eos_nyxia

This is like watching a game of Civ where that one leader starts acting unhinged in diplomacy, lol

Trudeau's speech: FYI, Canadians are pretty much universally on board with this. I'm optimistic about Canada's long-term prospects, and I think we're in the process of being snapped out of our own lethargy and complicity when it comes to our dependence on the US. Many of us are already in the process of weaning ourselves off American megacorps and products (e.g. Amazon) in response to this. Ironically, Trump might be doing much more for Canadian unity and strengthening our identity and sense of collective purpose. I'm not so optimistic for you all in the US of A, particularly for the common person without wealth. You guys have your own gauntlet ahead of you, and must somehow decide for yourselves, both individually and collectively, despite the shellshock... At its heart, this isn't just a trade war about the exchange of currency and natural resources. This is also a war of cultures and values.

Ok, name a time when there was currency but no paid sex... This has been done before. A number of Polynesian societies were not so precious about sex, nor did they fetishize it. People still coupled up, most often stayed coupled up (to my knowledge), and had kids. Believe it or not, men still wanted to be around women.

My overall impression is that people don't want to hear you talk about it, even if it's a human experience that needs to be processed and made sense of just like any other. Also, there is a stupid taboo against calling yourself beautiful, even if it's other people who decided that you were in the first place. They want the power to build you up and rip you down at their discretion. You used to see a similar type of behaviour in tabloid magazines in the 2000s with people crucifying female celebrities and pop stars. The paps were like wolves back then. Like shut up, be pretty, and be of use to other people. But surely anyone with any sense and experience sees how disposable they are. From my perspective -- I don't make money or receive other material benefits from my appearance, so I don't see why I ought to be grateful for it, just because it's something other people covet and I myself used to covet. If all I wanted was the simple validation of being affirmed constantly, that wore off a long time ago. I grew up, I got older, and the attention hasn't stopped. But I don't have a hole in me that needs constant filling with the attention and approval of strangers and acquaintances for any reason at all. I'm quite whole enough, thank you. Sure, I have the human desire to be seen, admired, and appreciated, even for my looks. Within reason though. People project onto you a lot, especially some men. They think that just because THEY would milk it for all it's worth that all (i.e. to use it like a weapon or in a sociopathic way) therefore most women would. I have never seen evidence of this being truth. As far as I'm concerned, other people made these rules, not me, They have their complexes about it, and sometimes I've had my own. Sometimes there is no overlap.

I guess it depends on what your 'beauty features' are, but this is what I've found works. At work: Dress as androgynously as possible without looking sloppy. If you have curves, make sure you disguise them. Don't wear clothes that are too tight but also don't wear clothes which are too baggy; it just makes it more obvious. Don't wear turtlenecks if you have boobs lol. Don't wear makeup, or keep it to a bare minimum. Don't do too much with your hair. In general, don't be flashy with anything. If you have a face that is considered conventionally attractive enough, people still might think you're pretty without makeup, but you'll be less threatening. In the presence of women, either ignore the men entirely or do the bare minimum of politeness, especially if someone's partner or someone they're interested in is there. Make it clear that you're not competing and not interested in it. If you're outside: Resting bitch face goes a long way. Wear a resting bitch face so much that you start to wonder if this is, actually, in fact, just your normal expression. Dress eccentrically. I don't mean like "manic pixie dreamgirl" quirky cute, I mean like "old bag lady that collects 200-year-old musty books and also cats" eccentric. Confuse people with your outfit so they don't get distracted by your face. Look expensive, as it will make you look significantly less approachable. Best paired with a resting bitch face and an attitude. Though this might backfire and you'll get another type of guy you probably don't want... As lame as this is (because lots of men do not take a woman's "no" or lack of interest seriously) -- have a man with you who looks like he doesn't take shit. Or better yet, go move to a city where no one approaches strangers. If you think this all sounds like a massive pain in the ass, you are correct. It is. Someone might STILL hate you anyway.

