eos_nyxia

@KingCrimson It works. Thank you!

@Jannes Great perspective, you can't coerce, "should", guilt or shame someone into wanting to live. Not truly and authentically. Platitudes and trying to enforce positive thinking onto someone is just not an effective strategy.

Complete derailment of the topic: I thought the lady on the top left still was Gina Rodriguez (an actress) without the glam, and got hella confused.

It looks like this is not officially available in Canada?

Are people still coming to this type of conclusion based on reading "The Singularly is Near"? (Or something adjacent and well-known that's more recent) IDK, I feel like it takes a special type of human to truly, completely, and unironically commit to the transhuman philosophy and techno-utopianism, to believe that problems of inner self-image and management plus the cure to all our existential woes will be wholly resolved and released from yet another form of externalization. This most often seems to be what's at the heart of the spirit of techno-utopianism... though arguably, -true believers- believe in the spirit of the machine in their own way. It's actually not so far from religious/ spiritual fervour. There is an extreme, childlike naivety to this tendency though. As for everyone else, I get the sense that they grew up watching too much sci-fi and cyberpunk media: whether it's books, movies, tv shows, etc. It's good to think about WHY certain cultural narratives are either chronically dystopian or utopian, and what that says about yourself and your culture, and not to look for the truth of the future in these narratives, when it is near-impossible to focus with eyes-wide-open because you can only see what is projected from the emotional root of said narratives. Though if there was a use, this would be more on par, prob: We've barely explored the capacities of the human mind unaided though, for what it's worth. At times, technology has been a huge, unavoidable distraction. We'll never get the best of our selves through directly via externalization technologies and processes, and therefore are limiting what is possible with technology because of said limitations in our beingness.

Is there actually any major culture where this isn't crammed down young girls' and women's throats? Without even necessarily being super direct about it with words, though some cultures and places are super direct about it, still... the message is read loudly and clearly. It's evident enough through people's actions and what is sexualized most easily and availably in culture and media. Alternative cultures and reactionary cultures are just that. Anyone who has read a book involving history or folklore from the past (including fairy tales) or grew up watching Disney movies surely will have gotten the message on one level or another. Try even younger than 30 or 25 in mainland East Asian culture, though maybe it's shifted somewhat. Like my mom is Chinese, "18" is THE age, and East Asian people look young by a lot of other culture's standards too, lol. Though...whatever women might hypothetically have to gain materially and from """high value men""" from that type of thinking is paid back many times in the form of self-hating brainwashing and displacing yourself from your own sovereignty. Like literally... you have to live with yourself either way, and then be in denial most of the time in order to live somewhat peacefully with yourself. Whether you win materially, or you don't. It's an actual lose-lose situation for women. You still have the rest of your life to live... why bother disowning yourself? What did you expect? Living with the cope sprinkles itself freely across all genders and all cultures... I'm sure some would just agree with you and call it a day though.

Always on the money. Add to that list all the other things a man could use a woman for. I'd also add to that list: men who are not emotionally present or who literally do not show up in other ways. Like if they want to be there, they will be THERE. You will be their priority. Everything else is just excuses. And for myself, as much as my teenaged self was rough around the edges emotionally, I always had deadly accurate instincts about who was serious, and how much, and intuitively, what the conditions were. Violating my own intuition and instincts about men came at my own absolute peril.

