|
| Thread: Cheating.... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
posted August 25, 2012 12:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Smithey I don't think they are talking from experience. Its very easy to say these things when you haven't fallen madly in love with someone.
Well people like them do exist so maybe its an experience thing but maybe simply personality thing, and I am sometimes territorial even of my friends so... yup, envy them slightly 
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 12:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
which religion? Elodin's one? the one I read said that love involves not considering your spouse like your possession.
but yeah, we tend to be territorial, most likely because we feel threatened.
Well the whole Zeus/Hera/Venus/Thor/Ra/Anubis religion stance was more open about it, but religion involving only one god changed the game, and in modern times one god is how majority rolls, so thats what I was referring to
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 12:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Its very easy to say these things when you haven't fallen madly in love with someone.
could be, depends what you mean with "madly". does it just involve doing everything for her, or also feeling horribly bad whenever she isn't with you?
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 12:57 AM |
|
Edited by meroe at 00:58, 25 Aug 2012.
|
People who have so called open marriages, or are in relationships where both partners openly date/sleep with others, are not in a committed relationship. They just merely hook up regularly. And yes there is a saying for those people.
That is not a relationship, not a proper one. And just because there is less shame around now, doesn't mean that their lifestyle is in any way moral or honest.
If I was dating a guy, who told me that he had been in an open relationship before and quite okay with that lifestyle, I would say Good Day to him and beat a hasty retreat.
When you commit to one person, that special person, you are telling not just them, but the world that this person is the one for you, and that you hold them in such high regard that you will forsake all others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It actually is very simple human attachment and bonding.
Those who try to convince us that a more 'open' sexual lifestyle are merely lying because they lack the heart and integrity to dedicate themselves to one person.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 01:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People who have so called open marriages, or are in relationships where both partners openly date/sleep with others, are not in a committed relationship. They just merely hook up regularly. And yes there is a saying for those people.
That is not a relationship, not a proper one. And just because there is less shame around now, doesn't mean that their lifestyle is in any way moral or honest.
If I was dating a guy, who told me that he had been in an open relationship before and quite okay with that lifestyle, I would say Good Day to him and beat a hasty retreat.
When you commit to one person, that special person, you are telling not just them, but the world that this person is the one for you, and that you hold them in such high regard that you will forsake all others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It actually is very simple human attachment and bonding.
Those who try to convince us that a more 'open' sexual lifestyle are merely lying because they lack the heart and integrity to dedicate themselves to one person.
But you do realize that many scientists claim our biology is not necessary "one mate for life", while I agree with you I do think it probably derives from the way we were raised
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 01:05 AM |
|
|
Scientists?? Hahahahaha
When we were swinging through the trees, I admit things were different. I know how apes mate.
But we are not like that anymore, and archeologists/paleontologists blah blah have already proven that we partnered up for the sake of our survival. So it is actually part of our human development.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 01:09 AM |
|
|
of course it is a relationship. why is it immoral? just because you are jealous?
and why couldn't you dedicate yourself to more than one person? are you 24h/24 together and you never meet anyone else so you have no other choice than to dedicate yourselves to each other?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 01:09 AM |
|
|
Nothing ever exists entirely alone; everything is in relation to everything else.
Every human has its pair. And believe me, you'll know when you've found yours, you'll bless every day, and every mistake that led you to this, one perfect moment.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 01:14 AM |
|
|
Quote:
of course it is a relationship. why is it immoral? just because you are jealous?
and why couldn't you dedicate yourself to more than one person? are you 24h/24 together and you never meet anyone else so you have no other choice than to dedicate yourselves to each other?
Jealous? Are you serious lol. No I'm not jealous, I feel very sorry for those who delude themselves into believing they are happy with that particular status quo.
And how on earth do you dedicate yourself to more than one person. That isn't dedication at all. Its called distraction.
And thank you Tsar, I was hoping I wasn't going to be the only one with those sensibilities.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 01:16 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Scientists?? Hahahahaha
When we were swinging through the trees, I admit things were different. I know how apes mate.
But we are not like that anymore, and archeologists/paleontologists blah blah have already proven that we partnered up for the sake of our survival. So it is actually part of our human development.
Stop making fun of scientists, they can blow stuff up 
@Tsar, I was 100% sure I've found that person at least a dozen times thus far I was always wrong 
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 01:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Stop making fun of scientists, they can blow stuff up
@Tsar, I was 100% sure I've found that person at least a dozen times thus far I was always wrong
I can blow things up too, and I'm not a scientist.
