eos_nyxia

I grew up in the pre-influencer era, so not influencers. Generally speaking, there are a range of personality types that would even want to be an influencer, and I don't need or want attention in a similar way (for me that sort of attention is ONLY for a larger life purpose beyond the scope of my own life), so our personalities and lifestyle would probably not be compatible. Seems tiring to be around for too long, to be around a person who doesn't know how to exist peacefully with themselves. Alone. But moreso as a type, and moreso in my teens and 20s, I liked broody alt musician types, especially metalhead guys with the long hair, especially if they were talented with instruments and songwriting. Later it was hot professor types. Being truly excellent at something and passionate about it has always been attractive for me. Often it is someone who comes off as a bit odd or eccentric (as deeply creative and intelligent people often are) but they still put it out there anyway. Examples of teenage crushes: Robert Del Naja from Massive Attack, after I saw him in Karmacoma. MJK in 90s Tool after I saw him genderbending, lol, because he DGAF. That level of security in your gender identity and sexuality is attractive as well. But also, some conventionally attractive choices, since my taste is pretty all over the place physically. A lot of my choices for East Asian people in the media are pretty conventional. For example, Takeshi Kaneshiro (mostly 90s and 00s). East Asian actors from earlier generations also have more of a manly flair, which is sometimes my thing. I had a huge crush on Toshiro Mifune growing up. younger Jon Stewart. Also a good example of someone who is very charismatic and witty but not in a smarmy, crusty way. Very likeable. A fierce sense of compassion is also very attractive. young David Gilmour I guess? I didn't even notice that he was conventionally attractive when I was younger though. In reality though, I would not date a very self-absorbed artist-type. There are many different versions of this, that he would expect my life, my time, and my identity to revolve around his first and foremost, in some way or another. That the purpose of my life energy as a woman is first and foremost to fuel HIS life purpose. That is not going to work out. A tale old as time. My personal nightmare of a relationship is to be a Zelda Fitzgerald, but to be married to Scott Fitzgerald.

If I'm being honest, >various templates of generic hot, successful guy< has never been my cup of tea. They're just not my type(s). Like if they got to know me (if they even cared to), they probably wouldn't mesh with me and vice versa, unless they have some secret side they don't show anyone else (which then comes with its own set of problem). A guy who other women fight over (specifically where the guy semi-consciously encourages that dynamic)? I experienced a bit of that before, I don't respond to that, not interested. Whatever he has to offer, I'm not interested. Regardless of how said guy feels about my looks or whatever assumptions that he makes about me based on my looks. In fact if he leads with being a little TOO interested I find it off-putting, even though I'm aware that my appearance matters anyway.

What on Earth? This is not the place for people who peaked in high school.

