communication

I'm interested in developing artificial scenarios for couples and friends to act out together as a way to therapeutically release emotional contractions and establish feelings of love, curiosity and openness for each other. It's hard for many people to relate what's happening inside of them using spoken language. Normally, to relate to a person, before you get to fuck them and love them, you need to put an object between yourself and she. This can also apply to friends, but friends come easy. Anyway, you then relate to each other by relating to an object, or topic of conversation, that you've agreed upon. One person has a go, points at the object, says some things about it, and then the other does the same, and somehow you start to connect by doing that for a while with many different objects. But my feeling is that it's not what you actually talk about, but the energy that's flowing out of you while you're talking which establishes the connection. So my question is, how effective is talking for understanding the energy that's flowing between you? I'd say it's fucking shite! A lot of people aren't good at talking, especially in certain scenarios. I, for example, cannot for the life of me talk to a beautiful woman. I suspect the reasons are MuLti, one being that there's nothing interesting to talk about, the other being that I'm subconsciously wayyy too focused on Getting something from her. So I can't really relate to my own words. There's a feeling of disconnection from my authenticity. If you can't relate to your own presentation of yourself, which is your medium for connecting to the other person, you probably aren't going to get pussy. That's a problem.

I'd like to go on a silent date with someone, where we meet up, hug, eat dinner and watch each other eat dinner, hug again, go to a park and roll over each other for twenty minutes, lay around, then go home. Many people seem to be afraid or don't know how to involve their bodies in communication. I'd like to communicate more using my body, but can't really do that in conversation. Maybe I am just very horny right now. Anyway... alternatives to conventional dialoguing to connect with people?

And I do feel that once you're in a relationship, maybe up until the age of 22 or 23, half the shit you talk about is your drama as a couple, which is the lifeblood for your stupid relationship. the other half can be fun and interesting. just depends on your partner and if he/she is intelligent and healthy and sociable.

  On 9/1/2010 at 12:13 AM, happycase said:

I'm interested in developing artificial scenarios for couples and friends to act out together as a way to therapeutically release emotional contractions and establish feelings of love, curiosity and openness for each other. It's hard for many people to relate what's happening inside of them using spoken language. Normally, to relate to a person, before you get to fuck them and love them, you need to put an object between yourself and she. This can also apply to friends, but friends come easy. Anyway, you then relate to each other by relating to an object, or topic of conversation, that you've agreed upon. One person has a go, points at the object, says some things about it, and then the other does the same, and somehow you start to connect by doing that for a while with many different objects. But my feeling is that it's not what you actually talk about, but the energy that's flowing out of you while you're talking which establishes the connection. So my question is, how effective is talking for understanding the energy that's flowing between you? I'd say it's fucking shite! A lot of people aren't good at talking, especially in certain scenarios. I, for example, cannot for the life of me talk to a beautiful woman. I suspect the reasons are MuLti, one being that there's nothing interesting to talk about, the other being that I'm subconsciously wayyy too focused on Getting something from her. So I can't really relate to my own words. There's a feeling of disconnection from my authenticity. If you can't relate to your own presentation of yourself, which is your medium for connecting to the other person, you probably aren't going to get pussy. That's a problem.

 

I'd like to go on a silent date with someone, where we meet up, hug, eat dinner and watch each other eat dinner, hug again, go to a park and roll over each other for twenty minutes, lay around, then go home. Many people seem to be afraid or don't know how to involve their bodies in communication. I'd like to communicate more using my body, but can't really do that in conversation. Maybe I am just very horny right now. Anyway... alternatives to conventional dialoguing to connect with people?

