Consept

Porn will always find a way

I dont remember you saying this previously but yes that makes a lot of sense to me and i think many can relate to that as well. I would say to explore these feelings, this is the more difficult path but i think potentially you could be so strong in your beliefs because youre trying to avoid this pain and trauma. Your beliefs may protect you from facing this, it is definitely the harder path but ultimately its the one that will allow you to grow the most. Even if everything goes to plan, ie you get married and the guys perfect bla bla bla, you will still have these unaddressed issues that may affect you a lot down the line. Yes it makes sense that you would feel this way, its the same reason why anyone sticks to any belief. It offers comfort and certainty and lets you keep belief structures up that protect you from facing things. But I would assume if youre on this forum you do want to push yourself and grow and i think this would be a good opportunity to really test those beliefs. If they are true then theres nothing to worry about but i think you can recognise somewhere that you are holding on to them for other reasons, if you can see it when others do it thats good, but seeing it in yourself is the most important.

This is quite a ridiculous quote, people make analogies comparing humans to objects all the time, it wouldnt make much sense comparing a human to human. 'Having sex with a human is exactly like having sex with a human' literally means nothing lol. Spiritual gurus use analogies like this all the time, it doesnt mean youre conflating a human with a machine or an animal. Maybe you hold some trauma around that but you should be careful projecting that onto others when there was no ill intention there

I think i get where youre coming from, you want to know why your belief that sex should only be within marriage and that marriage is sacred, is judged as being weird, whereas people who are religious its more accepted. I think to answer your question, most people who arent religious see (organised) religious people as somewhat brainwashed into having the values they have. I say that because all muslims have roughly the same values and beliefs, all catholics have roughly the same beliefs, so the values and beliefs havent come about from introspection or study, theyve just been adopted wholesale and i think outsiders can sypmpathise and understand that, and so dont necessarily question the lack of logic as they are aware of how they belief has been formed. With you, youre saying youre not religious but youve still come to the same kind of belief around marriage most religious people come to. So here in lies the reason why people might think its weird just because they cant understand how youve come to that belief. As i mentioned in a previous post i dont consider marriage sacred for various reasons and any belief structure as just that a creation to maintain some kind of order in society. Of course im not trying to convince you of doing anything but im just pointing out the flaws in your arguments for your belief, most of them are naive and not even really logical. There maybe some deeper psychological reasons that we dont know as well. But i think in general youll get push back on this forum because many are trying to not hold onto any beliefs and even see the separation between them and 'my beliefs'. Ultimately that is where spirituality will take you, you wont be associated with any kind of identity. So those with strong beliefs and identities usually stand out quite a lot, really to grow you would need to consider not being so tied to such beliefs or look at them from different perspectives.

@Shir Can I ask what the point of this thread is, you seem pretty set on your beliefs already, did you just want confirmation and people to agree with you? People will understand why you might feel that way but in general I don't think people will agree. Even though you say it's not religious, it is a very stage blue idea and most here either desire to or have moved past that stage