After a few years of finding it unsufferably high maintenance, I've slowly become a convert to the traditional (raw) cast iron pan. The main advantages: It tends to be much better for anything where you need to develop a crust or sear. Anything where you have to bake it, including starting on the stovetop first. E.g. a casserole. Again, much better crust. It lasts forever. E.g. my mom has a cast iron wok she bought before I was born, and I'm probably going to inherit it lol. Once you've preheated it (which is helpful if you multi-task), it cooks everything really quick. Eggs cook in 15 seconds, no joke. After a while, you get used to the whole seasoning and cleaning process, and it becomes second nature.

Not all seed oils are created equally though.

Yea, it is stupid. I think it was probably an American thing? I've never heard about this being an issue in Europe. Ironically, one of the earliest American movie stars/ sex symbols was Asian (Sessue Hayakwa). Silent film era. He was made a sex symbol by American white women in the 1910s/early 1920s, though I don't think that was the intent of whoever cast him as a "dangerous foreign villain" in movies lol. Growing up, I had no idea who he was when he was younger, but I watched "Bridge over the River Kwai" (1957) with my parents. This dude was a like a bonafide Asian Jock too. It seems like everything fell off after this due to the "yellow peril" in America, and ever since then, it's been laundromat owners, dweebs, or martial artists. Martial artists are cool though.

To my awareness, what you're describing originated and peaked the most strongly in the early 2010s, especially with the use of "woke" in a nonsarcastic, non-ironic way (i.e. these days you hear it used more to insult people rather than hearing people use it as a positive self-identifier). I was an undergrad when this peaked. Well, most of these people were young adults and probably not much older than their mid-thirties, even back in the 2010s. The people who hold onto it the longest and the hardest, and go into it the deepest, are those with the most to lose if they lose their grip. It's power. It represents survival, and they believe they are fighting for their right to take up space, and exist and speak freely. It's understandable, right? About 15 years ago, when I was the most plugged into these type of communities, I concluded that it is a combination of the following things: oppressed people want to oppress people (but want the power to control the language around it, to define it as non-oppression in every sense). Invalidated people want the power to invalidate. The use of it is often very blunt and overt and not subtle at all. People tend to not be realistic about the effects of such strategies long term on both individuals and communities, and many don't care. I am talking about the most vocal, most aggressive people. It's talk or be talked over. the obsession with surface-level things (i.e. "virtue signalling") is first about some combination of fitting into and arbitrating social dynamics in a group. Even if it doesn't actually start out that way and people truly do pursue social activism in good faith, it often devolves into this. Why do conservative people so often need a boogeyman? If there isn't one in sight, they might just make one. And if there is one, why not some embellishment here and there? In my grandpa's generation, it was the Red Scare, the commies, and those hippie university kids. My dad sometimes dryly brings up that most of those progressive hippie kids of his generation (the ones with the long hair that did anti-war protests about Vietnam) graduated, put on the suits, and became corporate CEOs who couldn't give a damn less about their children and grandchildren's generation, whether it was about the environment we'd have to live in or our comparative lack of economic prospects. AKA. Those were the boomers. In my great grandfather's generation, it was the left-leaning, actually communist intellectuals, artists, and philosophers. (Communism used to mean something different back then lol, as it seems to every 20 years or so.)

Sorry, what's stupid?

He has self-identified before as having Asperger's, which is a label that no longer exists in the latest DSM (RIP). Gotta scrub out those Nazi roots.

Never heard of the schizophrenia thing before, is that speculative or diagnosed?

Eliott Rodger had a strong racial inferiority complex about his looks, which is something that people often don't factor in when they talk about him, especially when this first happened. At least some people are talking about it now though. He was half East Asian/ Half white. (It's all there in his manifesto.) I am biased toward that sort of look as I'm half Chinese/ white myself, but that attitude/ personality though... Not sure if his mother was a self-hating Chinese woman and/or if his father was racist in any way, but this tends to have disastrous results on the self-esteem of their children. Eurasian boys and men learn to hate the Asian in themselves (internalizing that East Asian men are unmanly/ sexually undesirable), as he did. It's extremely sad, really. On top of that, coming from two or more cultures, especially ones with very established identities that do not easily reconcile with each other -- it can feel like you're being pulled apart in different directions from the inside, and often we feel we belong nowhere. Factoring in your upbringing and where you grew up (especially if it was predominantly white or East Asian, if you're Eurasian), it can be a very isolating and destabilizing experience. It's worth noting that this happened before there was an uptick of Asian and half-Asian men in media and movies like "Crazy Rich Asians", so there really was an "Asian underrepresentation" and Asian men did still tend to get typecasted as dweeby/ unsexual/ unattractive.