My perspective comes from someone who was classically gifted as a child, who is also married to someone who was classically gifted as a child. Our backgrounds were very different, but we have a lot of shared perspective as a result of this commonality. Like my husband, I have no concept or experience of having had an intrinsically insufficient intellect (and creative capacity, to a somewhat lesser degree) to do anything during my formative years. Everything came super easily. Points in No Particular Order: Giftedness is very poorly understood amongst the general population (and honestly pretty much any demographic, including general intellectual ones). An example: a lot of gifted people have inborn and developed early-life emotional traits which are often clocked as masculine if female or feminine if male. A lot of these traits are treated as “problems” growing up, and this often lingers as baggage in adulthood. Just a few examples, by no means extensive: If female: too logical/ left-brain orientated, know-it-all, too blunt and asks too many questions in a way that gets under people’s skin (even when you’re trying to be as polite as humanly possible and mindful of people’s boundaries), unusually high learning and problem-solving drive If male: too sensitive and feels too deeply is the big one. Also cripplingly self-conscious in an emotionally self-aware from a young age. Combined with having a child's brain, this is not very enjoyable. Likewise, the last time I felt self-conscious about how the opposite sex viewed my intellect was middle-school aged, where it became pretty clear that boys in general don’t like know-it-alls. I mean this super literally, as just knowing things that they do not and being willing to point it out. But after that point, it’s never been a real deterrent for whenever I wore my interests and way of thinking on my sleeve. If I was not very secure about my intellect (because for me going out of my way to clock as intelligent for its own sake is a joke), I’m sure I would have had a different experience. I think the biggest factor for me is having a certain kind security in your intellect and not tying this to your intrinsic masculinity (which highly gifted men either tend to not do at all, or they have paralyzing amounts of it as if their idolatry of intellectualism was an armour that could save them from the stupid in this world). This is where I tend to clash the most with men who have... at some point in their lives (let’s just say as a teen and onward), chose to identify themselves as The Intellectual. I've found it to be tryhard. Like if you NEED to be the smart one in the relationship or negate the experience I went through because that’s the only way you can feel man enough, that is not cute. You are probably not secure in your intellectualism in the way that self-appointed intellectuals often are not, and that itself is ok. But it is just better to be able to assess yourself realistically and then aspire to do better, which is what we ALL should aspire to do. And there are easily a ton of things you could potentially be better at than me, and that itself, especially with curiosity and passion, is very attractive. I find that a certain kind of combativeness is brought to interactions and they’re not always aware of it. It's the energy of needing to prove themselves. It's not a zero sum game lol. A relationship is not for competition, unless somehow you can make it a healthy one and you want to for some reason. Keep it playful and light though, I think! But more than anything, there is a huge gap to bridge in our ways of relating to the world and the way our identities were formed, I think. For this reason especially, the unwillingness to put himself in my shoes is a deal breaker, because that is what I try to do for him!

One thing I didn't add is that it depends on what your local environment is like. The area I'm from (Greater Vancouver, Canada) is notoriously standoffish to strangers, like a lot of people I've known over the years have the social group/ cliques they grew up with, and that's it. They're not really that open to meeting new people for the most part, let alone random people outside of a structured, familiar social context. I've actually been far more open to being approached by strangers in the past, just not at this phase in my life. Part of it is natural openness, part of it is being very open to other cultures (my parents were an international couple), and part of it was honestly trauma which made me very open in my willingness to go too deep, too quickly. (By this, I don't mean sexually, as in, not interested in going along with it regardless of if I'm attracted to them. But I mean emotionally as in being an open book for deep conversations, willing to give decent-seeming people the benefit of the doubt with my trust, willing to hang out and be in slightly more private places than public.) It's this last thing which I'm calling a red flag, even without the sex. Maybe things are a bit different culturally now, but people then very much considered this to be unwise, unsafe behaviour. The most aggressive, victim-blaming version of this (which has been said to my face): if something bad happens to you, you deserve it. My own spin on this was that if I cannot trust my judgement in people or my discernment, I have NOTHING, because there is nothing in this world that will protect you from your own lack of discernment. (And judgement must be honed and tested, and not just be something you put faith in.) Ironically, it's the people you know the best who already have the most intimate, vulnerable access to you that are the most risk, statistically speaking. Friends and acquaintances, family, and others in positions of authority even if they are "trusted members of the community". Anyway, we also don't really have much of a bar/ club culture here, so special interests it is! Things like hiking and even winter sports are less niche here and more like, everyone does it or has done it, so the "pool" for the types of people you'd get is very wide. People are on average very athletic and fit here (I think the city recently ranked as like 2nd fittest city in North America, for whatever it's worth). Most of the people who I met who I felt the most comfortable talking to were compulsively extroverted and also came from much more extroverted cultures. Off the top of my head: Latin American, African, French Canadian, etc. If I lived in a different culture (let's just say Quebec), I would probably be much more open to strangers and honestly friendlier. Even speaking in French for extended periods of time makes me much more "animated" lol. ***hand gestures***