 

And I do feel that once you're in a relationship, maybe up until the age of 22 or 23, half the shit you talk about is your drama as a couple, which is the lifeblood for your stupid relationship. the other half can be fun and interesting. just depends on your partner and if he/she is intelligent and healthy and sociable.

somewhere there is a girl that might think in a similar way and want a similar approach.

but come on man, humans have been talking for 100,000 years already [assuming the homo sapiens sapiens already had a developed language] so coming up with a new system of communication that is based on other senses and not on the ability to speak is something that i hardly can imagine.

but this doesn't mean i am not interested. i really want to hear more details from what you have come up with already..

i've always thought of communication as a mish-mash of things. most importantly today the mish-mash of verbal and physical signals. i can't recall the last conversation where the physical hasn't had a huge role (and the verbal as well). sure, internet messaging gets in the way of that, but it (internet messaging or internets in general) is neither physical nor verbal, so much.

i think in real life if you were to remove one aspect of communication you could find something interesting but i don't know that it would be the best way to interact. as an experiment i think it'd be great, but i don't think we've developed this level of communication just for the fuck of it.

THINK THIKNK THINKG

It isn't really my intention to stage a massive restructuring of our language-biased communication system. I'd just like to integrate non-verbal forms of communication into my own life to enhance and supplement elements of relationship that suffer the consequences of our particular society's conventions. The idea here is to mutually create an artificial scenario in which there are prescribed rules of behavior. We already do this every day, but I'd like for the rules to be different and to call neglected components of the total human being into action. Most of the ideas I have are not meant to function as new ways of communicating, but activities designed to break down subconscious barriers that limit what we do with our conventional modes of interacting.

For example, we're conditionally private about our bodies, even if we don't really want to be. Say two people want to get to know each other better, two people who have discussed being a couple, or already are, but neither of them are really able to express or feel the adoration they have for each other with language. My suspicion is that the energy that is most fundamental to their particular connection with each other is an energy that has somehow been made private through unconscious conditioning. The subconscious alters what they communicate and how they're communicating it so that the affection is never really expressed directly. It gets altered before it comes out. There's a fear, a repression, a turning inward of the energy instead of a flowing outward. Like being congested. I want to find medicine for this congestion. Somewhere I'd be interested in starting is with the body.

So we design a scenario in which the torsos, genitals, legs, arms, get touched by the other person, but in a fun way. We extend what is private into a safe public domain, with someone we want to share with. By extension, we are more psychically ready to let that energy flow outward in a more conventional way. For this we design an activity such as going to a park, laying in the grass, and rolling over one another for fifteen minutes. The participants enter a sort of meditative concentration by doing this, where there's no purpose but to roll over each other in some pattern that naturally gets established. They get used to sharing their bodies. Certain psychological contractions around the privacy of the body loosen up. I haven't given that much thought, it's just an idea I had today.

But there's also tantric/sexual type activities that couples can try together. We've made masturbation such a private and shameful activity. I think if the couple learns to masturbate in front of each other, with support and love from the other, before having sexual intercourse, the intercourse becomes a means to connect in a very private, emotional, and psychologically healing way. The shame we've built up around our own perversions, and which becomes very secretive, is worked through, brought to light, and we then fuck shamelessly out of love for each other, not for the orgasm, which has become associated with privacy. There's lots more to do. Writing to one another in person, making and keeping eye contact, dancing in silence, i don't know. That's why I posted this. I don't have that many ideas. But generally my desire is to pinpoint subconscious contractions and consciously release them by deciding together to do certain odd activities.

actually, this made me think a bit, because i am quite a reserved guy and talk way too much less than the average person.

i think what you propose would be completely possible.

i guess it would require a restrict community and it would be a process pretty much similar to that of creating a language. it would take many years, various generations working on that.

and the result, as you might be aware of, would be a culture very isolated, too specific, as there is no memory of a group of people not using the voice articulation as main form of communication.

there are a couple of sui generis situations, like those of african tribes which seem to communicate by means of imperceptible [to us] murmurs, also some amazonian tribes and possibly australian indigenous ( i am not really sure). to penetrate this tribes cultures is very hard, although possible, but it is a system that works for them, which pretty much confirms the possibility.

but you should consider one different perspective, not related to your main issue: i am sure you know some people with whom you don't need to trade words at all, as the eye contact or even the attitude (with this i mean physical reactions) both of you keep, are themselves what express communication. this happens naturally with people, we all experience that here and then. it's only a question of 'people's combinations'.

of course i don't know what are you exactly imagining, if you would consider that applied to all civilizations (if they still exist), to all types of people, places.. etc.. but i guess there is no need for an alternative form of communication at all. you were given five senses, no more, no less, which have been kept in constant evolution and change in the way they were interpreted, for ages, but as i said previously, for about 100,000 years until now, men have been talking with almost no exception. only what changed was the language they used, some disappeared, some more were created. i guess changing this system of communication could only be a consequence of a huge change in the human essence.

