Dating people with disabilities

Æon wrote:

Ah yes, I never respected her intelligence.

How kind of you to imply.

It's not only about intelligence.

The purple dragon will find it difficult to relate to this scene...

Just because I say that animals are not as intelligent as humans and that life feeds on life, doesn't mean I, as an individual, want to exterminate animals or enjoy torturing and killing them.
In fact, I don't need god to make me innately unable to harm animals or anyone, for no reason.
I don't need a reward nor a threat to remain true to my nature, holding myself accountable to myself - conscience is self-discipline, holding self accountable to oneself, and/or to one's own ideals.  

How I see the world and what I do about it are two different things - objectivity, subjectivity.
I know what beauty is, what attracts and why....but this doesn't mean I am a benefactor, or an example of the ideal, or worthy of possessing it.
The world challenges us.
The world confronts us with its brutality, its injustices, its indifference.
I describe it as it is.

Imbeciles confuse these descriptions for expressions of personal preferences....why?
Because they are unable to be objective. All their beliefs are self-flattering, self-serving, self-comforting...and so they assume this is so for everyone.....why?
Because the inferior cannot understand nor relate with what is above it - with the superior - whereas the superior can easily relate and understand the inferior and what is beneath it.
A man can know and understand a chimpanzee more than it can ever know itself....and more than it can ever know a man.
To a chimpanzee a homo sapient is incomprehensible, magical, strange...confusing....odd....so it reduces the man to a chimpanzee and believes it is also a man.

So, empathy immediately means sympathy...and if it fails to produce sympathy then it must produce antipathy.
This is how simple minds think - either/or binaries.
The possibility that someone can empathize and feel neither sympathy - objectivity - nor antipathy is beyond their ability to comprehend - they simply cannot relate so they conclude that the other is lying.
Everything is reduced to the simple - absolutes.
You either totally sympathize, triggering compassion, or you must totally antipathize, triggering hatred, and what is hatred but a reaction to fear.
So whomever does not sympathize is governed by fear, and there must be something wrong with them because this is anti-social and being excluded from a group is the worse thing you can do to a member of a social species.
All must pretend to be sympathetic, even if they do not feel it....because only a madman would risk exclusion from the group.

Satyr wrote:

Developed minds appreciate mind before body

Does appreciation of the mind ultimately result in appreciation of the noumenon/meme over the phenomenon/gene? Given the modern propensity for developed minds justifying their own reduced/non-reproduction by memetic disease, leads me to value the body over the mind in a potential partner today.

This is why i disagree with Dr. Dutton in pure K-Selection, as pure K-Selection itself is what is what brought us to this point of being weak and susceptible to infection.

Appreciation depends on the objective. We value in relation to our goal, our objective, our ideal.
Is it friendship or reproduction? Is it companionship or passing on your genes?
Is the objective physical or mental?

Mind can compensate for physical deficiencies, a body cannot compensate for mental deficiencies.

Females approach the body via the male mind; men approach the female mind via her body, because in this case reproduction is the objective.
The male sees the female as a means towards his ends; the female wants to become the means towards another's ends if he, it, is worthy of her sacrifices and risks.

A female estimates the males socioeconomic potentials before his genetic potentials, even if she aesthetically perceives the latter before she does the former. It's always more complicated with female sexuality because of the mind/body dichotomy - genes/memes.
A male estimates the female's genetic potentials before he does her socioeconomic - memetic - potentials.

But we live in inverted times.
The female is no longer integrated into the male's family - as she was in traditional systems - but the male is pulled into the female's family - modern systems.
The state is the dominant male, forcing males into the subordinate position of a surrogate female, or a representation of the institution.
The male's socioeconomic potentials indicate his institutionalized evaluation and appreciation - his market value - evidence of his loyalty and subordination to collective values.
Nihilism inverts therefore noumena usurp phenomena. The male's adherence to the prevailing ideology/dogma is more important than his biological markers of heritage and fitness - on a conscious, lucid, level.
Subconsciously a female is still dominated by her attraction to biological markers. The lower in intelligence she is the more these impulses contradict her conscious ideological values, i.e., evaluations.