TBH I would like to not be approached at all, but then I am in my late 30s, married, and with other priorities. When I was younger, people approaching me was a bit novel. But the novelty wore off very quickly as soon as it became clear that it was nothing about me in particular, or they just liked my look (which is what tends to happen when you don't know anything about anyone). Like I'm just another mark. The people who I felt the most comfortable around came off as naturally extroverted, that is, whether or not they were attracted to me, they still seemed like they were enjoying or getting something from the process of interacting with me, and we actually had something to talk about as well. I think cold approaching tends to select for women who have a very high appetite for novelty, are young/naive/vulnerable, and/or are traumatized. And also low self-esteem, a poor sense of self, and poor boundaries in many cases too, if you treat them disrespectfully and they go along with it. If I was single and interested... probably someone from a special interest group of some kind. Uni/college is probably the easiest place to do this. Actually have a real interest in whatever you join though. Where I live, I suspect the widest pool is probably outdoor sports and recreation, followed by indoor sports and recreation. There are tons of other hobbies for introverted and non-physical interests too though.

Haven't you seen teenaged girls, especially ones that are part of fandoms? Or grown women acting like teenaged girls? They only react that way if the guys are pretty.

Straight up, we tend to face more negative repercussions in our socialization from being too direct about our motives and what we think compared to boys/ men, and are strongly rewarded for agreeableness (even if it's just on the surface). Whether it's from parents, peers, the opposite sex, etc. If our socialization rewarded or at least didn't actively discourage or punish directness strongly and repeatedly, then maybe you'd get more directness and hopefully less self denial. To push back against our conditioning takes a lot of force and often a lot of thought and awareness about the risks (or else you face the consequences). Likely coupled with more risk aversion too on average.

Am I missing something here??? That's about as "lesbian" as the gay men who have their fantasy of finding "straight men" to fuck. If you are a straight man fucking other men and you enjoy it... you are not straight, by definition. Likewise, if you are truly lesbian... don't you just either feel nothing or are actively and viscerally disgusted at the thought of having sex with a man? Or something seriously feels seriously off or wrong, like you don't feel like yourself. Maybe they've convinced themselves that they still need male sexual approval to feel like a valid human being (comphet lol). Or are these "political lesbians"? (In that case, they would not fuck men either on sheer principle.)

Yep! I'm saying that a guy telling me that he has visited escorts doesn't really bother me by itself, but his motives for going matter. I mean I'm Canadian myself so I get the issue with directness. If anything, it's a curiosity if it's an unconventional choice. (I get very curious about why people do the things they do.) I'm also saying that I've thought about using escort/ sex worker services myself in the past too. Both men and women for different reasons, since I am not straight.

It wouldn't be a turn on, but it wouldn't be a turn off either, and whether I find it acceptable depends on the guy's motives. Things that are fine: Not being interested in spending time, money, and energy on the whole dating and sex game because you're actually too busy because of career or too many IRL obligations, or you find it pointless wanting to stay single and unattached, paying not to deal with people's emotions and messiness because you know you're not interested or can't handle it. The boundary is rooted in financial exchange, which is fine in and of itself. Wanting to get your own inexperience out of the way because it is a developmental road block, or even just wanting to get it out of the way and then going on to having a "regular" (non-paid) sex life Things that are not fine: not caring about trafficking or other ethical issues treating people like fleshbags that inconveniently happen to walk, talk, and have inner worlds and experiences of their own there's a whole list of reasons why a john might not be relationship material, but not bothering with getting into that. My hot take is that as a woman who has been with very few people (and I guess I'm considered conventionally attractive since people tend to wonder about what would woman would pay for it), I would rather pay for it and greatly increase my chances of having a good experience than doing the casual sex roulette where I have to expend the mental and emotional energy to figure who would be worthwhile, let alone who is SAFE. While I'm good enough at figuring out people's motives quickly, it's nice to have other options because vetting people and can be exhausting. I actually think that more women are opening up to this possibility, that a lot of casual sex is a waste of time for women's pleasure and often is unsafe as well. Pros: someone who is paid to prioritize your pleasure, especially if they are drawn to the sexual service aspect you can read reviews and stuff to get a better sense of their personality, sexual and emotional style, etc. also being paid to be left alone, like a person who won't try to extract emotional resources, a relationship, or time, etc. takes STI monitoring seriously (this is a very big one for me) Cons: anything above either not being true or failing in reality

My hot take on this is that men who are promiscuous aren't good at sex anyway, so I'm not missing much! And if they are, it's in spite of it. The lack of anything that would suggest otherwise is pretty telling. Like it's all there between the lines when you read someone's attitude toward sex. Or women. Etc. Same issue with a very large amount of porn. The men.... just can't fuck well, lol. And it's not just because it's for the camera.