I read your original post and most of the thread and fair enough its your decision and your view and i dont think anyone would be able to convince you otherwise. However i disagree with your premise that marriage is somehow sacred. If you look at most of human behavior it has its roots in evolutionary biology, marriage in the past has been very different to how we see it now. Most actions were made with the express purpose of assuring reproduction of ones genes and survival. In the past and maybe to some extent today marriage was a way for a man to restrict the sexual freedom of women to ensure that his genes were passed on through his wife, if marriage wasnt there his wife could sleep with whoever and there would be no way to know who impregnated her. Also it allowed the man to sleep with other women and maybe impregnate them but even if that didnt work the wife was still there and she would face harsh repercussions were she to sleep with anyone else. From the womans side their goal, evolution wise, is to have kids and make sure those kids are looked after. So their actions are to not only have sex and reproduce but also make sure that they are seen as having a good reputation so that a partner can trust them not to sleep with others so that hes comfortable to stay with her knowing the kids are his. This is why women defend their reputation as if they have a bad one its less likely a man will settle down with them. Its why women may lie about how many partners theyve had and claim less and a man would do the opposite. It should also be noted that marrying for 'love' is a relatively new phenomenon, traced back to around 150 years ago, before then you would marry to join families or for political and social gain, many marriages were arranged. Really marriage was a way to structure a blue society, similar to what some people like Jordan Peterson advocate today. So essentially marriage was a construct to benefit men and sexually control women. Also worth keeping in mind a lot of women were diagnosed by doctors as having hysteria (being horny) in which the treatment was for the doctor to masturbate them. So that brings us to today where it feels like women are now the ones pushing for marriage, we may say that they have been convinced that the values set in place by men have been internalised and through modern marketing, disney films etc, marriage has been given a romantic and all encompassing value by women. Ultimately society would want people to get married as that can keep them under control, and thats not necessarily a bad thing, but this is why i dont think theres anything sacred in a societal construct. The fact that people say its sacred goes to show how good the marketing was for it. I believe these evolutionary factors are the main reasons people would get married, have sex etc especially from SD stage red to orange, once you get to green and above i feel that you can start realising what truly loving someone entails. Most marriages will occur from red to orange so if most are not aware of what truly loving another is then just because they get married why would it automatically become sacred and deeper, in truth its just a story to wrap around the reality. I would encourage you to explore some of these ideas that ive tried to sum up, as i think the way you are strictly tied to your beliefs can actually limit your growth as a person. As @Preety_India said, sex without marriage can be incredibly meaningful, more so than married sex. If you just have one view, that its all about one night stands and whatnot you miss out on the reality of what it actually is.

What happened to this guy?

Can you sum up what your point is in a few lines por favor?

Basically but at the same time the story has probably provided value for others even if it's not true, so some good was done but in a dishonest way.

But there is such thing as healthy orange this could be that kind of situation. Id also put Gary V at healthy orange but i think hes also got a lot of green in him and potentially even higher. I dont really see that with Robert K although i might be mistaken, ive seen a lot of him selling his name to 3rd party courses, similar to what Trump has done, so i just dont see it, but he has valuable info to share definitely. Edit: some relevant info about his company going bankrupt recently and other issues - https://thecollegeinvestor.com/4726/ultimate-hypocrite-robert-kiyosaki-companys-bankruptcy/

Pretty solid orange

Seems pretty accurate to me, obviously exaggeration for comedic effect but what was not true about it?

Heres a couple lists of accomplishments, the thing is its kinda relative in terms what would be expected and also the negative things his done would have to be offset against the positive, but there are some positives - https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-biggest-accomplishments-and-failures-heading-into-2020-2019-12?r=US&IR=T#failure-americas-global-image-is-in-shambles-7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/26/best-things-trump-has-done/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/president-donald-j-trump-delivered-record-breaking-results-american-people-first-three-years-office/

I agree im not saying combat sports are by definition red, im saying the specific type of combat i posted up is red as theres no discipline and its all about ego

He hasnt done it but a byproduct of him being there is that i dont think future presidents can get away with playing the 'role' of a president, as in saying all the right things, i think now youre going to have to show more of your true self, which is why people rejected Hilary. Also for the first time the candidates were significantly different, usually theyre more centrist and policies are not far off being the same. Basically its a well needed shake up to politics, just hope the lessons have been learnt

Theres been some debate on here over whether combat sports are red, but this is pure red combat below -

This is a good example of acting concerned but at the same time denying there's a problem. If you skip to 16.50 Shapiro gives his solution which I've never actually heard before, let me know what you think -

Theres a definite lack of compassion from Ben Shapiro, although that doesnt mean he cant have valid points worth exploring. Im not sure i would go as far sociopath but im not a psychologist

