It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Romantic Relationships: Two 'One Way Streets'?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   
I think of each person as being an individual street. A consequence of that is if you want a romantic relationship with someone, you must travel down their "street." And, as we all know, it's a narrow road.

I was introduced to this concept by Björk's song "Bachelorette":


I'm a path of cinders
Burning under your feet
You're the one who walks me
I'm your one way street



www.youtube.com...

As soon I heard that, I became aware of romantic relationships on a new level. You must walk down someone's "street" (metaphorically speaking) if you want to have a successful romantic relationship with them. What does that mean? It means giving them what they want, meeting their demands, etc.

Unless you have a situation where there's "love at first sight" by both parties, there's always an imbalance in the beginning of a romantic relationship. The person trying to create a romantic relationship has to find a way to be allowed unto the person's "street" and they have to find out how to walk on the street (so to speak). Years after I heard Björk's "Bachelorette", I came across a song that describes the "street" metaphor in detail. It's The Bangles' song "Walking Down Your Street."


www.youtube.com...


So I'm gonna walk right down your street
With love that I can't hide
I've got one thing on my mind, yeah
I'll even sacrifice my pride
'Cause I want you


If you're following the metaphor, that's a perfect description of starting a romantic relationship (in most cases).

"I'll even sacrifice my pride"...exactly.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Everyone follows their own path. In my experience, when two people meet, they are both following their own paths with the exception that their paths cross. As they get to know each other they are still following their own path, it's just their paths are in parallel with side paths, especially if the two people are dating or learning about others at the same time.

It's when the two people decide together they are committed to each other as to when their paths become one path they are both following. Then that can lead to marriage, children, etc.. But, keep in mind, if the two people don't work hard and work together, their paths will become individual paths again.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

I'm a path of cinders
Burning under your feet
You're the one who walks me
I'm your one way street

I think that reflects an abusive relationship, getting walked on, doing only what one person wants, mindless how that affects the other person, stepping on their feelings all the time.

Supposed to walk together, not run each other over.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


I'm a path of cinders
Burning under your feet
You're the one who walks me
I'm your one way street

I think that reflects an abusive relationship, getting walked on, doing only what one person wants, mindless how that affects the other person, stepping on their feelings all the time.

Supposed to walk together, not run each other over.


In the song, Björk uses several different metaphors to describe the same thing IMHO. None of them involve abuse. For instance:


Drink me, make me feel real
Wet your beak in the stream
Game we're playing is life
Love is a two way dream


I believe the quote above is one way of looking at the situation. What you quoted is another way of looking at the situation.

The thing that is really relevant to this thread is comparing these two statements:

"I'm your one way street"

"Love is a two way dream"

I think she is describing exactly what I was trying to get across in the original post. Both parties are walking down a one way street. And, the streets are dreams and thus the entire thing is a "two way dream."



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:28 AM
link   
You must be the abuser, not the abusee, then.

The abuser like I said is self centered, mindless of any other way than their hiway.

They know better, are in charge, and whats the matter with you if you don't want to go along with their decisions?

Hows that working out for you?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
You must be the abuser, not the abusee, then.

The abuser like I said is self centered, mindless of any other way than their hiway.

They know better, are in charge, and whats the matter with you if you don't want to go along with their decisions?

Hows that working out for you?


I was describing what Björk was conveying. Something occurred to me after I posted the last post. If you compare these two statements:

"I'm your one way street"

"Love is a two way dream"

Is the meaning that if you're just following someone's "street" (by attempting to please them all the time), it isn't real love at all? Therefore "Love is a two way dream" is a consequence of a romantic relationship being two one way streets? In other words, if you're just trying to make someone else happy by doing a bunch of robotic gestures, there's no real love at all?

This issue has nothing to do with abuse to me. I was just thinking today about how my relationship with my girlfriend is like constant negotiation. Anything we do is negotiated down to minute details. That's the two "one way streets'" I was talking about. Because, my girlfriend is very picky and demanding, her street is extremely narrow. I do have to meet her demands just to make the relationship work. But, she balances it out by doing what I want too and by truly negotiating with me so we both get our way about half the time. I'm extremely picky in a lot of ways too.

That's what I'm talking about by two "one way streets."



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The allusion she is refering to is shes a trial by the very experience she has been through, the same as everyone goes through, yet the her that burns is not different than the path you walked yet you cant see beyond that separation.

Experience is the same and the grasped self or other is the only thing that changes that experience into something else.

