Princess Arabia

No, and I understand that. You have been very respectful in your communications with me and have shown that you are open about our conversation and what I have to say,. Just understand I'm not claiming anything to be the Absolute case, and can only speak from my perspective. It's just that it gets to be a drag if one has to keep repeating that point over again, that they are only speaking from a particular perspectival view point.

This is why I don't use this as a prime example when speaking on these matters and it has nothing to do with the topic. My experiences were not one of being on the streets or too impersonal. These would be situations where interactions were just normal interactions just like everyone else. Don't judge what you're unaware of just from what ilve told you because my interactions with men outside of my line of work was way more traumatizing or negative than with the men in my line of work. So my work doesn't have much influence on any negativity towards men that I may have if any.

A woman's looks is worth more than what's in her head and she didn't make the rules up on that. Infact, a smart, intellectual, very outspoken and filled with knowledge about a lot of things is not valued as much sexually in a woman and is sometimes looked at as masculine and if she's too outspoken - bossy. Looks for a woman is a very valuable commodity. I didn't make the rules for this, society did. Put a fat ugly woman on the front of a magazine cover or as a role model for beauty or invite a bunch of fat ugly women with no sex appeal on a yatch party and see how well that works out. A bunch of fat bald ugly old men who are rich will certainly work wonders for this scenario though. Don't try to tell me men don't value looks, it's their top priority. Look good, and you can attract, even if you're dumb, in fact it's best if you are.

You are being general with your "how do you know this to be true" narrative. It's not about media, but what is the case. Marketing caters to peoples emotions. I don't have to do a general survey to understand that men are visual creatures and they base their attraction level towards a woman based on her looks. To answer you or other question yes, I've been in conversations with many men and situations of this nature because I've been an exotic dancer and an escort for the male species for many years and interacted with them. That said, I've also seen it in general cases, up the street, down town and between. Men are not asking about a woman's personality as much as they're asking what does she look like.

Yeah, looks, bottomline. You said sexual mates not marriage or a friend and confidante. I won't butter this up and pretend to patronize men, they go for looks initially when it comes down to a sexual mate. I mentioned nothing about using women for sex, you assumed that's my implications. Men value looks and it's at the high end of the spectrum. That's the bottom line and some men refuse to want to accept that because they think it makes them seem shallow. I did not say they don't value anything else but how the woman looks is very valuable to them yes it is. You might not know this because you live under a rock, but this forum alone reveals this amongst every other scenarios out there. A MAN INSN'T SELECTING SEXUAL MATES BASED ON IQ LEVELS. or even based on her finances most of the time or who her parents are or her standards or if she's a good girl or not he's basing it off of what she looks like at first and everything else is secondary and sometimes not, but if it's now about relationships or marriage. Then he might look a little deeper, but just for a sexual mate no no, nothing matters other than physical appearance.

you keep insisting that I'm referring to ALL men because I try to insert the word "most" or some"' and that these statements are just my opinions and pov's. I'm not making any absolutist statements, they are my opinions and my opinions only based of what I've seen to be true and they are circumstantial and compared to other scenarios, e.g. It is mostly women we see in commercialized situations advertising cars or anything trying to sell sex. So that's one reason you can say men are visual. Another is the strip clubs, men are visual. All I'm saying is men know f they're attracted to you or not in an instant and that looks is all that's needed for that in a man.

It doesn't take a relationship expert to have to tell you that most men are attracted to looks and a woman's appearance more than her personality in the beginning. So much so that there are million and billion dollar companies profiting from this. Ever seen a shirtless man advertising a car, how many topless strip clubs are there that are strictly male dancers. Why aren't men getting cat-called left and right by women and these cat-callers aren't calling for their exam results.

This is the most obvious thing on the planet. You must be misunderstanding me. Of course it's not 100% of men because it's never 100% but how many guys do you think are out there NEEDING to know a woman first before he gets sexually attracted to her. Thatls all I'm saying in this regard here, nothing else in that statement. Men know instantly or soon thereafter meeting a woman that they are sexually attracted and would fuck her if given the opportunity. I'm not saying every guy would definitely do it, all I'm saying is they know if they're sexually attracted right away or not.

It happens, but how many men are our screwing women they're not attracted to for job opportunities, because they want to land that acting role, they need their rent paid, only screwing her for the sake of the peace (he's abusive), plenty of women out their having circumstantial sex. Men too but most is just for the sake of sex with.,...and not because they are in a certain predicament.

I understand what you're saying and its hard to get all factors in in short comments and in a forum-type atmosphere. Lots of exceptions in every situation. However, on a general scale, I don't think a woman would freely and lovingly have sex with a man she didn't want to just to have an orgasm. Purely just to come. Men do this all the time and speak about it all the time as in "I just wanted to nut", or "I didn't really like her but she was giving it up", or she came on to me, etcetc. This doesn't happen in wonen's cases where we just have sex because he was giving it up, they don't like the guy but they just wanted to cum..please, let's get real here. Lots of businesses situations and circumstances are there because of men's roaming eyes and abilities to separate lust from love and are sexually turned on by a woman's appearance alone. Your last statement has nothing to do with what I was referring to. I don't have to put women's process of sexual preference on a pedestal over men's. It's usually different and that's just it. It's the guys that thinks I'm saying one is better or higher than another. There is a compliment there and the differences work in sync with the overall picture of the female/male dynamic.