Generally, yes, except for Swiss Water Process. In a nutshell: Otherwise, chemical solvents (often methylene chloride) are used.

Get a good quality decaf! This one is my favourite out of a bunch I've tried, and it's also Swiss Water Processed. Lots of decafs don't taste very good though.

Maybe you're homosocial? It's pretty common, I think. There are a lot of men who strongly prefer being around men socially, and only accept and respect qualities associated with "masculinity". The opposite seems true too, that there are many women who only truly enjoy being around women, identify with "femininity", and are generally more interested in women's issues by default. I would not be surprised if this is, in fact, most people. Maybe you're "biromantic", but not bisexual? Are you sexually interested in women?

Better than being treated like an animal in public and a fragile princess in bed, I guess?

Seriously though, I think I crashed this site for a few moments with that post, which is why I don't post very much. No more internet for me!

I know I end up writing practical essays, but still....:

I'm trying to think about how to sum it up simply. In a nutshell: I make a point of striving to be continuously emotionally and physically available and receptive, as much as possible (and as desired). Not just sexually, but with touching as a form of physical affection, as that's very much his thing. This didn't come to me naturally because even though I'm pretty warm and affectionate by nature, I grew up in a household that was very cold emotionally (not to mention abusive in certain ways), so I had to slowly learn new habits, and open myself up more and more, bit by bit. I don't just rely on spontaneity and "being in the mood", because it's easy enough to prioritize a bunch of other things that you tell yourself matter more in the moment, because other stuff in life, other stressful events, being overly busy and focused on other goals, and even illnesses. For instance: I keep in mind how it feels for him to say, proposition me sexually, and for me to turn that down. (And the effect that has when you keep doing that over and over again, feeling rejected.) So I either try to not to say no at all, or at the very least, make up for it in some other way. In general, I trust and have faith in him, because he's shown that he has my best interests at heart and is willing to listen, and he gives words and gestures of appreciation everyday, so I do not feel taken for granted. He prioritizes me not feeling taken for granted, practically to the point of hypervigilance. He makes a point of always minding my emotional state, my comfort level with various things emotionally and sexually, how safe I feel (due to childhood trauma), how satisfied I am (sexually or otherwise), and can take my feedback (even if sometimes it's hard not to take really personally). He's also just obscenely good at it, which always helps in terms of pure, positive reinforcement. He has a way of discovering new buttons I didn't even know existed, both physically and psychologically. That's something that's possible when you go deep (heh) into a relationship with one particular person; it's a consistent investment over the course of years. For him, I think there's some sort of pride/ perfectionism element going on there for him as well. The idea of being a man who is uninterested in doing what it takes to pleasure his partner is extremely alien to him. I think after a certain point, if you have enough orgasms in one session, your brain just kind of gets fried and melts into some kind of dopamine megafire and you can't help but be utterly raw, open, and fused to the person who is mercilessly playing your body like a fiddle, lol. It's great for bonding! (But seriously, I sometimes wonder how the world would change if women in general were actually sexually satisfied, or realized that this was an actual option. Or say.... even expected it.) Possible TMI, but likely informative: I know it's not for everyone, but it's not uncommon for us lately to have sex every day, where 20, 40, 60+ minutes pass and I know it's been a while, but I've completely lost track of time because my brain is fried in a good way. I do not skimp or rush when I'm taking care of him (let's just say I'm too sore or something), like I do not bring that attitude into the bedroom. I sometimes remind myself that if I am going to do this, I might as well put my whole heart into it, like it fucking matters. And I try to treat each time as a brand new time, and not like we have done it thousands of times before. I make sure I am as fully present as possible. We have a dynamic at the moment which allows him to be a little bit more feral than he was in the past, and it's also pretty fun. General relationship things: We respect and like each other as people, and generally have compatible values and priorities in life. While not directly related to sex, I also keep in mind things that I do that are grating or hurtful, and try to adjust myself continually so that every day is a bit more harmonious. (For me, it's my fierce temper.) We always had sexual and emotional chemistry. Personally, I'm not a believer in either party trying to start a relationship if there isn’t a strong spark to start with, and banking on it growing over time. I know it doesn’t work for me.

