HardlyYours4Now 53M
951 posts
7/31/2005 7:19 am

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm


'Round here people talk a lot about what they want. As we all know, you can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need.

So what are our needs? Abraham Maslow crafted a hierarchy of human needs. You may know his little brother, Victor, who flew off with Ilsa at the end of Casablanca.

In Maslow's hierarchy, you ascend a pyramid of needs. The second step can't really be attained until the first is met, and so on.

Here's the pyramid, minus the actual, uh, pyramid since I can't put a graphic here in the text:

Physiological (food, shelter, sex)

So when one respondent referred to me as shallow, it got me to thinkin'. I'm not satisfying my most basic needs - the physiological level. So, yes, I am shallow.

But anyone who screens other potential partners based on anything other than possibly an IQ test certainly isn't past the Esteem level. Actually, esteem is the point where you find the good in all people (not just self-esteem) regardless of their age, body type, hairline, marital status, shoe size, whatever.

Am I suggesting that we should all just meet for one big orgy and not take any precautions?


No. Sorry, had to think about that one for a minute.

All I'm saying is that it is easier for someone who is having heir basic needs met to look down on those who aren't. The message I got earlier reminded me of the person who crosses the street in their diamonds and pearls because they see a homeless person on the sidewalk ahead.

If it makes you feel good to call others shallow, to judge them as lesser beings because they are hungry, that doesn't strike me as being particularly deep either.

In an odd way, the most self-actualized person would be the one who was truly open to all types and interests. But most of us would call that person depraved, wouldn't we?

I yield the floor.

rm_Screw696969 42M/38F

7/31/2005 9:14 am

I would suggest going back to read my reply. And just so that you know. I was only in agreement with your statement. You called you shallow. I wasn't looking down my nose at you, just simply making a statement.

redmustang91 58M  
8935 posts
7/31/2005 10:43 am

Well I doubt most psychology because these theories have to simplify the real world. I tend to believe that more is biological than people like to believe. As is DNA and hormonally determined. Then we build a logical structure to explain to ourselves and the world why we are doing what we are doing. Trust the tale, not the teller.

HardlyYours4Now 53M

7/31/2005 11:08 am

Screw696969 - from your earlier post:

"Maybe the people you're looking for are just as shallow as you are."

Or did I take that out of context? Or were you agreeing that, to some extent, we're all a bit shallow?

I'm so confused...

rm_Screw696969 42M/38F

7/31/2005 2:39 pm

My piont was simply that if possibly we were all a bit more open minded that we'd be able to find waht we're looking for as well as be what someone else is looking for. As I said, yes we all do have our preferences, but that shouldn't be our absolute end point of our search. Who knows just how many "Mr. or Mrs. Rights" we pass up by being close minded. (And by "Mr. or Mrs. Right" I mean whatever suits our own personal needs). I really wasn't trying to offend you by my statement. You said that you could take constructive criticism but maybe it was my mistake for haven givin it. In any event, I was just trying to express "my two cents" I guess but not for any other reason then to make you think. Again, I apologise if I offended you.

Become a member to create a blog