Yes, that's generally how it goes. You've dealt with all the nuts and bolts of the English language which native speakers take for granted. Likewise, I find that I'm usually way more efficient and direct when I've written in other languages because it's far easier to ensure clarity and general grammatical correctness when you keep things simple. And it's easier to train yourself to write and think simply and directly than it is to account for the number of mistakes you could be making in a foreign language when you make things convoluted. In English, I have the privilege to get away with being as sloppy as shit if I want to be, and still know if it literally means what I intend it to mean and generally falls within the range of acceptable usage and grammar. Though this is done on my own time and terms, obviously. Yes. Communication is generally a compromise of sorts, or meeting people part way. Give or take. There are varying connotations to specific words, many of which are highly context-sensitive. Generally speaking, most of the words you pull out of a thesaurus are not viable at all for specific use, if you consider both literal accuracy and style. Or you can use them and they'll be technically correct by the base dictionary definition of the word, but it will be off to anyone who has any sense of nuance in their native language. Let's just say as an example, often I find words in the thesaurus that have about 30-50% viability in both accuracy and stylistic feel (if I were to quantify something which most often has a moderate degree of subjective interpretation), so I would never select them for specific uses. There are often words that are very simple and broad in their connotations, and there are many words which are much more specific and nuanced in their use. Usually, it's harder to use these less direct and simple words well, and many people consider it stylistically superfluous anyway. So it's not like you're alone with preferring simple, direct language. Really, at a certain point, it's an individual judgment call about "good taste" and communicability. This is the stuff that's often out of reach for non-native speakers unless you spend a ton of time studying and using words in specific contexts: for example, scientific language, editorial language, languages specific to one academic field or another. Word creatives such as novelists, especially the more experimental variety, often have a more novel approach to language and the context (the creative medium) and the reader is expected to adjust their expectations, to a degree. Just like how poetry has different rules and conventions that don't apply to plain English. Some people write the way they do to keep outsiders out. It's a human thing.

You're looking at neurotypical/ mainstream dating places. You're not neurotypical. The odds are extremely stacked against you in your environment. ANY woman? Please. There is no such thing as someone who is good for everyone. This is a fantasy. You're not dating women as a whole category, you're dating individuals who may or may not have various things in common. This is how it's supposed to go; we sever connections with people when our goals are not fundamentally aligned. IMO it's better to get this thing out in the open ASAP and not be sneaky about it so people don't waste their time and energy. The truth is that a lot of people either do not care about these things, or it does not translate into something valued by the other person in and of itself.

Why are you zeroing in on the most dysfunctional, visible dynamics? There's some element of trauma involved in that... why focus straight on the lowest common denominator? Strength of character gives one the power to choose be vulnerable in a way that's meaningful to people. Generally, that's what's attractive. Maybe "most women" and neuronormals are not your type? If I had to do conventional online dating, I'd probably never have dated at all, lol. It's not for everyone. It's cold, superficial, and impersonal by the nature of it.

Yikes. Isn't it better for women to be alone and at least have some kind of peace of mind rather than to settle for someone so clearly settling for you? (Which again goes against RP rhetoric which acts like a bad relationship for women is better than no relationship at all. But then again, who are they fooling except for the very young, naive, and insecure?) How utterly dehumanizing though. But then, dehumanizers dehumanize themselves first.

Out of the many things I could point out in this thread, not all women who look conventionally attractive are showy extroverts, you know. (And some who are, are masking or constantly putting on a performance.) Though maybe that's what people's eyes often gravitate toward; it's understandable. Late bloomers are a thing too. Not everyone actually peaks in high school or college, man or woman. (Despite RP cope propaganda lol.)

I can't believe anyone here remembers all of this. What a trainwreck that was. A lot of the original people who were here either got booted or left of their own accord anyway.

.... >insert something later<

Both Jesus and the Buddha are very... mid-tier? They got the name, the image, and the reputation... that's it. There's probably at least 1000 nameless who do not parade around advertising themselves, who know how to not be seen, as their chosen purpose isn't to ""help people"" IRL, where you'd have to nerf yourself anyway. It's barely worth it. Not to mention that both of them were very much capped by the time periods that they were living in. More powerful, more perceptive, more radiant examples of human beings existed going back in time, also mostly nameless.

Personally, I think this is acceptable as "thriftiness" rather than "cheapness" (the latter being a generosity issue). I grew up with thrifty parents, and it's something I'm more likely to suggest rather than my husband, lol. Not a big deal. Here is another issue. If he's not going to help you, is he at least going to explain how to do something "properly" in a non-condescending way? (Probably not, if he was going out of your way to criticize you for something which I assume has no real net-negative.) So then... he's just a critical person because he is. Is this good enough for you? Clearly, you can see that all dudes are this non-generous. Even if it's just helping some random woman with no likely direct benefit. Hell, I open the door for random people all the time. Men, elders, children, etc. Just curious, what are his best points, from your perspective?