Agreed. Lying, bad. A lifetime ago, I would have said that all of the men who just wanted one woman were delusional, even to the point of gaslighting themselves. For me, it was the test of time that convinced me completely. Even years ago, I told my now-husband that I wanted him to be completely open with me about his sexual desires (and vice versa), to the point where I was poking and prodding him about it a lot. I think he found it frustrating and probably annoying to not be taken at his word. But we explored and talked about the prospect of an open relationship years ago, and again semi-recently. In retrospect, many years later (within the last 5), he said something like... he saw my picture online, and he somehow knew that I was "it". He had found "it". We met through an online social network site in a different era, but did have some mutual acquaintances. I said something like: that sort of conviction is probably one of the emotionally bravest things I've heard about, ever. (Like, by my own admission, this is not a good emotional self-preservation strategy AT ALL.) Admirable to be that committed to something you believe is worth it, but kind of crazy and perhaps suicidal. (After all, how many people thought they had found "it" but just ended up being wrong?) He said something like, it's not really bravery. Deep down, I know there was never any other real choice. It was always just YOU. To be honest, it is not something I fully understand, especially he was also a brutally cynical teenager/ young adult in so many ways. But every day, I am grateful that he believed in me in an unwavering way. I know the value of such a thing and I would be stupid to treat that as disposable, especially when I know it is the real thing. I wish I was certain back then. The odds were not in our favour. In retrospect, without my own original biases, perhaps I would be able to properly trust my gut and intuition (which otherwise has never failed me), and would also carefully watch what people say vs. what they do, as well the energy they project. The longer you can observe people at close quarters and observe for signs of inconsistency, the better. Generally speaking, the truth always comes out. Very very few people are world-class liars at lying to both themselves and others. IMO that's a very special skill. It's also exhausting to keep up and eventually crashes down. And TBH, even world-class liars seldom can't be assed to fully hide their own selfishness. More than anything, I do worry about women and girls. I feel protective of them and I don't want them to get screwed over, especially when it leads to permanent emotional damage. I see the damage it can cause, and where the bitterness, defensiveness, and anger come from. That's mostly why I'm being abrasive. I was the "mom friend" of my various friend groups growing up (until I stopped having so many female friends and instead focused more on boys). I'd say that I have often felt the same way about boys/ men, but I feel like my concern doesn't mean much if I will not pander to them either sexually and emotionally. Like, I've been carefully observing the manosphere/ red pill movement since its very beginnings, but ultimately I figured that men prefer to listen to other men. Fair play. It gets beaten into some of us at a young age that we're either not supposed to like male attention that much, or we ought not to be so open about it. I remember being about 8-10, and having a crush on a new boy from my school every week or month, and having 3 male movie crushes at a time lol.. At some point, I realized semi-consciously, without being put it into words, that this was somehow not normal or acceptable. You were supposed to only like one boy...or at least, only one boy at a time. And you were supposed to like him for a long time. He was supposed to be the boy that all the other girls had a crush on, or maybe there were 2-3 boys "acceptable" boys in your whole class or grade. Just like there appeared to be about the same number of girls that lots of other boys had crushes on, that their friends would definitely not make fun of them for having those crushes. (Maybe they had secret crushes too, IDK.) I realized pretty young that I was either not normal, or every girl who felt that way kept it to themselves. Then I got a little bit older (like mid-teens), and ended up being super close with the girls who were "boy crazy" and knew how to get what they wanted. Then, I became a lot more like them, at least for most of my teenaged years. Mostly with the flirting and crushes regardless of having a boyfriend, and how much of a struggle it was to actually focus on one guy at a time (especially if he just wasn't there for whatever reason).