Yes, I agree that much of what determines how effectively two people interact is the "people combination," or what i'd call chemistry. My issue is that there is a lot more chemistry in the world than has room to get expressed conventionally. I don't think some people are merely "reserved" or "not good at talking" or "not interesting," although I grant that all these things are legit explanations. But there's more to it. I believe there are fundamental psychological obstructions, where the libido turns in on itself, and doesn't flow out to the provocative object. There's a dishonesty and unconsciousness with oneself, and this extends to the people you're interacting with. I believe everyone has a greater or lesser capacity to be socially beastly in certain communities or with certain people. I want the beast to come out.

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:22 AM, happycase said:

It isn't really my intention to stage a massive restructuring of our language-biased communication system. I'd just like to integrate non-verbal forms of communication into my own life to enhance and supplement elements of relationship that suffer the consequences of our particular society's conventions. The idea here is to mutually create an artificial scenario in which there are prescribed rules of behavior. We already do this every day, but I'd like for the rules to be different and to call neglected components of the total human being into action. Most of the ideas I have are not meant to function as new ways of communicating, but activities designed to break down subconscious barriers that limit what we do with our conventional modes of interacting.

 

For example, we're conditionally private about our bodies, even if we don't really want to be. Say two people want to get to know each other better, two people who have discussed being a couple, or already are, but neither of them are really able to express or feel the adoration they have for each other with language. My suspicion is that the energy that is most fundamental to their particular connection with each other is an energy that has somehow been made private through unconscious conditioning. The subconscious alters what they communicate and how they're communicating it so that the affection is never really expressed directly. It gets altered before it comes out. There's a fear, a repression, a turning inward of the energy instead of a flowing outward. Like being congested. I want to find medicine for this congestion. Somewhere I'd be interested in starting is with the body.

 

So we design a scenario in which the torsos, genitals, legs, arms, get touched by the other person, but in a fun way. We extend what is private into a safe public domain, with someone we want to share with. By extension, we are more psychically ready to let that energy flow outward in a more conventional way. For this we design an activity such as going to a park, laying in the grass, and rolling over one another for fifteen minutes. The participants enter a sort of meditative concentration by doing this, where there's no purpose but to roll over each other in some pattern that naturally gets established. They get used to sharing their bodies. Certain psychological contractions around the privacy of the body loosen up. I haven't given that much thought, it's just an idea I had today.

 

But there's also tantric/sexual type activities that couples can try together. We've made masturbation such a private and shameful activity. I think if the couple learns to masturbate in front of each other, with support and love from the other, before having sexual intercourse, the intercourse becomes a means to connect in a very private, emotional, and psychologically healing way. The shame we've built up around our own perversions, and which becomes very secretive, is worked through, brought to light, and we then fuck shamelessly out of love for each other, not for the orgasm, which has become associated with privacy. There's lots more to do. Writing to one another in person, making and keeping eye contact, dancing in silence, i don't know. That's why I posted this. I don't have that many ideas. But generally my desire is to pinpoint subconscious contractions and consciously release them by deciding together to do certain odd activities.

honestly, i think you are transforming communication into a very artifical process.

look,

people are all too different. one couple might have a certain approach to a relationship that might be considered 'normal' or 'ideal', but then there is another that has a completely opposite view, lets imagine, close to that you imagine and describe. but that is a natural process, or at least needs to be. you don't think about this at the moment, you can't because it will destroy communication. it will become a theatre play. is that what you want?

if you think that a relationship that doesn't require that much talking but instead, lets say, much more physical contact is suitable to you, you won't think of it when the moment comes, you will act according to this naturally. the failure or success of this only depends..on the other person. do you get my point?