I'm a woman (for perspective) and I'm trying to reserve my judgement because it is supposed to be describing a truly consensual situation, If I ever meet such a woman, I'd like to pick her brains and see what makes her tick. Because it's so rare, it'd at least be interesting. There's a lot of things I don't get on a personal level, but it's still worth learning about. For example: women who are more attracted to taken men. My attraction doesn't really work this way and never has, plus I have a lifelong tendency to suspect that people who make snap judgements about how safe/ worthwhile/ trustworthy a person is based on simply seeing them around other women are.... not very smart. Unless you truly trust and respect these other women because you know them well enough and know that they are capable of sound judgement on people's characters, why would their opinion matter? Be valid in any way? Still, I try to put myself in their shoes as much as I can. At least I want to understand how they became the way they have. Probably I would look very carefully for more subtle forms of self harm and self abnegation and not just whatever story they tell themselves and tell others, if it is there. It doesn't help that this particular desire is a dime a dozen and you're competing with all the other dudes who want the same thing. Saturated market, too many people looking for a unicorn (literally how the polyamory community uses the term "unicorn", an unattached bisexual woman looking to join a couple). Women don't usually seek to be the fully committed third wheel in someone else's "more serious" primary relationship either unless they don't know that game or they have very low self esteem.

Solid movement goal! I too wish to be a giant cat instead of a fridge.

I think it's considered "minimally processed", no more processed than cheese or bread, really. It and soy milk are traditional East Asian foods. Personally I find it a lot easier to digest than just simple cooked beans, lentils, and a lot of cooked foods (including the ones that are considered super healthy because they're high in many micronutrients, but also are high in oxalates) I relied a lot on hemp hearts when I was doing micronutrient min-maxing, particularly for the mag, zinc, and even iron. pros: also easy to digest. cons: a bit too easy to digest, at times. (In one end and out the other.) solution: pair it with something harder and slower to digest.

Other than supplements, here are some top contenders (though it might not be to your taste). Small fish with the bone in, like sardines (shown below) or even canned salmon (with the bone): Black sesame seeds. Grind or crush it or else you're wasting your time. You can blend it into a milk (or milk alternative) and it's pretty good! Or alternatively, you can make a spread from grinding it in a coffee grinder and adding a bit of sweetener of whatever kind, a splash of vanilla extract (optional), and a bit of oil or water to get the paste to the right consistency. IMO these are the easiest and tastiest ways to eat it. In East Asian culture we use this in our regular food, especially sweets and sweet drinks. To me it just tastes good, healthy or not, but I'm not sure if non-Asian people like it. Black sesame is also an important food in TCM and Ayurvedic medicine, for whatever it's worth. Another possible option: blackstrap molasses -- it might taste a bit strong if you're not used to it, and also I haven't personally figured out a way to use it consistently in actual food and not something you down by itself. Still it's always a combination of foods and even then it can be hard to meet the DRV without supplementation. If you have specific calorie and macro requirements to meet though (e.g. high protein with a limited number of calories), this is where I think it actually starts to get impossible. Keep in mind RDV is just a guideline anyway, it never accounts for the absorbability of specific foods and food groups.

Body builders... and a lot more than that... (though I would almost never take health advice from them, especially since health is not so often their concern anyway) RIP my stomach. I actually think 750g sounds very doable in comparison. Can and should I do that though? No, it's still too much dairy and straight up would not agree with me. Greens that are supposedly low in oxalate but high in calcium: kale, bok choy, turnip greens, mustard greens, etc. pros: much higher calcium absorption (like 40-50% vs. about 5%) cons: might be bitter and not tasty, speaking as someone who was forced to eat lots of green leafy vegetables growing up lol.