For the record, I'm sure that there are people out there who are capable of pulling it off (men with multiple women) in a harmonious way, and maybe it could be an actual win-win situation for all. But I'm pretty "equal opportunity" when it comes to gender, I actually do think that the opposite is true as well (multiple men with one woman, where the men aren't beaten down or hoping to kill each other). It's kind of hard to stuff all of human sexuality into a neat little, gender essentialist evo-psych narrative. But while very few cultures are known for polyandry, at least a few more are known for wife swapping (the Inuit, and some African tribes, to my awareness). Here with our cultural baggage, I think people have trouble conceptualizing of wife-sharing without cuckoldry or some sort of belief in the inherent shame and emasculation of it. (When in reality, there are also people who view "wife sharing" as a sort of dominant power move. A separate fetish from cuckholdry, IMO.) Honestly I wish them good luck, for everyone to be happy and fulfilled; I'm not just trying to shit on men who want more, lol. But unless you truly love women as wholes, and not just their bodies and you have a NEED to be around femininity constantly, that it is moreso a pleasure and a joy rather than something you look down on or revile (openly or not)... how would this even work? How will you satisfy them and make them want to stay in the long term? In other words, if it does not truly come from a sort of compulsive need to "love" with your whole soul (albeit in a very physical way) rather than hate for women as they are and a miserly, possessive greed, what is actually being offered of sustenance? How will you be able to sustain this long term without driving yourself insane, with women being women, and women being women together with each other? More than anything I'm not easily convinced by people's armchair anthropology/ evo psych stuff. Like if I'm going to go that way, if anyone is, you might as well read actual academics, for all their flaws and shortsights. As for throwaway armchair theories of my own: men with multiple women who don't end up feeling forced or bamboozled in some way? Likely this actually isn't for hypermasculine types who don't have developed "feminine" aspects that they are at peace with, if it just involves desire and attraction, and not force or coercion of some sort. Like stereotypically, who do women throw themselves at? It's not Chad-warlord (this is more of a stereotypical male wet dream), it's those femmy artist types that some men scoff at.... Those men are not for me, but that doesn't matter in this discussion.

"Uncynical answer": seeing someone that you genuinely love be destroyed or negatively impacted, and thinking before you stick it in (or get it stuck in you), is motivation enough for a number of people. And clearly not for a number of others. (Dave Grohl lately lol, unless they have some secret private arrangement) Again, so is "uncontained female hypersexuality". I'm not sure what agenda you think I have, other than to point out various things which don't fit neatly into your particular narrative. Including the all the men you say are feminized/ brainwashed/ whatever, which I am not convinced is actually the case, especially in retrospect. (Originally I had this "all men want multiple women openly or secretly" narrative.) I will trust the words and actions of the few men that I have known closely and for a long time over others, naturally. The only "healthy dynamic" you can probably build is with women who have a fetish (which very often comes with a lot of BAGGAGE which doesn't fit into anyone's fantasies, because the reverse is also most often true with men as well, with the "wife sharing" fetish). Or else you most often get the very young, naive, and very traumatized. If what you're getting is any of the latter, no woman with self-worth and self-esteem is going anywhere near that. In that case, enjoy dealing with that or throwing them out when you're done with them? (Or alternatively, them realize that they ought to be getting better elsewhere.) Oh, maybe you're in a culture that is fine with mutual or one-way infidelities in a "don't ask or tell" way. Personally, I find the lack of openness and honesty to be highly dysfunctional. This might come from the same perspective for a male who has a certain kind of power fantasy, but it is not at all the same from a female perspective. How can you compare the "modern harem" to the historical forced harem, if the other woman also probably has her own "harem" and the choice to leave? That's just everyone fucking around and likely that's pretty egalitarian by default. Aka. the "Sex at Dawn" scenario. Naturally, maybe that still involves lots of women swarming around one man (IDK), but the reverse is probably true too (men swarming around conventionally attractive, sexual, socially open, charismatic women). About 15 years, with some time taken off in the middle to sort myself out. About the same amount of time it took for me to believe him truly and unconditionally, unfortunately.