They will say theyre not happy with how its played out but this isnt really true. Most people will say they agree with whatever they need to so as not to be deemed a bad person in the eyes of society (for survival reasons), but that doesnt mean that they dont feel a certain way internally. In this case with the sign, many feel emboldened to attack it because their community is mostly white and of the same mindset so they dont have to face any negative consequences from their actions, if someone had the same feelings in new york city they wouldnt be so blatant about how they show it. Why they tend to get annoyed is because they cant voice these feelings or they get criticised so they feel that their freedom of speech is being taken away, which causes frustration etc also others in the mainstream that they relate to cant voice these opinions, so they feel their voice is unheard. Therefore if black people are protesting that they want rights its almost offensive to them because they see it as unfair that black people can voice these opinions but they cant voice their opinions that maybe black people are complaining about nothing or racism doesnt exist. Any honest debate will at least show them that they are mistaken or at least lacking perspective in this issue, but the point is they dont want to have that debate because they are happy with things the way they are. I know you have a thing against sjws and I do get that they can be judgemental and superior, but they make the environment uncomfortable for people with these misinformed opinions and beliefs and that is precisely what is needed. You should not be comfortable holding racist beliefs, Nazis should have never been so comfortable believing Jews were inferior. The idea that theyre not protesting right is just looking for justification to shut all conversation down.

Oz shows every flavour of red, its interesting how some characters like Syed have to drop from blue to red to survive in the prison. Adebisi was obviously the craziest mofo in there -

Hip hop had a very strong green base in the 90s, De la soul, tribe called quest, public enemy, common etc but there was a lot more money in the red stages with gangsta rap and when the labels put money into it they put money into that. Even now there are a lot of green rappers that are popular J Cole, Kendrick etc. Tupacs an interesting one as well, he's shown strong signs of red, blue, orange and green

Insane interview

I think there will be an opportunity to avoid this, it will require older generations stuck in their beliefs dying and being phased, but i think the younger generation now and most likely the next few generations will move the left to be more mainstream. A lot of young people voted for Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn here in the UK so i think this provides hope. Globalisation will also inevitably leave nationalistic countries behind so that would be further incentive. Ultimately for now it will be capitalism and the markets that shift things, companies were quick to promote BLM when their bottom line was at stake. In fact several companies with links to slavery have looked at ways to address it.

So realistically you think there was a way that BLM couldve been handled that these people would have been ok with? Do you think there would have been a way for Jews to speak out about their persecution that Nazis wouldve listened to in the 1930s? (im not conflating the two) People can feel how they feel but saying they shouldnt be called out for it i wouldnt agree with.

But that is exactly the point, they are not willing to have that conversation because its uncomfortable for them. Where they do want to have the conversation is to prove that racism doesnt exist or that its unimportant, so then you get a debate which is essentially black people trying to prove their lived experiences to white people who dont believe them, which is a fruitless endeavour. What it boils down to is black people or any group want equality with the majority group. Granted theres not much we can do about implicit racial bias but it can at least be acknowledged. I dont see how any black people having equality takes away from anyone elses 'power' and even if it did is that a bad thing considering what their power is based upon? I think we have to look at this very clearly, the fact is that people who are in a position of privilege simply because they are the dominant race, sexuality, whatever, will most likely fight to keep that privilege as they are advantaged by it. This is a very simple matter of survival, as you said most dont know what compassion is, and as they are mainly interested in theirs and their peoples survival, it follows that they will attack anything that could threaten that. Hence why they would get triggered by any suggestion that they should lose it or be made worse off than they are. As i said the idea that black people are not protesting correctly or its their fault in some way, is just a way to divert and muddy the waters so they can easily dismiss them. If there was an intention to discuss, this is not the type of action that would be taken. The whole reason for the protests is black people do not feel as though theyre being listened to and if white people are in this survival mode then of course theyre not. Ultimately it comes down on the white people to listen, black people have tried every way you can think of to be heard, sometimes they have been, sometimes they havent, but either way they are the ones that have put in the work.