Oof. I wanted to see the best in him, I guess. Not a fan of people who cut corners and freely claim authority though.

There's a lot of options too if you don't prefer to go to a gym or can't! (Time, energy, and money is an issue for a lot of people.) I myself could go to the gym, but I don't prefer to be watched or interact with people and would rather keep that energy to myself. For me, the gym is not a social place. Plus, I could just stay at home and work out, and not think twice about throwing on some ugly clothes and making ugly faces under high exertion. Outside the house, I mostly only swim and do certain calisthenics/ classical gymnastics conditioning that I can't do at home (mostly in a public park/ school yard), and occasionally lately I go for a run even though I HATED it growing up. I swim seriously though. At home: I do a lot of yoga, and these days I also cross train classical gymnastics conditioning (which replaced what mat pilates used to do, because it does all that and much more) and classical ballet barre. I find it especially important to address areas that are weak and tight (sometimes both), especially as a hypermobile person. Like many girls, I did some of both growing up, so it's not exactly new to me. For heavy resistance training, I mainly focus on heavy kettlebells, I also use very heavy resistance bands, (and have the equipment that goes with it). These days I'm not using barbells and dumbbells as much. Lately I also do a lot of steel club-style training, and I finally just started heavy steel mace. It's so much fun! I used to do traditional Chinese martial arts as a teenager and I've always been a heavy weapons kind of girl. (I'm yearning to return to a martial arts studio though. Maybe next year or the year after, ideally.) Mostly I train for power, power endurance, and specific skills. Most of my equipment doesn't take up that much space other the very basic bench and power rack situation and the deadlift bar. Other non-gym options which are relatively space and cost efficient: various calisthenics/ gymnastics equipment (pull up bar, gymnastics rings, dip bar, those cheapo sliders you can get for like 10 bucks), suspension trainer, jump rope (a staple in the kickboxing/ boxing community). You can get those mini stair steppers or walking pads if you just want to increase your step count and don't want to step outside. Or if you want to step outside and try something different, put some weights in a backpack and go rucking (just make sure that the weight isn't awkwardly distributed at the bottom of the bag and it's helpful to have the supportive strap around the chest/ upper core, which is especially important the more time you wear the backpack and the more weight you put in it). Honestly you can probably get away with using a non-rucking backpack for up to 30 or 40 pounds as long as it is made with robust enough fabric. If you want machines or to barbell squat or bench a lot of weight, then yea, you will probably have to go to a gym that has a power cage and whatever other than equipment you need if you can't build a proper garage gym. But then you'd need to go to a proper gym (usually a specialist one). A lot of public gyms don't actually have that equipment anyway. Like, both of the community gyms near me have a smith machine but not a power rack.

