Gesundheit2

With 23,628 others.

@Gabith Toxicity doesn't have a gender. For example, Connor Murphy is the biggest attention whore. Improve your boundaries, maximize your self-esteem, increase your consciousness, keep developing yourself in general, and you will be fine.

@flume I actually did not know that Leo made such a video until this thread, and even then I haven't watched it. Apparently, my reasoning for cheating is quite different from the video. I agree with you here. In my view, it doesn't matter how good the sex is or how beautiful, great, smart, and funny the woman is. When a man cheats on his woman, it's almost always about him, not about her. Male sexuality is very impersonal. Even if she's the world's most beautiful woman and the world's greatest mother and all the great things in the world, at some point his attraction towards her will decrease and then he will start seeking other women even if they're "less" than her. And "less" here is his own rational judgement. So, he actually knows and understands and even appreciates all the good things that she is, but he will still seek another sexual partner, regardless. So, yes, you shouldn't seek to keep your man loyal. Good sex for men is not the same thing as good sex for women. Good sex for men is mostly physical and perceptive (has to do with the senses, sights, sounds, etc...). Emotional connection is not a prerequisite for good sex for men, even though it's definitely appreciated. You needn't get triggered here, it's just practical advice. However, bad sex is very different from no sex at all. No sex at all is his responsibility, while bad sex is her responsibility. Easy for you to say these things when you don't have the same urges. And they are indeed powerful urges. No kidding. It's not necessarily "bad" or a "problem", but I see your point. And "cheating" doesn't necessarily break that commitment. Of course, that assumes there aren't already huge problems existing within the relationship, like lack of trust and communication. If there are already huge problems, then cheating is not really the actual problem, but really a scapegoat for and a doubling-down on the lack of communication. Either way, I would inquire into why people take it so seriously and consider it very threatening to the relationship. Agreed.

@Someone here You're welcome buddy. Hope you find the joys you're looking for.

How do I know what? All I ever truly know is that I exist. Period. The rest of what I say I hold loosely, because it's merely thoughts, and thoughts are subject to error and change. In this case, it seems you're asking me how do I know that reality is not a dream? In other words, you're trying to figure out whether or not reality is a dream. The answer to that inquiry is not intellectual. Rather, it comes from awareness. In practice, what you need to do is to simply go meta on the inquiry itself, and then ask yourself: Who is the one that is trying to know? Who is the one that is seeking more intellectual answers? What is the purpose of this knowledge in specific? And of knowledge in general? What roles does knowledge serve in everyday life? And how does it affect my state of consciousness? What if I don't really need to know? What is this "need" to know? Where did it come from? Can I let go of it and enjoy this experience? Can I appreciate being here and now for the sake of being here and now, and simply by being here and now? Why do some humans seek knowledge while others don't seem to care about it at all? What can I learn from those who seem to know how to enjoy life to the fullest? And for God's sake, if all the seeking doesn't bring me the comfort and relief that I long for and expect, then what the hell am I doing?! Wouldn't it be infinitely better to cut straight to the chase and feel the comfort and relief instead of looping round and round in circles? After all, isn't a better experience the whole point of all these questions? What do I really want deep inside? A better experience? Or more useless, uncertain models?

@Etherial Cat This might cost me one life, but I kinda liked my misogynist title better

@Someone here Hey buddy, I know it might feel tough right now but it will get better. What you're describing sounds like derealization disorder, which is nothing to worry about but definitely something to be aware of. You are not dreaming, and everything you're experiencing is not false, either. You are the one who is experiencing the state that feels like a dream. And you are the one who is experiencing the thoughts and fear of things being false. Rest assured that none of your fears is real. And that everything else is.

He's probably a judge

Why would the USA leave Iraq? Lots of easy oil and geopolitical interests to give up so easily.

@Etherial Cat Yep, I confused between the two names at first. I quit Islam a few years ago and information started to get confused. It's fine, I'm not good in French anyways.

Please share those documentaries/sources. The only issue I'm aware of is the one with his wife Aisha where she was accused of cheating before she was declared innocent by Allah through Quranic revelations.

@Etherial Cat It's not as simple as it sounds... There are various things to consider here that might explain why that desire can turn into action: This desire for variety is rarely talked about during the initial phases of a relationship. The woman usually assumes that the man will be loyal only to her without actually addressing his true authentic desires. The woman does not even want to admit that possibility to herself, let alone encouraging her partner to confess about it. What if polyamory was his true authentic desire? Does that mean the end of a potentially good relationship? Even worse, what if it he wasn't aware of his desire but she awakened him to it? Doesn't that sub-communicate a submission of some kind on her part? The man assumes that he will not need another woman next to the one he's committing to. He doesn't know himself fully yet. The average male is not conscious enough to know himself fully. Therefore, the desire for variety will manifest later after fulfilling the more basic desire for sex. Thanks to feminism, the norm nowadays is to have only one partner. This makes the discussion suggested above more awkward and less likely to happen. Even if that discussion takes place, the man won't likely be able to tell the truth (assuming he knows himself fully), because that'll hurt his chances with the current woman, and therefore take him from monogamy down to "no gamy" There are probably more points to consider, but that should be a good start for a discussion.

If you truly believe that most men don't cheat and that you choose wisely, that means you should never experience jealousy. Is that your experience? Be honest, because if not, it probably means that deep down you know what we're talking about, whist using a bunch of rationalizations to ignore it.