Sometimes we don't actually commit properly, even when we think we have found the right person. Something holds us back and the opportunity gets missed. The truth is you have to just go in with an open heart and not hold back. (This doesn't mean turning into an obsessed psycho). Nobody wants to get their heart broken, but if we are not prepared to give all of ourselves, we can't complain if we end up alone.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 01:25 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I can blow things up too, and I'm not a scientist.
Kinky 
Quote:
Sometimes we don't actually commit properly, even when we think we have found the right person. Something holds us back and the opportunity gets missed. The truth is you have to just go in with an open heart and not hold back. (This doesn't mean turning into an obsessed psycho). Nobody wants to get their heart broken, but if we are not prepared to give all of ourselves, we can't complain if we end up alone.
Damn, it feels like its an agree with Meroe day, Im not feeling all that well 
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 01:28 AM |
|
|
Heh heh .... oh its okay sweetie *pats Smithey on the head and tweeks his cheek*.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 09:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
And how on earth do you dedicate yourself to more than one person. That isn't dedication at all. Its called distraction.
even when he has no way to be with you, it is distraction?
some people can dedicate themselves to 2, even 3 different jobs at once, so why isn't it possible with lovers? it requires more effort, but it should be do-able. especially if you love (yeah, I guess it is not possible to love more than one person?)
well, of course, when you dedicate yourself to 3 jobs, it's much more difficult to find the time to dedicate yourself to someone.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 10:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
did ohforf answered for me already?
 
Quote:
Most people are territorial beings [...]
It's a very progressive way of seeing things, nice for both you and Forfy (I probably envy you)
My reply was from the stand point of someone who's viewing everything from above and not down in the middle. I do feel territorial about both friends and girls I'm attracted to, but I try not to let these feelings get the better of me, because I do not believe it's really any of my business. I think fauch is right it's due to the feeling of threat, at least I recall feeling threatened to lose the opportunity to have something meaningful with friends as well as emotional interests, because there's only place for one person at a time in someones life, in the sense you can't really interact with two people at once. You could argue that when in a committed relationship, that eventhough in principle it's still none of your business, it's, as meroe says, not a real relationship if you don't try to make it your business what eachother does with your life. Though Meroe said this was not a relationship, this was friendship, I'd go even further and say it's merely an acquaintance if you're not taking active interest in one anothers life.
In my opinion this has nothing to do with sex, sex does not seperate a friendly relationship/friendship from a romantic relationship, romance does.
Romance is, the way I see it, another powerful way of showing commitment, which allows you to apply all the knowledge you've due to your friendship into a way of making life good for your partner, through yourself. The more powerful the friendship, the more knowledge, the better a romantic relationship.
This does not mean a good friendship means a good romantic relationship, it's very individual and much too complex for me to generalize upon. I'm merely emphasizing the more interested you are in your partner, the more powerful the romance will be.
As meroe importantly mentioned, and I quote:
Quote:
I don't think they are talking from experience.
Which is at least true for me. Therefore I can't say for sure how I'd act upon any of the questions smithey asks, because looking at things from above, uninvolved, without feelings, means you can take what you at the time think is the rational decision. As such, all I can do here, is say what I ultimately would like my action to be, not what it will be.
I can however say from experience that I do feel very territorial around both friends and romantic interests, but I don't think I act upon these feelings, yet these feelings could be enhanced sufficiently in an actual committed romantic relationship that I'd not act in way I currently find rational. However this is all very speculative and obviously I can only participate through the experience (real as well as imaginary) I've had and the conclusions I've formed from those experiences.
I mentioned earlier how I don't think sex is what seperates a romantic relationship from a friendly one, but I'd like to be more specific.
The way I see it, there exists two kinds of sex (and yes this is just untested theory, so take it for what it is, the way I see the world), committed sex and uncommitted sex. As I see it, uncommitted sex is only purely about satisfying a lust which happens due to a combination of genetic inheritance and social pressure. E.g. it's commonly expected a man will have sex with any woman, which is illustrated if you ask if a man can be raped, at which other men might feel obligated to answer "you can't rape the willing". Uncommitted sex is not something I find rational attractive, but emotionally, pumped with hormones at the age of 25, I obviously lust for (but do not want) it to some degree.