So there's a few other details: 1) being happy enough to scrum off you when it comes to going to more expensive places and for various expenses, even though he was making money and you were a student. If he was just against consumption and money wastage in general, he wouldn't be pro-taking your money when you could just save it and both not go out. He would be thinking of "us" or "you" and not just "him". Splitting 50/50 is just a reasonable starting point for modern dating. It might not even be his preference. Maybe he'd just prefer that you pay for everything. This isn't cute. Say that I don't have much money for gifts myself. Why would I be generous in other ways, like making homecooked meals from scratch, learning anything and everything about a person's preferences and desires and interests (including with physical affection and sexual touch) just to be treated in this way. (Only exception I can think of is that you have some sort of explicitly agreed upon mutual cheapness of time/ energy/ money, or some sort of casual/part-time relationship.) This is a good example of a "tit-for-tat" mentality.

Among the many details and subtexts that I picked up on, I think this one here is the real kicker. I'm childfree, but everything about this on a gut level screams do not DO NOT have children with this person. There is no reason to assume that someone like this would treat his kids any better than his gf. Be prepared to pick up in a very unequal for everything, including in non-monetary ways. What evidence is there that he's particularly generous with the quality of his time, attention, and affection in other ways? Every little thing that he does for you seems like a big deal, like "tit for tat", and if you treat your relationships transactionally, a transactional quality relationship is what you're gonna get. You reap what you sow. Either that, or you'll get a woman who is either very inexperienced or has low self-esteem for whatever reason. Unfortunately, I suspect that a lot of people are counting on this, that you'll just take whatever you can get, which is whatever you think you deserve.

Trauma is probably the number one factor for why we attract dysfunction into our lives and it "just happens" and it just "keeps happening" over and over. This, and cultural and upbringing factors that we take for granted by default. IMO it is quite cruel to hold it against girls and women for not having a good bullshit detector at a young age, since let's be real: when you're all complaining about women, you aren't talking about women who have lived long enough to have been burnt enough to have the experience to know what to actually look for. Once you get past generic filters, we don't necessarily have a lot of skills with dealing with what comes next. We get fed a bunch of bullshit as women too, you know. A lot of us have "good girl" problems too. We aren't taught much about how to deal with someone that we have some trust in already, and we tend to give more chances than are deserved to people who do not deserve it once we do trust, while yes, sometimes aggressively filtering out other people. We aren't taught about how to deal with successful manipulators, even though they work in patterns as well. We are often told that we should give these people a chance when we really shouldn't. Often we don't actually learn how to hone our gut instinct and intuition very well, or we argue against it for some reason or another. It can and actually should be able to protect us, IMO. Alternatively, some people are relatively sheltered (both men and women) so they have no skill with recognizing and dealing with people who take advantage of them, and sometimes people want to flirt with intrigue and "risk" on purpose. Extroversion is a separate factor. It seriously can't be much of a surprise that people who are open and perpetually put themselves out there have more opportunities because they go out of their way to get them, whether they are "moral" people or not? It's the case with women as well. Even if women aren't actively approaching, men still tend to gravitate toward "shiny" women by default, whatever it is that immediately catches your eye, and have trouble noticing the rest. Like a tunnel vision. At least at first, which is where social circles tend to come more into play. For what it's worth, a lifetime of observation says that it's not just about raw physical attributes as a woman, but also how you adorn and present yourself physically, and also attitude, confidence (but not offputtingly so!), warmth and openness, receptivity, "feminine" charisma, and also being in the right place at the right time There is the everything else that goes into being an "attractive woman". Y'all not meeting women who would rather go to the library or take part in some female-centric hobby like social dancing, right? I tend to be very careful about generalizing about EVERY SINGLE PERSON who goes partying and who doesn't, but do you really think a homebody feels comfortable and safe around the sorts of men you describe? (Though it can be true that opposites attract as well.)