History books? And what would be the motivation for this being left out, since it is so very often written in? Like literally, it was what was expected and no one batted their eye? Was that also women and feminized men editing history books? Lol. Right, and it also makes zero sense for abundant, attractive, desirable women who want to have sex with hot men not to, if they also have the ability to fulfill their desire without consequences. Why do you think women have been punished and ostracized for so long for being "whores" and "sluts", especially before the sexual revolution? It's because some women are more promiscuously inclined and have a very high, impulsive sex drive (just like some men likely have an intrinsically higher sex drive than other men). I had best friends like this growing up, and they knew how to work their way around the system to avoid being treated badly due to "developing a reputation", which is especially an issue in high school. Lots of stuff gets hidden. At that age, I certainly didn't know that I had more in common with them than I realized, but I did make very different choices over the long term. (For example, I've never given a shit about who other women find attractive, and I naturally tend to be attracted or very open to a wide variety of men on a physical level very frequently, but it's the personalities and ... entitlement I could really wish I could leave at the doorstep, including the "pre-selected" men, especially if they have a worse attitude.) I don't even identify as monogamous as a sexual orientation, so it's not like I'm arguing for universally monogamy-enforcing viewpoints. If anything, I'm less monogamously inclined by nature than my partner, both emotionally and sexually. Some people are just better than the alternative though. Look. I don't think men in general are thinking about having mindblowing tantric sex with a woman period, because that would require patience and an attention span, getting to know one person's body, mind, and emotions well enough in order to reach into something transcendental. To put it more simply, from a personal perspective: many men in general, they can't fuck well. (Not even of the caveman variety, though seriously.... why not both in one sexual session with one person?) I don't have to fuck them to know this, their sloppy attitude and lack of truly caring about a woman's pleasure and experience, and also not being able to be present with their own bodies and emotions, it makes that clear enough. Many men with egos think they can fuck... but do not have the necessary things. How can they, when they don't have the heart and soul to put into it? The eyes to see clearly? But without that, pure primal intuition tells me what I need to know. Also, other women's stories. Thinking that they can make up for that with other things... status, women thinking they're hot, money, bla bla bla bla.... Like great, they STILL can't fuck. (Or love well, by extension, because the way in which our bodies, minds, hearts, and imaginations are intertwined.) I wonder when the women having sex with them will wake up and realize they're getting grifted and being fed something completely insubstantial, like candy-flavoured air (at best). But then, it's hard to miss something you've never had, I guess. More than ever, I am willing to accept that there are at least some people who do not feel this way strictly because of societal conditioning, and are capable of making up their own minds despite any conditioning there actually is, that have thoroughly enough come to terms with their primal urges, and know their mind, emotions, and instincts sufficiently to judge this to be true... and for this to be accurate. I accept their personal truth.

This is more just talking about yourself and the people you know, isn't it? Source: I married someone I've known for almost 20 years. It's where I learned that finding someone attractive isn't the same as wanting to fuck them, and literally "not all men". I honestly didn't believe him for a good number of years either, because I've always been pretty jaded. I ended up becoming less cynical as a result, and started wondering if monogamy as an intrinsic (but still possibly still competing) drive isn't as uncommon as people think. As in, it's not just as result of society trying to stop men (or women) from having sex either by shaming and judgement or creating a sheer lack of abundance and opportunities. Where does this "oneitis" drive come from, anyway? In other words, I won the monogamy lottery without even identifying as intrinsically monogamous myself. There isn't even porn, visual or written, or any anecdotal stories that I've heard, that even come close to describing how good the sex and intimacy are now, TBH. It is insane. And it was always intense and there was always chemistry to start with.