Thoughts in no particular order: I think that if you are using polyamory to justify an avoidant attachment style, you need to be honest with yourself and work on that. Save yourself and everyone else the grief. (I very much so direct this philosophy toward myself first before anyone else. I wouldn't have described this as spiritual bypassing, just ordinary old emotional bypassing.) I used to consider myself to be polyamorous by orientation, but monogamous by choice. In the same way that I think of myself as pansexual by orientation, but I'm in a heterosexual marriage. Now I think of myself as a bit more fluid and omnivorous sexually, but I still separate orientation/ base inclinations from chosen expression. And as I get older, the more I think just because you CAN doesn't mean that you should. I chose not to for various reasons. So I'll admit that my perspective comes from repeated attempts at sharp observation from the outside, but not experience. Take it for what it is worth, but I at least know myself pretty damn well. My energy and especially my time is very limited, and ultimately I want to make the most of this life. Perhaps this is a false, overly simplistic dichotomy, but most often it is important to pick single focus for your life, or to have a specific vision of it. Realistically, my life has never centered around multiple people. I would have to shift my whole personality at this point, and I don't suspect it is worth it. I like to work on myself, I need a certain amount of alone time, and I have certain goals which take up a huge amount of energy and time. Freely flowing sexual energy can give you more energy to express and create in other ways (as opposed to be dammed up), but then that energy needs to keep going back into the relationships if you actually care about anyone that you are with. It's important to ask yourself: how am I realistically going to keep multiple people satisfied in an intimate way sustainably? There is far too much centering around sex alone and not enough focus on emotional and psychological sustainability, especially with people who like the idea of polyamory but have little or no real experience. In general, I've never liked people conflating polyamory with the desire to fuck many people, or having the emotional aspect as some kind of flavour enhancer on the side. Just call it what it is... My honest feeling is that men (I guess cishet men especially) almost never have what it takes to emotionally and sexually to satisfy multiple women in reality with any consistency. Assuming that they actually even satisfy one. That they are deluding themselves about this because they like the thought of keeping multiple women on the hook indefinitely. If you are centered on the fantasy first and foremost (which I do get on a personal level), almost definitely you don't have what it takes to deal with the reality of it and not make a mess of things. I think the idea of a "soft harem" is stupid (I believe this term came from PUA/ manosphere spaces originally). It's not a harem if the women you're seeing are also seeing other men or are free to do so, and I'd also argue that it's not a harem if the women you are seeing aren't aware that there are other women. Obviously the latter is not ethical, and the phrase reeks of wanting to cosplay as a medieval king with your multiple mistresses or an ottoman sultan but somehow this is supposed to make sense in a modern capitalistic society? (Personally I don't get why would you want to feel like the latter when your goal is to feel like women actually WANT you, rather than being sold by their families and basically being enslaved and isolated from the outside world. But I get it, it is a fantasy and I am crapping on it haha.) As a woman who is flexible when it comes to gender attraction, I would be super cautious around cishet men who are overly interested in bringing in another woman, even in a purely voyeuristic sort of way. I'm 37 and this is probably a byproduct of having grown up in the 00s and 10s where lesbianism and bisexuality in women was often treated like something you do for men, like something not serious and real, and also a performance that you put on for men. I've never been much interested in MFF+ though. On a purely selfish level, I do not personally get the appeal. I've heard this perspective expressed in the past which I still think about sometimes: that men who are naturally the best fit for the one man + two or more women as are actually very feminine in nature. When I think about it, makes sense that you have to be fundamentally interested in women, "women things", and women's emotions. If you are not and your primary interest is being masculine and not overly identifying with femininity, then it's probably going to drive you insane in reality lol. Because you're going to be around them a lot. One way or another, there is going to be "exponential drama" which is just what happens when you involve more people, "developed" or not. Likewise, if you are a polyandrous woman in a one woman + 2 or men situation, it makes sense that you must fundamentally be interested in masculine perspectives (or even just "male" since they don't have to be masculine men either), interests, and sexual and emotional expression. (Or alternatively, have asexual or partners with limited interest in sexual expression.) Otherwise, you're around men a lot, and why do you want more men if you don't fundamentally appreciate or are really attracted toward them? To add to the previous point, if you are an polyandrous woman, I think it is ethical to live in service to the men in your life you are intimate with/ the masculine. Or if you are polygynous man, you ought to live in service to the women/the feminine in your life. Perhaps this ought to be your primary focus. This means that it is not fundamentally about getting off and getting yours first and foremost, though you do need the authentic desire.