Trouble is, I think a lot of what is meant to be authentic communication between people is actually very inauthentic and I embrace that. These artificial activities are meant to blow your mind so you can be less artificial later.

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:37 AM, happycase said:

Yes, I agree that much of what determines how effectively two people interact is the "people combination," or what i'd call chemistry. My issue is that there is a lot more chemistry in the world than has room to get expressed conventionally. I don't think some people are merely "reserved" or "not good at talking" or "not interesting," although I grant that all these things are legit explanations. But there's more to it. I believe there are fundamental psychological obstructions, where the libido turns in on itself, and doesn't flow out to the provocative object. There's a dishonesty and unconsciousness with oneself, and this extends to the people you're interacting with. I believe everyone has a greater or lesser capacity to be socially beastly in certain communities or with certain people. I want the beast to come out.

i completely understand you, believe me.

but you might have answered the question yourself. it's people that make the difference. the community. not the form of communication.

We use words like "completely" to qualify our level of understanding. We add in a "believe me" to persuade our audience. I really take these as indicators that the material is being engaged and responded to on a superficial level. There's a self-deception that we override and which presents itself subliminally through our use of language.

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:45 AM, happycase said:

We use words like "completely" to qualify our level of understanding. We add in a "believe me" to persuade our audience. I really take these as indicators that the material is being engaged and responded to on a superficial level. There's a self-deception that we override and which presents itself subliminally through our use of language.

so you are saying that there is a truest way of expressing that 'completely' and that 'believe me' other than using those words, right?

  Quote

We did it all over backwards, I told him. First of all we got to know each other, and then a while after that we met, and when we'd known each other for about seven years we decided to have an anniversary, and that went quite well, so after the anniversary we had a honeymoon, and that went well too, so after that we decided that we would get married. That's why we're living there now.

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:52 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:45 AM, happycase said:

We use words like "completely" to qualify our level of understanding. We add in a "believe me" to persuade our audience. I really take these as indicators that the material is being engaged and responded to on a superficial level. There's a self-deception that we override and which presents itself subliminally through our use of language.

 

so you are saying that there is a truest way of expressing that 'completely' and that 'believe me' other than using those words, right?

Something very close to that, although I'm hesitant to use the word "truest." I think that instead of claiming such-and-such degree of understanding, we can put it on display and let it it speak for itself.

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:52 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:45 AM, happycase said:

We use words like "completely" to qualify our level of understanding. We add in a "believe me" to persuade our audience. I really take these as indicators that the material is being engaged and responded to on a superficial level. There's a self-deception that we override and which presents itself subliminally through our use of language.

 

so you are saying that there is a truest way of expressing that 'completely' and that 'believe me' other than using those words, right?

Something very close to that, although I'm hesitant to use the word "truest." I think that instead of claiming such-and-such degree of understanding, we can put it on display and let it it speak for itself.

  On 9/1/2010 at 3:09 AM, happycase said:

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:52 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/1/2010 at 1:45 AM, happycase said:

We use words like "completely" to qualify our level of understanding. We add in a "believe me" to persuade our audience. I really take these as indicators that the material is being engaged and responded to on a superficial level. There's a self-deception that we override and which presents itself subliminally through our use of language.

 

so you are saying that there is a truest way of expressing that 'completely' and that 'believe me' other than using those words, right?

 

Something very close to that, although I'm hesitant to use the word "truest." I think that instead of claiming such-and-such degree of understanding, we can put it on display and let it it speak for itself.

 

i think you should have a stronger confidence on words. it's not that i don't understand your point, quite clearly the opposite, i agree with you even.

words are like those little birds who live on the back of rhynos, they depend on people to take care of them wisely or die.

i know a couple of people that are masters of the use of words and what comes from their mouths it's almost like music. and i like to listen to them, because i feel like i am getting the truth and that is communication. unfortunately mastering the words it's not up to any kind of person.

think of the best narrative description, one that really touched your inner self in a special way, being it on a book, a movie, from someone's mouth, wasn't it brought to you by words?

i am not trying to convince you here.. i can't even do that, but don't you agree with me?

dickslapping yo

  On 9/1/2010 at 3:51 AM, ruiagnelo said:

 

i am not trying to convince you here.. i can't even do that, but don't you agree with me?