Committed sex on the other hand, is, as I see it, a way to further enhance the romantic part of a committed romantic relationship. It's not something about merely satisfying a sexual urge, that's just a side benefit, which makes the whole ordeal a mean to satisfy your partner in new ways. It's not something friends have, no matter how committed they're to one another, because the whole act of it requires a high level of romance. It doesn't mean all sex is in a committed relationship is beautiful, but it means there's a possibility to commit physically to another person in a way no one else can do. But in my opinion, it's just a small part of what makes a romantic relationship a good one, and there are many more stuff which is important as well, which is also required to even be at the previous described level.
Though I think I may be overly complicating stuff, I'm merely saying that yes, there's a difference between relationships based on how much you commit yourself to a given person, and if your partner wants a relationship which is "open", then obviously if you want something where your commit him/herself more to you (which in turn allows you to commit yourself more to him/her), said partner is probably currently not someone for you.
Quote:
People who have so called open marriages, or are in relationships where both partners openly date/sleep with others, are not in a committed relationship. They just merely hook up regularly.
Not necessarily. I agree it's not AS committed as one where you're fully into your partner, but it doesn't mean there's no commitment at all. Because some people have a well functioning polygamy going on, don't make us entitled to decide they live a poor life.
Quote:
When you commit to one person, that special person, you are telling not just them, but the world that this person is the one for you, and that you hold them in such high regard that you will forsake all others. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
It's our own decision to what/who/whom we commit to, but I'd just like to point out that I personally attempt not to commit to any one person, but live in total, and as such everyone to the degree I can.
I know it's next to impossible and obviously those who decide to be close to me, are also those I'm close to, as, like the previous argument illustrated, it requires commitment from you to get it from someone else and vice-versa.
However it means on the grand scale of things, I'd like to think of myself to as committed as I am mentally and physically able towards everyone to the degree they want it.
In the end, I'm certain I'll be with one partner and we'll have a wonderful life together, but the only reason I'll be committed to this person and not someone else, is because he/she allowed for a way we could live together we both wanted. Not because he/she was good looking, smart/intelligent, sexy, wealthy, etc.
Not that those superficial qualities means nothing, but they only mean something to a very very limited degree in my world view. Like taking proper care of yourself is an act of love towards everyone you care about, etc, but it doesn't mean you'll have to be someone you don't want to be.
Quote:
And how on earth do you dedicate yourself to more than one person. That isn't dedication at all. Its called distraction.
We all need time for ourself, despise no matter how much we love someone. If a child locks the door to his room, it doesn't mean he/she isn't committed to his/her parents, but merely need some time for him/herself. If the parents go out to eat, it doesn't mean they stopped loving the child, etc.
There can be more than one love in your life, likewise there can be more than two persons in a romance, but for polygamy to work well, I believe everyone have to be very committed to one another. It's not enough, e.g., one girl likes two different guys very much, if for example the two guys don't like eachother the same way they like the girl. Then it'd be a sacrifical relationship (which all relationships of course are to different degree), which means the level of commitment would be less than a relationship only between one of the guys and the girl.
Quote:
but for some stupid reason he couldn't keep his pants on.
Sometimes in a mans life, he looses a couple of ounces, which means his pants starts falling down. A proper procedure to avoid this phenomena is to apply an item known as a belt. ... A chastity belt.
Quote:
No I'm not jealous, I feel very sorry for those who delude themselves into believing they are happy with that particular status quo.
"Delude", eh? Meroe, the religious lunatic!!
All in good sport of course, I can delete the jokes if you want.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 11:13 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 11:45, 25 Aug 2012.
|
Quote:
Jealous? Are you serious lol. No I'm not jealous, I feel very sorry for those who delude themselves into believing they are happy with that particular status quo.
if you aren't jealous, why do you think that way?
Quote:
I think fauch is right it's due to the feeling of threat, at least I recall feeling threatened to lose the opportunity to have something meaningful with friends as well as emotional interests, because there's only place for one person at a time in someones life, in the sense you can't really interact with two people at once.
threatened to lose the opportunity to have a love relationship? well of course, you might be open, but it's less likely that the girl you are interested in will also be. in the end you know it's a competition with other boys and there will be no compromise. it certainly doesn't have to work that way, but it seems to be the way most people think it should.
and about having only one place for one person at a time... well that's not always the case, but would that means that for most of us, the only other possibility is no place for no one?