What are your actual chances of finding what you want? I assume what you're interested in is: conventionally attractive (which means that they have options and are probably aware of it) not extremely socially stunted or traumatized (too inconvenient/ not worth the effort. FYI: there is plenty of time to accumulate sexual trauma growing up as a girl in this world, through no direct choice of her own either.) sexually expressive, open, at peace with their desire, potentially willing to explore sexually. Someone who isn't asexual, or who can take it or leave it, or who is very restrained in their sexual expression. Your options increase if you grew up in a sexually tightlaced culture or pick someone who is from that type of culture. Either they live there so the repercussions against being "inappropriately sexual" are too severe or they believe in it so deeply they hold onto celibacy or sexually restrained ideals even after they leave their mother country. Actually, unless they are very, very closely watched by their relatives, elders, and peers (almost always this is extreme religious fundamentalism), this tends to just make better liars and people who are good at justifying "loopholes" (like >insert sexual activity" isn't real sex). This is... still baggage. So this means that you're looking for someone who either deliberately chose very limited engagement with the opposite sex or had only been in very long term relationships. Ask yourself, why they made this choice? What motivates them when there is little extrinsic motivation to restrain themselves? And why would they choose you? If marriage and family is their goal: you're not helping their body count if you're not the one they're getting married to, are you? Either you're getting someone who keeps making errors of judgement with men, unless they are very young and very naive (which you mentioned that you prefer). In that case, are you leaving them better than you found them? Do you not feel responsible for them in that way, for perpetuating the same issue you criticize in these women? Do you have an apocalyptic attitude toward all of this? Like fuck it, this culture is rotten, I might as well get mine? You know that if a woman wants to settle down and find her "person" and you take someone very inexperienced and naive, that you are leaving a negative impact on them for the rest of their life? In the worst possible outcomes, you are breaking them? TBH I consider this to be emotionally parasitical and predatory behaviour. By the way, there is this notion that women who have options and who have restricted themselves by choice, that they want super experienced and slutty men. Like it is preferred. Often it is not. Often their standards are lowered for whatever reason. If you honestly believe this, ask yourself where you got this information from.

Well, as a woman, those women are losers. They either got duped by his Tony Stark image before he was openly inserting himself into politics (like Grimes likely did) or they're there for the financially stable arrangement. Except it didn't work out for Ashley St. Clair, so she's a double loser in that game. The feeling I would have as a woman if I had a child with someone who opens his mouth, saying what he does. That is like... something you can't scrub off yourself. You're stuck with your decision forever, and so are your children. It has a similar sort of effect as being told that "winning" as a woman is being considered SO ATTRACTIVE that you can make a ton of money off your looks (for example, being a conventionally attractive model), but you're not allowed to eat or just live life. What is the point of being rich and then starving yourself... for what higher and worthwhile values, exactly? (If you're going to say other stuff, that's fair. Unfortunately, bodies and especially brains tend to be expensive things that require nutrients, so you'll probably just end up with less energy and Will in general, and also likely a permanently damaged body.)

I'm know I'm not his intended target audience, but unless something immediately grabs me about a particular online personality, why am I supposed to care about Destiny's or anyone else's political opinions? Please explain the appeal someone lol.

I'm subbed to that channel and became an adult swimmer myself! The learning curve to becoming even a decent swimmer as an adult is pretty high though. It's much more skill-based to get to that point, and you need patience (time), consistency of practice, to develop better body awareness, and the willingness to unlearn a bunch of movement habits perpetually, no matter how advanced you get. The water is very humbling when it comes to people trying to brute force it.

Often there is a large gap between what one consciously wants and looks for and what one is willing to tolerate. With men too and what they're willing to tolerate in women (or feel that they have no choice to tolerate). Women tend to be less of a physical threat, but you still see plenty of men with abusive and narcissistic women as well. If your "subconscious" is primed to look for an abusive or narcissistic man because it's all you're capable of finding, because deep down that is what you believe is Real and also probably what you deserve, then you will be constantly self-sabotaging until you take a hard look at yourself. It's a many years long project with yourself, therapy, various healing modalities, etc. Usually the only way people get to that point is because something seriously failed and they hit a rock bottom of sorts. (This is a human motivation issue, not a gender specific issue.) It is unreasonable and unrealistic to expect very young women or girls (or very young people in general) to pop into the world fully formed and able to discern without that experience (usually negative life experience) or positive relationship role models/ mentors to make excellent decisions and no serious mistakes.