100% yes, absolutely.

  On 9/1/2010 at 12:13 AM, happycase said:

I'm interested in developing artificial scenarios for couples and friends to act out together as a way to therapeutically release emotional contractions and establish feelings of love, curiosity and openness for each other. It's hard for many people to relate what's happening inside of them using spoken language. Normally, to relate to a person, before you get to fuck them and love them, you need to put an object between yourself and she. This can also apply to friends, but friends come easy. Anyway, you then relate to each other by relating to an object, or topic of conversation, that you've agreed upon. One person has a go, points at the object, says some things about it, and then the other does the same, and somehow you start to connect by doing that for a while with many different objects. But my feeling is that it's not what you actually talk about, but the energy that's flowing out of you while you're talking which establishes the connection. So my question is, how effective is talking for understanding the energy that's flowing between you? I'd say it's fucking shite! A lot of people aren't good at talking, especially in certain scenarios. I, for example, cannot for the life of me talk to a beautiful woman. I suspect the reasons are MuLti, one being that there's nothing interesting to talk about, the other being that I'm subconsciously wayyy too focused on Getting something from her. So I can't really relate to my own words. There's a feeling of disconnection from my authenticity. If you can't relate to your own presentation of yourself, which is your medium for connecting to the other person, you probably aren't going to get pussy. That's a problem.

 

I'd like to go on a silent date with someone, where we meet up, hug, eat dinner and watch each other eat dinner, hug again, go to a park and roll over each other for twenty minutes, lay around, then go home. Many people seem to be afraid or don't know how to involve their bodies in communication. I'd like to communicate more using my body, but can't really do that in conversation. Maybe I am just very horny right now. Anyway... alternatives to conventional dialoguing to connect with people?

 

And I do feel that once you're in a relationship, maybe up until the age of 22 or 23, half the shit you talk about is your drama as a couple, which is the lifeblood for your stupid relationship. the other half can be fun and interesting. just depends on your partner and if he/she is intelligent and healthy and sociable.

this is one of the silliest things I have read on watmm in 10 years.

you're telling me that you wouldn't go up to talk to some smoking hot chick b/c you're too shit at talking (trying to play this off as some inherent disconnect between language and emotion), but you would go up to her if there was some mutual understanding that there would be only be non-verbal communication.

truly a laugh out loud event.

  On 9/1/2010 at 5:15 AM, Franklin said:

  On 9/1/2010 at 12:13 AM, happycase said:

I'm interested in developing artificial scenarios for couples and friends to act out together as a way to therapeutically release emotional contractions and establish feelings of love, curiosity and openness for each other. It's hard for many people to relate what's happening inside of them using spoken language. Normally, to relate to a person, before you get to fuck them and love them, you need to put an object between yourself and she. This can also apply to friends, but friends come easy. Anyway, you then relate to each other by relating to an object, or topic of conversation, that you've agreed upon. One person has a go, points at the object, says some things about it, and then the other does the same, and somehow you start to connect by doing that for a while with many different objects. But my feeling is that it's not what you actually talk about, but the energy that's flowing out of you while you're talking which establishes the connection. So my question is, how effective is talking for understanding the energy that's flowing between you? I'd say it's fucking shite! A lot of people aren't good at talking, especially in certain scenarios. I, for example, cannot for the life of me talk to a beautiful woman. I suspect the reasons are MuLti, one being that there's nothing interesting to talk about, the other being that I'm subconsciously wayyy too focused on Getting something from her. So I can't really relate to my own words. There's a feeling of disconnection from my authenticity. If you can't relate to your own presentation of yourself, which is your medium for connecting to the other person, you probably aren't going to get pussy. That's a problem.