Quote:
You could argue that when in a committed relationship, that eventhough in principle it's still none of your business, it's, as meroe says, not a real relationship if you don't try to make it your business what eachother does with your life. Though Meroe said this was not a relationship, this was friendship, I'd go even further and say it's merely an acquaintance if you're not taking active interest in one anothers life.
of course if you don't care about each other, there is no point, but do you have to take interest in everything each other does? well, from your point of view, I guess I never had any friend. my opinion is, that if I stuck my nose in everyhting, I would probably achieve nothing more than pissing people off.
well, I've never been very interested in knowing much about other people's lives. as long as I can find time to spend with people I like, I don't see why I should care about what they do the rest of the time? and even if I take an interest in it, I know that there is nothing I can do about it, it's their life.
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 12:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
threatened to lose the opportunity to have a love relationship?
I think that's basicly it, but I can't say for sure why I feel something.
Anyway, my usual tactic is to ignore those feelings, take it at my own pace and if she's so much in a hurry that she's found someone else, then it's her decision. If she at some point in the future makes herself available again (due to the previous relationship having ended), and I'm still interested in her, I'll probably take my time again.
Quote:
and about having only one place for one person at a time... well that's not always the case, but would that means that for most of us, the only other possibility is no place for no one?
One place for one person at a time was meant in a way where you divide time into small moments, where each moment is invested in one thing/person.
So the idea is that any given one of those moments, you can basicly only be doing one "thing", despite that thing may constitute of several things.
I'm sure we all spend time on many different things even within a few minutes. I think what meroe's point was about commitment was that you commit yourself to that other person being your first priority, the main thing you spend your time on, etc. Not that you only at all time forever and ever spend time looking into eachothers eyes until you starve.
Quote:
Quote:
You could argue that when in a committed relationship, that eventhough in principle it's still none of your business, it's, as meroe says, not a real relationship if you don't try to make it your business what eachother does with your life. Though Meroe said this was not a relationship, this was friendship, I'd go even further and say it's merely an acquaintance if you're not taking active interest in one anothers life.
of course if you don't care about each other, there is no point, but do you have to take interest in everything each other does? well, from your point of view, I guess I never had any friend. my opinion is, that if I stuck my nose in everyhting, I would probably achieve nothing more than pissing people off.
I think I didn't specify properly in the sentence you quoted.
I meant you've to believe that if you're in a relationship, what your partner does, matters to you, or there'd, like you say, be little point. It doesn't mean you've to stick your nose into everything, or be part of everything, obviously no one like that, it means just as much to respect others limits and allow for their freedom just as much as for offering to be an active part of their life to the degree they want. I think it basicly comes down to caring, but not requiring.
The way I see friendship is a bit strange, maybe. To me, you can be a friend to someone, eventhough you never met this person before, it only requires wanting to spend time together, being interested in the other person and thereby enjoying eachothers company. It doesn't mean you've to know a lot of said person, but be sufficient interested to wanting to know what said other person wants to share with you, and the same vice-versa.
Quote:
well, I've never been very interested in knowing much about other people's lives. as long as I can find time to spend with people I like, I don't see why I should care about what they do the rest of the time?
I think that's the very standard approach everyone uses more or less. As long as the friend in question is not interested in you knowing as well, I think that's a healthy friendship.
However sometimes, a friend may come to you, tell you about a part of his life you didn't know about, and ask for an advice. That'd be a case, where I'd say, if you really find him your friend for not only your own benefit, but take an active interest in this person, then you'll be willing to give your honest input.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
meroe
Supreme Hero
Basically Smurfette
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 12:41 PM |
|
|
Again neither one of you are talking about real love, strong bonds between two people, leading to a committed relationship and then the threads main topic ..... cheating.
What you are both referring to is casual relationships. Where people get together, have non emotional fun with each other, sometimes others. That is not a committed relationship, no matter how you try to dress it up, it isn't.
The truth is you cannot truly LOVE more than one person. It is quite natural for humans to bond with one person, put all their energies into that one person. That emotional bond is extremely healthy, produces feelings of security, strength, contentment. And you won't get those from a casual acquaintance/hook up/f**k buddy. The latter is so not anywhere near a real love situation, its laughable.
And it is about sex too. Sex is incredibly important. Falling in love and losing one's heart to someone is powerful and sex with that person gets even better. And when you have that special set up, it becomes so important that you want to keep that person and enjoy being in love. There is nothing old fashioned or 'staid' about that. Its a blessing.
I wonder sometimes if people truly understand love. Certainly a lot of what has been mentioned in this thread isn't love, that is for certain.
However, the thread is about Cheating and my answers to the original questions were based around being in love with someone, being committed and monogamous and how cheating is never acceptable (in my view) ever.