The 4 wives limit in Islam is not a recommendation from Mohammed. It's a Quranic line that you are not allowed to cross, probably for logistic reasons. Keep in mind that in those days, they used to reproduce a lot. So it's not merely about managing the wives, but also the children. Plus, they were allowed to own any number of women from battles, so this example doesn't exactly help your point. Furthermore, before Mohammed, there was no limit on the number of wives. A man was allowed to marry any number of women he wanted to. And the more the better, because more wives equals more political relations between the tribes, which practically translates into more power to his tribe. I've studied the history of Mohammed's life thoroughly and never heard of his issues with his wives. The conclusion here sounds more like an assumption on your part.

Yes, there are certain challenges in polygamy. But we are not talking about that here. We are not even talking about polygamy in the first place. It seems you're thinking about something else entirely when you're presenting your opinions. We are talking about male's authentic sexual desire, which is called polyamory. Polyamory is the essence of and a prerequisite for polygamy, but it's not the same. Polyamory is simply the desire for a variety of sexual partners, regardless of relationship. And it is a real instinctual thing that is prior to ideology, insecurities, and all rationalizations. I've been wrecking my head around it for years without being able to crack its code. And I'm a spiritual dude. It's mysterious and inexplicable. Unless you're judging open relationships, explain why they exist if they're such a nightmare.

@flowboy What sound logic are you talking about when you're even strawmanning yourself?! You're arguing against a claim that no one has made except you in the last post. No one said that 100% of men will cheat given the opportunity. That's a strawman you made. Strawman argument = logical fallacy = poor logic. So, that's one. As for two... The real premise here is that most men (70%-90%) will choose polyamory inevitably given the opportunity (or they will "cheat"), and even a greater percentage will find it hard to resist. Your counterexample is silly because you don't know how well you will hold yourself the next time an opportunity presents itself to you. You barely did it only once and now you're generalizing it as the truth that all men should follow or otherwise they're lazy or weak or whatever. But you can't even guarantee yourself probabilistically speaking. In other words, you don't have enough exposure to make such conclusions. Your logic is as silly as saying that all women are bitches because your first girlfriend screwed you over. Overgeneralization = logical fallacy = poor logic. Please do not speak of sound logic again unless you know what you're saying. You're insulting philosophy and everyone who practices it with these posts.

In the 1970s, my parents used to hear that the earth will run out of natural oil in 50 years. 50 years later, and we still have the same 50 years expectancy.

@flowboy You can't conclude something like that based on one rare edge case. You're obviously biased and just trying to comfort the women in here, which may be a good thing, but ultimately you're still lying to yourself and others.

@integral It probably goes without saying, but control yourself

Yeah, I know, it's my everyday experience too. But, I've also experienced states where that distinction collapsed. From what I've gleaned so far, this is how it works: You imagine that pain and pleasure are different. (Conditioning/belief). You can't imagine that pain and pleasure are the same. (Not enough open-mindedness). You want to imagine that they are different. (Survival/Self-bias). You don't want to imagine that they are the same. (Comfort zone/resistance to change). So, not only you can't imagine that possibility, but also deep down, you don't have the desire to accept it in the first place. Because for you to imagine that possibility, you'd have to imagine a different possibility than the one you currently know and identify with, which is the whole problem in a nutshell. Reality is made of differences. You survive as a self by emphasizing the differences that survive you the most, and by ignoring the differences that don't really affect you, at least at face value. Take a look at the image below: If you're a computer, you will know that no two pixels inside that image are the same. Every pixel has its own coordinates and properties. But to you as a human, and since it doesn't make much of a difference to your survival, you will say it's just a black image. At the same time, to a computer, all of what I'm writing here is just zeros and ones (transistor pulses). I could type anything, and it won't make a difference to a computer. When to you, there's a meaning to every letter to the point where I can possibly hurt your emotions with these innocent characters if I decide to arrange them in a certain way.

Exactly! You believe, therefore that's your reality. If you believe otherwise, it will be otherwise. Difference is imaginary, and you are the one imagining it. It's not likely that you will stop imagining it at a normal state of consciousness, because you're biased towards survival/life. But at a radically high (or radically low) state, when you forget yourself, you won't distinguish between anything.

Because 20 years of past present moments is more than just 1 present moment.

"True" is a mental/logical construct, it basically means that a certain thought is in alignment with a certain perception. "False", same thing but the thought is not in alignment with the perception. And, there's no true or false outside of language/logic/mind.

It's harder than I thought it would be. Just collecting ideas for now, will see what happens next. It's particularly hard because I have an empty mind due to my hardcore meditation practice. There's apparently a trade-off between losing the monkey-mind and the ability to produce high quality thoughts. You need the monkey-mind to produce throughs, and you need meditation to have clarity and be able to filter out low quality thoughts. Too much monkey mind is problematic, and so is too much meditation. Too much here, by definition, means not much there. Plus, articulating those ideas is also hard. I have already collected a number of ideas, and they're supposed to be threads that should lead to the bigger ideas that I want to be presenting. However, my ability to polymer and articulate various thoughts together seems to break down very quickly. I have a perfectly clear understanding of what I want to share, since I have contemplated it all so deeply, and yet I don't seem to be able to share it without struggle. Maybe I'm just not destined to communicate these ideas.