 

I'd like to go on a silent date with someone, where we meet up, hug, eat dinner and watch each other eat dinner, hug again, go to a park and roll over each other for twenty minutes, lay around, then go home. Many people seem to be afraid or don't know how to involve their bodies in communication. I'd like to communicate more using my body, but can't really do that in conversation. Maybe I am just very horny right now. Anyway... alternatives to conventional dialoguing to connect with people?

 

And I do feel that once you're in a relationship, maybe up until the age of 22 or 23, half the shit you talk about is your drama as a couple, which is the lifeblood for your stupid relationship. the other half can be fun and interesting. just depends on your partner and if he/she is intelligent and healthy and sociable.

 

 

this is one of the silliest things I have read on watmm in 10 years.

 

you're telling me that you wouldn't go up to talk to some smoking hot chick b/c you're too shit at talking (trying to play this off as some inherent disconnect between language and emotion), but you would go up to her if there was some mutual understanding that there would be only be non-verbal communication.

 

truly a laugh out loud event.

you are way far of this thread, brother.

you can't get to authentic without work and effort. You want to create shortcuts to authentic communication, which is understandable, as more and more people are taught that the end is the only goal and the means to that end don't matter. In the era of everything you want at your fingertips, you demand instant satisfaction.

If all you want to do is fuck a beautiful woman, get a call girl. Not a 5 dollar rock whore, but a 250 dollar escort. At least you're being honest.

  On 9/1/2010 at 12:13 AM, happycase said:

I'm interested in developing artificial scenarios for couples and friends to act out together as a way to therapeutically release emotional contractions and establish feelings of love, curiosity and openness for each other. It's hard for many people to relate what's happening inside of them using spoken language. Normally, to relate to a person, before you get to fuck them and love them, you need to put an object between yourself and she. This can also apply to friends, but friends come easy. Anyway, you then relate to each other by relating to an object, or topic of conversation, that you've agreed upon. One person has a go, points at the object, says some things about it, and then the other does the same, and somehow you start to connect by doing that for a while with many different objects. But my feeling is that it's not what you actually talk about, but the energy that's flowing out of you while you're talking which establishes the connection. So my question is, how effective is talking for understanding the energy that's flowing between you? I'd say it's fucking shite! A lot of people aren't good at talking, especially in certain scenarios. I, for example, cannot for the life of me talk to a beautiful woman. I suspect the reasons are MuLti, one being that there's nothing interesting to talk about, the other being that I'm subconsciously wayyy too focused on Getting something from her. So I can't really relate to my own words. There's a feeling of disconnection from my authenticity. If you can't relate to your own presentation of yourself, which is your medium for connecting to the other person, you probably aren't going to get pussy. That's a problem.

 

I'd like to go on a silent date with someone, where we meet up, hug, eat dinner and watch each other eat dinner, hug again, go to a park and roll over each other for twenty minutes, lay around, then go home. Many people seem to be afraid or don't know how to involve their bodies in communication. I'd like to communicate more using my body, but can't really do that in conversation. Maybe I am just very horny right now. Anyway... alternatives to conventional dialoguing to connect with people?

 

And I do feel that once you're in a relationship, maybe up until the age of 22 or 23, half the shit you talk about is your drama as a couple, which is the lifeblood for your stupid relationship. the other half can be fun and interesting. just depends on your partner and if he/she is intelligent and healthy and sociable.

mmm.. great post. it's not easy to catch the secret of pussy but that's a good attempt. i'd just raise up the age of that phase you're talking about. or turn it down for what matters, the time in which one sort out things it's widely, widely subjective.

  On 9/1/2010 at 3:34 PM, Ego said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=co-c5gPWfiM

nice. how's the rest of the movie?