Accepting someone else instead of excepting everyone else... because same experience, toss that out to experience experience but holding onto that person and not the experience is being one with them... as you and they are not experiences yet you can share them with who they are, and encourage the ones they want to have and reciprocate... not wallow around in ashes and still be burned by the same fires or has hatched a being still thinking they are a perfectly shaped egg and everyone else must conform to that shape to fit what they want out of or from them... or basically hatch from the egg of a person you want and desire them to be like some controlling god over someone looking for an unattainable ideal instead of acceptance for what has hatched, while you stand in the ashes burning and only admire the phoenix you want to place back into your own egg of a mind and hatching plans of containment instead of fulfillment other than ones own.

If thats too laden the metaphors...

Theres no secret to love and romance etc. its simply a mutual agreement to accept who someone is and encourage their work and who they are trying to evolve or grow into.

The current model has been only been looking at caged animals or wanting to cage animals, not set them free. No one is a savage beast, that should be treated as someone not ones equal in every respect and thats what respect means... for exactly who they are regardless of how caged theyve been by not being treated as such. Guess what, youve been caged too and when you both free each other its a one way street to get the hell out of there by taking to the sky.

The phoenix is reborn into the form of their own choosing like and that old cage even if trapped for a moment with promises of love and mutual respect and life as an equal is burned away by it being a lie seeking only control, make believe, and fantasy and not acceptance of who they are they are simply reborn over and over directly into freedom.

Thats also what she speaks... once one has accomplished such freedom over oneself and realized, its a one way street theres no going back into any egg to be controlled and live a life for any one other than one self, but sharing it is a choice... and if someone cant accept whats there, and encourage whats there, wipe away or pick off some ashes or shells others have tried to place on them in that acceptance of them and just add to the burden youll get burned just like all the rest trying to contain what has always been free.

Nests are for eggs, banking on that as a future or enticing that as a future or entrapment while people are steadily robbing nests and even their own isnt very kind to be doing in the world looking for golden gooses... doing such nets you zero just an elusive dream people keep chasing and believing... instead of achieveing in themselves then respecting others enough to burn bright enough to guide the way to better, brighter.

Fairy tales always have a villian inbetween the it doesnt matter Im just smitten, and thats why its called true love the gold one has for a heart just melts away in such a passion... that others just want to rob but cannot. As goose has no more golden eggs and gander at the one without a heart.

Some people just want to produce and from their hearts not concerned about its metal... thats the labor of love. The person you can just be with... thats ones real heart.

Encourage what they want to see in them and hopefully they do the same... if not shake it off you just set someone free, be happy for them.

What your OP is speaking of is becoming a doormat and how can anyone respect someone they can simply wipe their feet on at the entrance of their real house, you were never interested in seeing? The keys been under such people the whole time.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The (man) doth protest too much, me thinks...

don't sweat it... we all grow and find someone else after gripping too tight,

or not...same difference in the end.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Hopefully nobody is making demands of you! But here is some good relationship advice on finding balance in the relationship.



Sal

a reply to: Profusion



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion


"I'm your one way street"

Implying its one way, his way.


"Love is a two way dream"

Meaning it should be two way or both ways, both having equal say.

imo



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Profusion


"I'm your one way street"

Implying its one way, his way.


"Love is a two way dream"

Meaning it should be two way or both ways, both having equal say.

imo


Please don't use the pronoun "his" because Björk was talking about herself when she said, "I'm your one way street."

If your interpretation of the lyrics is correct, Björk may have been admitting that she wasn't capable of love. Or, she may have been admitting that she wasn't capable of love in the hypothetical situation of the song.

We're getting way out there regarding speculating about what the meaning of the song is. But, concerning whether you're right about love requiring "equal say", I don't agree.

Some submissive people would never be happy with "equal say" in a romantic relationship. They want their significant other to control them, and they couldn't be satisfied in any other situation.

However, speaking for myself (as that's the only person I can speak for), I agree with your "equal say" assertion. Love should require "equal say" in a romantic relationship. If I didn't get equal say, I would be out of any romantic relationship ASAP. I would lose my mind.

Then again, I believe we can't use logic when it comes to love. How can you put limitations on it? I'm of the opinion that love is involuntary and there's no logic to it at all.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Instead of one being used by the other as road bed cinders… I agree.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Profusion

Instead of one being used by the other as road bed cinders… I agree.


She didn't refer to "bed cinders", she referred to herself as "a path of cinders."