____________
Meroe is definetely out, sweet
as she sounds sometimes, she'd
definetely castrate you with a
rusted razror and forcefeed
your genitals to you in a
blink of an eye - Kipshasz
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 12:47 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 13:07, 25 Aug 2012.
|
Quote:
One place for one person at a time was meant in a way where you divide time into small moments, where each moment is invested in one thing/person.
So the idea is that any given one of those moments, you can basicly only be doing one "thing", despite that thing may constitute of several things.
ok that makes sense
Quote:
I think I didn't specify properly in the sentence you quoted.
I meant you've to believe that if you're in a relationship, what your partner does, matters to you, or there'd, like you say, be little point. It doesn't mean you've to stick your nose into everything, or be part of everything, obviously no one like that, it means just as much to respect others limits and allow for their freedom just as much as for offering to be an active part of their life to the degree they want. I think it basicly comes down to caring, but not requiring.
The way I see friendship is a bit strange, maybe. To me, you can be a friend to someone, eventhough you never met this person before, it only requires wanting to spend time together, being interested in the other person and thereby enjoying eachothers company. It doesn't mean you've to know a lot of said person, but be sufficient interested to wanting to know what said other person wants to share with you, and the same vice-versa.
ok, then I guess that we agree.
Quote:
However sometimes, a friend may come to you, tell you about a part of his life you didn't know about, and ask for an advice. That'd be a case, where I'd say, if you really find him your friend for not only your own benefit, but take an active interest in this person, then you'll be willing to give your honest input.
of course. I also discovered that it's not always good to offer your help or advice, unless your friend asks specifically for it.
Quote:
I wonder sometimes if people truly understand love. Certainly a lot of what has been mentioned in this thread isn't love, that is for certain.
it's most likely subjective. I don't think it's a word that means much. it's more a feel-good-about-your-own-feelings word.
I can say (considering that we are talking about the same feelings) that I've only fallen in love with girls who were already totally committed to someone else. and I can tell you it's far from being as marvelous and healthy as what you describe.
Quote:
What you are both referring to is casual relationships. Where people get together, have non emotional fun with each other, sometimes others. That is not a committed relationship, no matter how you try to dress it up, it isn't.
The truth is you cannot truly LOVE more than one person. It is quite natural for humans to bond with one person, put all their energies into that one person. That emotional bond is extremely healthy, produces feelings of security, strength, contentment. And you won't get those from a casual acquaintance/hook up/f**k buddy. The latter is so not anywhere near a real love situation, its laughable.
I don't know about that. the truth is that we draw a line between that special person and all others, but we might just have been taught to do it.
also, we are men. we say we love just to have sex. and you have sex just because you hope to receive love
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted August 25, 2012 12:48 PM |
|
|
We may indeed not be talking about 'true love' in the way you understand it, but who're you to define what is 'true love'?
I think it is something everyone has to decide for themselves.
I can say I already now truly loves more than one person. People I'm willing to commit myself fully to, to the degree I'm mentally and physically able.
I think it'd also be considerate to seperate 'love'/'true love' from 'being in love'
Quote:
Falling in love [...] and sex with that person gets even better.
I believe you.
Edit:
Quote:
of course. I also discovered that it's not always good to offer your help or advice, unless your friend asks specifically for it.
Yes, I've learned that lesson several times too. Which can be really unpleasent when said person both wants your help, and doesn't want it on the same time. Like in the case with drugs.
Though I believe one can seperate ways to help into two categories. One where the one you help knows you're doing it and is actively asking for it.
The other, where you change the environment around this person, for him/her to meet the success they need help to meet.
In schools, I think it's mostly the second type of help, which is met, the so called "I'm helping you to help yourself", or "give a man a fish and he'll be settled for a day, teach him how to fish, and he'll be settled for life". While the more active form of help, when keeping at the school analogy, could be two kids trying to do homework together, helping eachother.
I found a much better example.
A child experiences an uncureable disease.
The actively asked for help is when his father spends time comforting him and making sure his daily life is endureable, or even pleasent.
The other is where the father actually helps finding a cure to the disease, so the doctors can give him the cure. Thereby changing the environment and throug that helping his child.
http://www.cracked.com/article_19766_6-nobodies-who-turned-into-superheroes-without-warning_p2.html look at: "#2. The Economist Who Came Up With a Cure for a Disease That Baffled Scientists".
The other type of help is something everyone can provide, no matter if the person who needs help asks for it or not. While the first type is something which can only be provided, if the person who needs help, let the helper get close enough to help.
____________
Living time backwards
|
| |
|
|