  On 9/1/2010 at 5:18 AM, ruiagnelo said:

  On 9/1/2010 at 5:15 AM, Franklin said:

  On 9/1/2010 at 12:13 AM, happycase said:

I'm interested in developing artificial scenarios for couples and friends to act out together as a way to therapeutically release emotional contractions and establish feelings of love, curiosity and openness for each other. It's hard for many people to relate what's happening inside of them using spoken language. Normally, to relate to a person, before you get to fuck them and love them, you need to put an object between yourself and she. This can also apply to friends, but friends come easy. Anyway, you then relate to each other by relating to an object, or topic of conversation, that you've agreed upon. One person has a go, points at the object, says some things about it, and then the other does the same, and somehow you start to connect by doing that for a while with many different objects. But my feeling is that it's not what you actually talk about, but the energy that's flowing out of you while you're talking which establishes the connection. So my question is, how effective is talking for understanding the energy that's flowing between you? I'd say it's fucking shite! A lot of people aren't good at talking, especially in certain scenarios. I, for example, cannot for the life of me talk to a beautiful woman. I suspect the reasons are MuLti, one being that there's nothing interesting to talk about, the other being that I'm subconsciously wayyy too focused on Getting something from her. So I can't really relate to my own words. There's a feeling of disconnection from my authenticity. If you can't relate to your own presentation of yourself, which is your medium for connecting to the other person, you probably aren't going to get pussy. That's a problem.

 

I'd like to go on a silent date with someone, where we meet up, hug, eat dinner and watch each other eat dinner, hug again, go to a park and roll over each other for twenty minutes, lay around, then go home. Many people seem to be afraid or don't know how to involve their bodies in communication. I'd like to communicate more using my body, but can't really do that in conversation. Maybe I am just very horny right now. Anyway... alternatives to conventional dialoguing to connect with people?

 

And I do feel that once you're in a relationship, maybe up until the age of 22 or 23, half the shit you talk about is your drama as a couple, which is the lifeblood for your stupid relationship. the other half can be fun and interesting. just depends on your partner and if he/she is intelligent and healthy and sociable.

 

 

this is one of the silliest things I have read on watmm in 10 years.

 

you're telling me that you wouldn't go up to talk to some smoking hot chick b/c you're too shit at talking (trying to play this off as some inherent disconnect between language and emotion), but you would go up to her if there was some mutual understanding that there would be only be non-verbal communication.

 

truly a laugh out loud event.

 

you are way far of this thread, brother.

i dont think that I am at all brother.

  On 9/1/2010 at 12:13 AM, happycase said:

I'm interested in developing artificial scenarios for couples and friends to act out together as a way to therapeutically release emotional contractions and establish feelings of love, curiosity and openness for each other. It's hard for many people to relate what's happening inside of them using spoken language. Normally, to relate to a person, before you get to fuck them and love them, you need to put an object between yourself and she. This can also apply to friends, but friends come easy. Anyway, you then relate to each other by relating to an object, or topic of conversation, that you've agreed upon. One person has a go, points at the object, says some things about it, and then the other does the same, and somehow you start to connect by doing that for a while with many different objects. But my feeling is that it's not what you actually talk about, but the energy that's flowing out of you while you're talking which establishes the connection. So my question is, how effective is talking for understanding the energy that's flowing between you? I'd say it's fucking shite! A lot of people aren't good at talking, especially in certain scenarios. I, for example, cannot for the life of me talk to a beautiful woman. I suspect the reasons are MuLti, one being that there's nothing interesting to talk about, the other being that I'm subconsciously wayyy too focused on Getting something from her. So I can't really relate to my own words. There's a feeling of disconnection from my authenticity. If you can't relate to your own presentation of yourself, which is your medium for connecting to the other person, you probably aren't going to get pussy. That's a problem.

 

I'd like to go on a silent date with someone, where we meet up, hug, eat dinner and watch each other eat dinner, hug again, go to a park and roll over each other for twenty minutes, lay around, then go home. Many people seem to be afraid or don't know how to involve their bodies in communication. I'd like to communicate more using my body, but can't really do that in conversation. Maybe I am just very horny right now. Anyway... alternatives to conventional dialoguing to connect with people?

 

And I do feel that once you're in a relationship, maybe up until the age of 22 or 23, half the shit you talk about is your drama as a couple, which is the lifeblood for your stupid relationship. the other half can be fun and interesting. just depends on your partner and if he/she is intelligent and healthy and sociable.

you may be a little too focused on something, not sure if finding ways to mask that is necessarily the best route. what's the point of all the other stuff if deep down it seems like you just want someone to fuck?