I'm a path of cinders
Burning under your feet
You're the one who walks me
I'm your one way street


She is literally saying "Björk = a path of cinders."

I have always understood that to mean that she was red hot (a little bragging) and that her lover was risking his life to be with her (because he could be burned to death very easily by her hotness).

You have to put the line "I'm a path of cinders" in the context of everything else she compares herself to in the song:

"I'm your one way street"

"I'm a fountain of blood"

"I'm a whisper in water"

"I'm a tree that grows hearts"

"I'm the branch that you break"

If you put all of that together, what do you get?

Björk = "a path of cinders" = "[a] one way street" = "a fountain of blood" = "a whisper in water" = "a tree that grows hearts" = "the branch that you break"

What is the "path of cinders"? It is Björk as the goddess that she obviously sees herself as being (within the context of the song).

After doing that analysis, I realized the correlation between "Bachelorette" and the following song. I never saw this coming.


www.youtube.com...



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Submission is a permission that takes trust... if that isnt present then its working out some issues someone has, and likely dysfunction as thats all they know.

Of course some people like roles, and they play the role playing game as its a safe comfortable place to be for some people that agree on those roles without having to wonder or question what their work assignment is for that role.

Doesnt much sound like love though does it... just comprimise imho. Of course, encouragment is saying hey if thats the role you want and that makes you happy? So be it. But if it requires me to play some role other than who I am that might not work so great...

Thats the two way street on a one way blvd. I dont own anyone and I dont rule anyone so me giving someone permission to be who they want? Never, consent for how they want to interact with me? A moment to moment basis... if Ive a GF and she has the green light on sex that means consent is always hers to take when mood strikes... but hey situational is gonna say um might not be a good time, like one time an ex tried mounting me riding down the road years ago... even later when she said I figured youd just pull over, I said side of the road doesnt really work either... and she said she got off on abuse and being hit after getting extremely violent and tried raping me one night... I'm not a prude she was just very drunk and blacked out a lot not remembering things cause she drank a lot to cope with past abuse... hitting and abuse is not my style never will be... so hey not a good match, and some people say wait until marriage?

Yeah... there has to sexual compatibility too for happiness, not just parts that happen to fit somewhere.


edit on 20-6-2016 by BigBrotherDarkness because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
Unless you have a situation where there's "love at first sight" by both parties


Even if that happens it won't matter, because women see men in a whole different light that vice versa.

Being a male, it is unfortunate that an upright and honest male has a ton more attraction to females than they do. Women really don't care.

Haven't you heard married men say the secret is to always say "yes" and give them anything they want? And if a male does not always let a female have her own way, than he is in trouble and she will most likely first take away sex?

If we want to be honest, men need sex because they are consumed with passion which is genetic, and women use and take advantage of men because they do not come from the same point of view. It is understandable because if you think about the act of sex, it is the man who if getting the most pleasure out of it. The woman is giving it to us as a symbol that we have done enough right things. When a woman receives that same type of pleasure it is because the man is loving the woman. However when I man experiences that pleasure it is because of a physical attraction towards the woman.

It is really crazy when you think about it. I have been single for 9 years. And women love that, there is nothing more a woman likes that to emotionally hurt and control a man.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: UFOdanger

This kind of talk will get you blacklisted from chatting with any women here, you need to know that. You better keep your mouth shut, you don't know who you'll run across here in the future.

You also have to use something like "[sarcasm][/sarcasm]" tags so that people will understand what's serious and what isn't.

I'm in a great relationship and the only reason I'm in one is because of loneliness. I adore my girlfriend, she is awesome. However, if it weren't for loneliness I wouldn't have a partner.

I'm reminded of the following lines from the first "Twilight Zone" episode.


You see, we can feed the stomach with concentrates. We can supply microfilm for reading, recreation - even movies of a sort. We can pump oxygen in and waste material out. But there's one thing we can't simulate that's a very basic need. Man's hunger for companionship. The barrier of loneliness - that's one thing we haven't licked yet.


I recommend reading the thread below.

Is Makeup Like War Paint?

My girlfriend wears no makeup, ever. It got me to thinking...she doesn't think she's "at war" with me in any way. We're totally at peace together. Is there a connection between a woman not wearing makeup and being at peace with men?
edit on 20-6-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 02:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Please let me explain how I am not relating my feelings to any individual person but that my purpose is to withdraw completely from the expectations of modern society.