Is there anything physical that you enjoy doing which is also low-cost? (There are about a billion free workout videos of all sorts on Youtube, whether it's dance, yoga, pilates, calisthenics, hiit, etc.) I think someone else also mentioned walking. Do you live in a walkable area or near parks? Can you walk to do errands? (Because you do have errands to do, I assume?) All the physical stuff counts, not just the "on purpose" exercise. Likely throughout human history, we did not get most of our physical exercise through leisure physical activities, but through stuff we "had" to do, whether it was hunting, travelling on foot and on horseback, farming, fighting wars, doing domestic labour without modern appliances, etc. Human beings aren't really built to be sedentary and for this to make us as happy and healthy. The body NEEDS movement and challenge, not just for our long-term physical health, but for our mental and emotional health too. (Unless you are seriously ill and need to conserve energy, then what you actually need is proper rest.) It's natural enough to gravitate towards physical movement that you enjoy doing and to keep doing that, rather than arbitrarily forcing discipline on yourself and expecting it to stick. Though you may just have to "force" yourself to start one way or another, especially if nothing else works. Or tell yourself something like: I'll do this activity for a few minutes, if I don't like it, I'll stop. Then do this the next day, and then the day after, and on and on. Often the biggest challenge is just getting yourself started, and then everything gets easier from there. Do this long enough, and then BAM! You have a habit now. Unfortunately, the more you think and feel this way, the more you get more of the same. I've been in a sort of slump like this too for multiple points in my life. Lethargy extends to everything: physically, emotionally, mentally, energetically and spiritually. It doesn't get better by waiting for the perfect conditions to start doing the thing. What kind of comments are you looking for? I'm just taking a guess: do you find it difficult to function because you're not in a system like school/ university which forces you to manage your motivation because of external expectations? (e.g. deadlines, grades, teacher praise/ disapproval.) Is this something that you got used to having your whole life, this sense of external structure and security to regulate yourself?

Some y'all spend too much time with imaginary women in your heads. Spinning and cobbling a whole worldview based off of one brief interaction or another. It's like fairy tales... for men. Apparently, that's one essential use of the internet, to find narratives which suit you and reinforce what you were already inclined to believe anyway, because it makes you feel vindicated. Can't you just accept that you're dealing with the wrong people, and that not all social groups are the same, because people and their values differ wildly? Yes, there can still be serious issues with culture and socialization at large. Reality and people share a lot in common, but we are also complex and intricate in the many, many particulars. Yes. And there is still the risk of pregnancy with casual sex. Abortion and Plan B isn't a walk in the park, lol. If you live in the States, it's not even legal everywhere. Not wanting to have to deal with any of this for subpar sex with a rando (or even a "friend") is pretty rational IMO. Unfortunately, men tend to be blind (willfully or otherwise) to the predatory actions of other men. Tons of stuff flies under the radar all the time. And the reality is that being a thirsty, nerdy dude doesn't mean that you don't have predator energy in you, especially if given the opportunity with someone vulnerable enough. It does not automatically make you a safe person, and the reality is that people don't know you. That people make bad (aka. women) judgements about other people, especially because they're young and inexperienced and impulsive, that's a separate issue. That people reject people just based on vibe or their feelings at that moment, that's also a separate issue. You are living with tropes of people, not actual people. All sorts of people can do harmful, life-destroying things. Not just the people who look so obviously "bad". But if we're talking about tropes of people, there have been at least a few incel shooters... "Bad people" seldom identify as "bad" people, you know. Though I would say if you are taking joy in innocent people, like little girls, being ruined in the future because you have a chip on your shoulder with women. That IS sick. In what world is that a "good person" thing by any stretch of the imagination, even if you're not going up to women and harassing them IRL?

And I have no idea how common this actually is, but I married the person who ended up being the best friend of all the friends I've ever had. Seriously though, a LTR with someone with that you can't get along with on a personal level that you would otherwise never be friends and do friend things with... I know that people do it, but I don't get it personally. So I wouldn't be the person to ask. IMO you need to be able to actually talk to the person, to enjoy it, and to feel like they -get- you. Genuine camaraderie is just as important as the "spark". Because when life and being with someone gets more difficult, that is the foundation. (Assuming here that we're not just talking about sex and short-term relationships, like 2-3 years or under.) But he neither hid his attraction from me in the beginning, nor did he have weird hang-ups about being my friend with some explicit obsession of getting something in return. If he had thrown a mantrum about it, that would have been the end of our connection a very long time ago.