Flirting is a negotiation...

Trivers, Robert wrote:

If… deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as to not betray – by the subtle signs of self-knowledge – the deception being practised. Thus, the conventional view that natural selection favours nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world must be a very naive view of mental evolution.

Deceit is part of flirting and sexual relationships.
Especially, self-deceit.

Gangstad, Steven W. –PhD wrote:

Flirting is a negotiation process that takes place after there has been initial attraction.

Gangstad, Steven W. –PhD wrote:

Physical symmetry is a footprint left by your whole developmental history.

Women, and romantic idealists - naive men-children - will dismiss this as clinical, because ti demystifies what they wish to remain magical, incomprehensible, spiritual.
All this judging, cost/benefit estimating, negotiating happens on a subconscious level.
The foundation is the individuals' self-knowledge - his/her self-evaluations; self-worth.

Maia wrote:
"......... I would not consider dating a disabled person, which might sound grossly hypocritical, but is actually just a matter of practicalities".

That is a clever reason to give....."matter of practicalities".......
what does that mean?

reasonvemotion wrote:

Maia wrote:
"......... I would not consider dating a disabled person, which might sound grossly hypocritical, but is actually just a matter of practicalities".

That is a clever reason to give....."matter of practicalities".......
what does that mean?

It means that having both partners in a relationship disabled in some way might be difficult in practical terms.

Maia wrote:

It means that having both partners in a relationship disabled in some way might be difficult in practical terms.


but you wrote:

Independence and self-reliance are second nature to me.

What does that mean?

You don't want added responsibility for another person?

reasonvemotion wrote:

Maia wrote:

It means that having both partners in a relationship disabled in some way might be difficult in practical terms.


but you wrote:

Independence and self-reliance are second nature to me.

What does that mean?

You don't want added responsibility for another person?

If it's just a date with some random person who asked me out, then no. Having responsibility for a loved one or family member would be different.

That is by no means the only criteria, though. As I said earlier, I would also have to feel attracted to the person.

I don't wish to appear pedantic, but I am trying to understand why you wrote earlier, you would not wish to pair up with a person who has a disability.

Your post has got me thinking.

I could not imagine being sightless and frankly it frightens me. In your case I assume you have been without sight since birth and as you have written you accept this.

I think it would be difficult for a person with sight to understand how the absence of 'seeing' truly affects a person, hence this may create a lopsided relationship.

reasonvemotion wrote:

I don't wish to appear pedantic, but I am trying to understand why you wrote earlier, you would not wish to pair up with a person who has a disability.

Your post has got me thinking.

I could not imagine being sightless and frankly it frightens me.  In your case I assume you have been without sight since birth and as you have written you accept this.  

I think it would be difficult for a person with sight to understand how the absence of 'seeing' truly affects a person, hence this may create a lopsided relationship.  

Yes, I've been completely blind since birth.

The blind community is pretty insular, and very annoying, in many ways and blind people often pair off with other blind people. It's much rarer to have one blind person and one sighted person in a relationship. I decided many years ago that I wanted to expand my horizons. I've always found sighted people far more interesting, not to mention very much more numerous.

Impulso Oscuro wrote:

"Does appreciation of the mind ultimately result in appreciation of the noumenon/meme over the phenomenon/gene? Given the modern propensity for developed minds justifying their own reduced/non-reproduction by memetic disease, leads me to value the body over the mind in a potential partner today."

I agree.

I also value honesty, integrity and responsibility. A man who, for example, believes a woman should mother him is not someone I would consider.

A supportive partner is irreplaceable.

reasonvemotion wrote:

I also value honesty, integrity and responsibility.   A man who, for example, believes a woman should mother him is not someone I would consider.

A supportive partner is irreplaceable.

He seeks the mother he never had in his youth, just like some of the females Ive met who sought the father they never had in their mates.