After loving unconditionally those who have no respect for me, and dealing with that for a very long time, I have no desire to be loved anymore, even though the people close to me know that I have a giant abundance of love to give and love to thrive on spiritually physically and emotionally. I have come to terms with the fact that my dream is unlikely, not because I am a bad catch, but because the better of a guy I am the more I have been hated, not because of being upright and honest, but because of learning why people take advantage of others and realizing that rich men are the ones who are given the opportunity to experience pleasure by the standards of modern society.

People take drugs in order to medicate themselves after being repeatedly rejected by the world of both sexes, and the unification between man and woman is the only positive mood altering experience that does not depend on substances, besides the experience of recreational activities.

I will show respect no matter how many people do not respect me, and nobody will ever have to gain respect from me, even those who do not respect me, because I believe in unconditional love. In a paradox you are right because this forum is the most needed for my own emotional development, but it is also the most needed for me to stay away from; I do not want to arouse any negative emotions from any person as much as I want to portray my self owned truths and take their burden away from my soul.

With this learning along comes a deeper understanding of myself, and since there is a girl out there for everybody, I will just have to be ready for the time I meet a rare female that opposes modern trends and what society asks of them. For example modern society asks of them to walk through a busy intersection while looking down at a phone, she will not be able to conceive how that kind of impulse can exist, and she will understand that acknowledging other people around you is a sure equivalent of showing respect, and yes I have accidentally ran into girls who refuse to look up from their phones while walking, it is a modern worldly trend that is becoming incredibly common and now a great way to take advantage of ignoring people.

Now I understand that man's role is protector, but it is reality society has taught itself in agreement with each other that my philosophy is not accepted in any way shape or form. However I cannot change my philosophy, not because my experiences have taught me otherwise, but because I understand my philosophy is not of this world, as the spirit is also not of this world either. So would I really choose the world over my spirit? It is very easy to do that and yes it happens all the time, however this separation from spirit and world, knowing the thick line between the two, is what keeps me from giving into the world and the secret of pleasure in regards to manipulation and opposition of truth.

I will look into your link. Personally I like girls who choose natural beauty over makeup, not because it separates them from the materialistic aspect of modern society, but because the down to earth type is just more attractive to me than the model type.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 05:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

She didn't refer to "bed cinders", she referred to herself as "a path of cinders."

I said 'road bed', not just bed. She says path and street, its harder to say street bed, all roads have a bed of gravel (road bed) under them.

How far down the semantic rabbit hole you want to go? The point is he uses her, dictates to her, burns her up and is no more worthy than to be trod upon under foot.



posted on Jun, 21 2016 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: UFOdanger

My advice to you is to try to find a woman who comes from outside of Western culture. Their values can be completely different, as you'd expect.


originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Profusion

She didn't refer to "bed cinders", she referred to herself as "a path of cinders."

I said 'road bed', not just bed. She says path and street, its harder to say street bed, all roads have a bed of gravel (road bed) under them.

How far down the semantic rabbit hole you want to go? The point is he uses her, dictates to her, burns her up and is no more worthy than to be trod upon under foot.


You're turning something that is clearly positive IMHO into something negative. I don't know where you're getting your interpretation considering the context of the song.

Björk is in control throughout the song:


You're the bird on the brim
Hypnotised by the Whirl


If her lover is being hypnotized then who is in control?


Drink me, make me feel real
Wet your beak in the stream


Björk is in control, she's giving the commands.


Leave me now, return tonight



When I beckon you near


Björk is in control.


You're the intruder hand


This is the only line in the song that could support your theory that the lover is doing something negative IMHO. However, how can it be considered negative in the context of the song? Björk invited her lover; she was in control (there's no reason to think she lost control). Björk wanted him to be the "intruder" (whatever that even means). And, being an "intruder" doesn't support your theory anyway IMHO.

Again, there are six different metaphors in the song for what Björk is:

Björk = "a path of cinders" = "[a] one way street" = "a fountain of blood" = "a whisper in water" = "a tree that grows hearts" = "the branch that you break"

Since all of them are equal, if you're going to claim that two of the metaphors have a negative meaning, then they all would have a negative meaning IMHO (because I believe they're six different ways of looking at the same thing).

And, since she is in control throughout the song, "a path of cinders" and "[a] one way street" cannot be negative if it's exactly what she wants. There's no other way to understand the song IMHO.

I just realized that this may be the most in-depth discussion in history of Björk's "Bachelorette."
edit on 21-6-2016 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join