Is this something you have experience with personally, or are you close with people who have had this experience personally? Or is this part of some pickup community doctrine? Otherwise, where is your bias coming from? That's what isn't clear to me and what I'm asking about. Hey. Reading biases which I don't have into what I said isn't a great look. This wasn't a statement of blame, which is to say that I wasn't endorsing people getting kicked out, or saying that they deserved to be kicked out. Straight up, there are lots of people who deserve to be ostracized who are not being ostracized. Like actual predators. How many social groups have you been a part of, both growing up and otherwise? I'm not that social with either larger groups of people or strangers at the moment, but seriously... I've been part of friend groups where mostly everyone dated or messed around with everyone else at some point or another, because everyone is more sexually and emotionally open, they have liberal values, and they're pretty creative and impulsive people, etc. (Though I would not partake because it's wayyyy too messy for me.) And I've been friends with groups of people who would never do this, ever. How do you know what's actually possible with people if you just don't deal with them for extended periods of time? All you have is other people's hearsay and a bunch of things that you've already decided has to be true. Does telling yourself that this is definitely, absolutely true make you feel more secure in this world? Haha. Lots of women are disappointed by their fake-ass non-friends, or being "fuckzoned". So I've heard, anyway. A "friend" whose primary basis for being your friend is wanting and needing "something more" isn't much of a friend. Personally, this used to not bother me so much (knowing that a male "friend" was attracted to me), but I find this energy to be a huge drag to be around these days because feels cloying and underhanded. Because it is, if you are obscuring your intentions on purpose and are waiting patiently and like such a good boy for your sex ATM cashouts from women. I guess... don't waste time being friends with women if it doesn't actually interest you for its own sake, even if nothing goes any further? It's not like you're doing anyone any favours anyway.

I think the term you might also be looking for is "homosocial". As in, you're primarily attracted to the emotional and mental qualities that are typically associated with and have been bound to "masculinity", and you exclude "femininity". You want be around that sort of energy, you're obsessed with "masculine values". "Femininity" exists primarily to validate your masculinity, and you don't want to feel or to live within "feminine" energy. Not really. Not too much, not for too long, not in any way that makes you feel uncontrolled, lest you be overwhelmed and subsumed... and transformed into something more feminine yourself. Maybe it's a bit physical too sometimes though, I also get that vibe sometimes (but not always). It makes me think of all these dudes who look up to GI Joe caricatures of "hyper-masculine" men, yet very few women would pick these men for themselves and they actually lack charming qualities. The admiration does feel almost queer, lol.

People who look at women as human beings already have a leg up over people who don't. When all people can think about is what they want or need from someone, including what's in it for them (especially if only in the short term because you're so thirsty), it hampers your ability to be a functional human being around other human beings. Unless you are very good at acting and have some classically narcissistic qualities, then I guess you're stuck having to fake giving a shit. This is probably where you're going to run into antagonism from women once your agenda becomes clear. BTW, this isn't a recipe for happiness and fulfillment either (narcissistic qualities and faking it).... These people are thirsty too, just in a different way. Though I guess it doesn't make much difference to the super-thirsty. The immediacy of your thirstiness controls you and so it ends up defining your whole entire personality and values in its way. This is sad to me, because this type of suffering of being utterly at the mercy of external circumstances beyond your immediate control, it's at least theoretically avoidable. IMO one reason why natural, confident extroverts are pleasing to talk to, even if it's obvious enough that they also want something from you, is that it's obvious that they enjoy being social. They get something out of it intrinsically, so you could say that they're intrinsically motivated almost on an impulsive or gut level. Emotionally present and receptive human beings tend to notice this at the gut level too, even if not always consciously. It's contagious. You could say this is all just "being a natural" as a result of practice. Sure. Just like anything else, really. You have to pay good $$$$$ for GFE because emotional labour is still labour, unless you convince someone to give it to (""game"") you or else they feel inspired to give it freely for whatever reason. That's the thing though. Sex is never enough, and it never was for the most part, was it? Y'all crave emotional validation or some suitable facsimile of it. You want to be affirmed that you are a fundamentally worthwhile human being, that you matter and your existence has a purpose, and it's not all that fun to do so much of that affirmation for ourselves. Perhaps in some cases with some people, it is practically impossible. That really is, truly, honestly sad. No irony or sarcasm here. This is a sex ATM mindset though. Do you give money to every person who asks for it or who you know would like it, or benefit from it in some way?(I didn't think so.) Some people can make it worthwhile for those who approach them, I guess. At least at the moment, anyway. I will say as a woman though, being selected by a stranger based on my physical attributes for sex and emotional validation offers a very poor ROI, even (and especially) from a purely logical perspective. If all I cared about was getting off, anyway. Orgasm gap, etc. This doesn't even take into account the emotional and physical risks. Things like sexual assault, STDs, pregnancy, etc.