly) can't love someone insofar as they can't drop their ego, because true love is unconcerned with oneself. It's not inward at all-- it's the gift of attention towards someone. It's not about getting something in return, but it often is expressed that way as a subtle transaction. I think that's very hard to separate from our wiring and our nature, but drugs seem very promising.

Another problem with the egocentric model of love, is that egos constantly want more. So we could get something amazing and satisfying, but we will need to neverendingly sweeten the deal on the transaction, which is doomed to fail.

I like how you use transactional terms to describe our current romantic model, because I don't think love can be transactional. Our language uses object terms to describe love, so it's really really difficult to think of love without transaction. Think of the term "getting girls" or "my husband" ('my' being possessive, but I will say that this describes all relationships, not only romantic) or "object of affection." Also, for the true love being unconcerned with one's self, I'd like to make a connection to dating apps, where your "success" with matches depends on marketing your profile well, and therefore you. People are on an uphill battle to find true love by default! Not to mention our current economic system (capitalism) is probably the most transactional economical system possible, where with goods/resources you want to give the least and get the most. I'm not going to place a value judgment on whether or not that's good or bad, just what it is for the purpose of my connection with the origins of a transactional mindset.

We perceive ourselves one way, we present ourselves another way, but what we are actually like is alien or unknown to both ourselves and others; we either don't relate to it, forget it, or don't know it.

Anything where humans are involved, true objectivity can't be reached. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but humans can't access it because of biases. So I think objectivity is not worrying about, and it's okay to just accept subjectivity and take your opinion and your social circles' opinions into account and leave it at that!

What is a person loving in that context? Because we can't love and accept that thing we can't even know. All we can usually love and accept is some sort of constructed self, which no one will ever see in a way that's in touch with reality, because it's fictional. Yes, people can become infatuated with a false image, but that rosy picture will have cracks form in it with time, one person will blatantly pull away, etc.

John Green's personal theory is that that people fall in love with an imaginary image of a person, and stay in love if the real image, when it shines through, fits enough with what the person had imagined. There's also this quote "I love you not only for who you are but for who I am when I am with you" which makes love not solely about the other person, but also one's self. I don't agree or disagree with these, just throwing some perspectives out there.

 

[SexyIncél]

Nice read, I love that author! I find it weird that people think that love is harder to find than ever, when in most of history, people didn't marry out of love, but out of obligation. Look at boomers who complain about their spouses. Our generation has the very new idea of 'finding love' and only marrying if there's love. Perhaps people find marriage in itself meaningful? I personally don't.

Yeah, I'd guess that many of us are in highly atomized societies & desperate for enduring social relations. (Especially with 1970's neoliberalism smashing communities & so on.) With the usual nostalgia for an idealized vision of past days, despite knowing reality wasn't really like that

That's a good idea, I agree with that message wholeheartedly! Too many pickup artists in the manosphere. It's very sad because it's sending the message that you need to seek external instead of internal validation, which is the formula for low self-esteem.

Pickup artists are losing some prominence, though remain useful to teach "game". They're like sales & marketing depts. You don't necessarily need to be a good salesperson if you have a desired product that people know about. Also, I hear they can get pretty cynically disgusted about women's superficiality, because they spend all their time hacking the most superficial aspects of gals

I like how you use transactional terms to describe our current romantic model, because I don't think love can be transactional.

I think it's important to come up with a practical definition of love. Not one that describes what everyone means when they say "I love you." But a sentence or two saying what it means in practical terms when you personally love someone. What do you do? What are the important concepts?

That definition of love probably won't be transactional. (That is, it probably won't say "If they do X for me, ok then I'll do Y for them".) BUT in the context of an ongoing personal relationship involving love... there may be practical & moral reasons to expect them to do something with it. For example, if you help someone who helps others, then you've just multiplied their effectiveness!

Of course, there's many exceptions, like children. Who do make slaves out of their caretakers...

There's also this quote "I love you not only for who you are but for who I am when I am with you" which makes love not solely about the other person, but also one's self.

Yeah, a deep relationship (with conversations) forms a group mind. You're literally cognitively different

 

[F@#$]

Disturbing image, I like it.