I'm not speaking about after a man gets to know a woman, relationship or marriage, I'm speaking about instantly or soon thereafter. I didn't think I had to explain this given how it's quite obvious everywhere you look. Nothing I say is a conclusion I've deducted, just pov's, perspectives and opinions......until they change. Notice I said most. All i will say is, strip clubs and escort work doesn't exist because of the women's personalities and the lingo from men constantly referring to women's appearances (where to meet hot chicks, where all the hot chicks at, she was hot, etcetc). C'mon guys don't care to get to know you first before they've concluded they would fuck you or not..,wait, that chick is hot but I'd have to get to know her first before I can know if I'd bang her or not. I'm not saying they would , but all that other stuff comes later after seeing her appearance.

What I think is happening is, on paper, guys are expressing their disappointments in not being able to date or have the girl of their dreams and it's because those fantasy women are dating the top 20%. They have come to the brutal truth of the matter, maybe from watching a lot of porn, TV or fantasies, that those beautiful women that they dream and fantasize about are out of reach and maybe any woman that may even come close to that or even close to what I consider to be my dream girl they can't have. I honestly think this is the case, because I see regular people, like you said, on a daily bases coupled up and having normal couples and relationship issues, not who's lonely or how women are this and that or being stuck in their heads about the loneliness epidemic or how women only date the top. I think they're after a certain type and realizing that type isn't interested in them. The physical look, not the personality but what she looks like.

Hey now, you gotta look cool while riding the scooolterrrr. The sandals is to protect the cool look. The gloves were tucked away, it's getting hot out. So there you have it folks, all safety measures are out the door when picturing for the scoooolterrrr.

Sometimes you need a little reminder.

See, you done messed up that pizza with concepts and ideas😛

Aha, nice. Did you just make that yourself or was it delivered. Umph, umph. Neither, as you are also it and so would be the deliveryman. So who made it.

The person that claims to be lonely is the illusion but that doesn't mean it's not felt within the body as real. The sense of self is illusory. It's just not happening. It's not a screaming for attention, what comes with that separate sense of self that arises within and felt in the body is a sense of doubt, fear, anxiety, and a feeling that something needs to be done because this isn't whole and completely. It sets out to find what it thinks is missing and it looks for it in objects and people and circumstances. People as in who will complete me or validate my sense of self etc. When neither happens, and it never will, because that is wholeness also looking for validation and how can wholeness validate wholeness. That requires something outside of it. That's why humans are never satisfied and can never feel permanently fulfilled or whole or even happy. It looks for those things in objects and those objects including people is also wholeness.

When I say stuff like time is not inside of me and go on to explain why I can't see that to be the case, why isn't there a response to say why you said that in the first place. Explain to me why and how time is inside of me, instead of getting upset that I challenged the notion and saying I'm parroting when I can always explain away in my own words using practical examples as to why I don't see it to be the case and can explain anything I'm "parroting", according to you and use everyday practical examples to do it and analogies.

This thread right here. You still never said anything about my responses about your post, not your personality and you responded by saying some people have a stick or bug up their ass. You never responded to any of my takes or had a discussion about what I disagreed with, you just said I had a bug up my ass. You didn't say me personally and will probably deny you were referring to me, but you and i know you were referring to me just like this response clap-back angry post that you made .Atleast admit that because it's obvious at this point.

You and i know your post was partially about the ways I speak, my challenging your previous thread about the Universe that i dissected and the way I speak about how everything is an appearance and non-duality. You and i know that. You can deny it all you want and come up with some bullshit story that anyone may read and think its the case but your post was screaming this. You know I can't prove it but the way you made your first response to me is also a clue. I'm done discussing this as I think it's way overdue and if you're going to hide behind a screen and act as if your post wasn't at least partially addressing me while all these responses and comments you've made all throughout the thread is suggesting that then there's nothing more to say on the matter. Anybody that reads your responses will be able to tell because youre saying things to me that's addressed within the post and acknowledging that I do those things. I'm so glad shit is in writing and can be referenced. Yes, your post was partially about me and you know it. I can go to archive and go back to a comment you made when I dissected your previous thread and then said I was breaking your balls and how you didn't take it too lightly that I challenged your stances. You were obviously upset about it. I'll go dig it up. Then I'll leave you be.

Ok you're forcing be to go into the filing cabinet. I will

So, in other words just stfu. Ok got it

Criticisms to what's being expressed as far as the topic and my pov on things; not my character or personality traits if that's not what the thread is about. I don't mind when my views get challenged, no, not even my personality and character because I can just ignore but that's not what I was referring to here, I mean my views.

Read the OP.

Your post is screaming anger and resentment, fury and scorn. I can have discussions about the Absolute and reality and all that stuff with others respectfully all the time, but it seems you get upset and furious when I challenge you. Coming back with something to challenge me back may open my eyes but you come back with disgust and personal criticisms and rage. Read the OP you made about me, and you expect for me to not respond the way I did. @Breakingthewalland i discuss this stuff all the time and we can even go back and forth but it's all in good spirits and opening to what each one is saying, and we may ask each other questions back and forth and maybe get nowhere but it's always a good conversation with no hostility. With you however, you attacked me out of no where and slandered me with an ice pick just because i speak or disagree.