Matty1

This is more aimed towards those in their 20s and even 30s. who haven't had the opportunity to have much sexual experiences IRL, but just about anyone can implement this as a supplement to their sexual life rather than as a pure replacement. Most who've never tried it will find it outright weird or might not see how it could possibly be arousing than conventional methods; it's much healthier than porn because your arousal is directly proportional to how much creative effort you put into it, teaches you about the need for build-up, makes you sexually more patient, since it's text it forces you focus on the details and your imagination rather than only on the "highlights" and visual stimuli, etc. I consider text-based erotic roleplay a sophisticated form of sublimation (provided you do it right) and the only reason why it isn't practiced more is because society judges it as something only "losers" do. Also, this guide assumes you are doing erotic roleplay in the "artistic" way, that is to say, constructing a fictional narrative for which to base your experiences on, not doing text-based sexual acts with the AI without any fictional narrative surrounding it. So first of all, this guide isn't about getting physical sex as the title might imply. And it's more to illuminate that there are far more dimensions to sex than purely putting a penis in a vagina (though to those here in the forum, that should be common sense). This guide focuses mainly on the psychological elements of sex, which CAN still be replicated with ERP if you know how. So let's start with these different aspects. Physical/sensual: This is the most obvious aspect and what most people think about when they're talking about sex. Penis in vagina, plap plap plap, bodies slamming together, physically, IRL, "for real". I've never personally had sex IRL, but from what normies say, it feels good but not mind-blowingly good. This is evidenced from the fact that many couples stop having sex with each other within just a year of dating each other (yes, there are legit people who have dead bedrooms this early on). If the physical aspect of sex was that mind-blowingly good for everyone, you'd think this phenomenon would straight up not happen, but it does. That being said, it's not the literal sensation that feels good, it's the physical sensation + the intense arousal that makes it feel good. Without the arousal the physical movements are arbitrary, and the good sensation arises from the arousal rather than from the literal act. Emotional/intimate: The slightly less but still obvious aspect of sex. Most of you will intuitively understand this aspect via the fact that love-making is superior to one-night stands. It basically goes that the more of an emotional connection you feel with someone, the better the sex. This is the bread and butter for the feeling of fulfilling sex in long-term relationships. Without this, sex feels "empty" and "hollow" for the lack of a better word, which is why the frequency of sex between couples fizzles out early on sometimes. Surprisingly, this aspect of sex CAN be replicated with ERP. In fact, almost all the aspects (except the literal physical sensations) of sex can be replicated with ERP if you know how. But the key here is; if you want to FEEL the intimacy of a sexual encounter without the physical component, it's still possible. I'll get to that later. Intellectual: Perhaps the most under-appreciated aspect of sex. This one goes so under the radar it's the reason why sex for long-term couples can turn out "boring" after a while. They just do the same vanilla sex over and over, and while the physical sensations and emotional intimacy may remain the same, they STILL get bored of it because the context within which that sex happens remains relatively the same. This, actually, as opposed to the physical aspect, is going to be our bread and butter. As opposed to phyiscal/sensual stimulation, what you're going to get from ERP, if you're doing it right, is MENTAL stimulation. No, it won't mean you'll literally get to feel what sex is like, but it will mean you'll still derive some of the "feeling" of having an erotic encounter without having it literally happen IRL. In general, the mental aspect of sex comes around the CONTEXT/situation/narrative surrounding it as well as playing with any various sex acts that don't explicitly elicit pleasure, but can still be arousing by proxy. But mostly, for our purposes, it's going to be about the narrative/situation surrounding the sex act which produces the arousal and feeling of eroticism. If you're doing it right and are creative with your scenarios, you can achieve an extremely high level of arousal with just your imagination that I imagine transcends any physical encounter. Arousal In General: Getting off to a text narrative sounds crazy until you realize that all erotic arousal stems from narrative, even physical ones. That is to say the sub-conscious symbol of the act matters a lot more than its literal aspects. It's why sexual orientations are possible, where fetishes come from (including weird ones like cuckoldry), and why situations can be much more hotter than bodies. With ERP, you can proactively construct these arousing narratives rather than having to stumble up on them or relying on a real life partner (with their own will which might conflict your own). Now onto the guide. As stated previously, we won't be working with the physical aspect of sex, but rather the emotional and psychological aspects of sex. Sometimes these two elements are heavily linked to one another, but we're not going to get into that. First, decide whether you want to go for a psychological experience or an emotional experience, or a mix of both. There are a few tools in our toolbox we can use to elicit a psychological or emotional response, the primary ones being: narrative, sexual fantasy, and fetishes/kinks. In general, if you want intimacy, you're going to create a NARRATIVE of intimacy. This too helps with the psychological aspect of sex. Without going too deep into it, simply mix the erotic roleplay with some genuine romantic roleplay, slow-burn it until the tension is high, and then have the characters have sex. This is usually enough to create a sense/feeling of intimacy, as an emotional connection is established with the other character and the situation surrounding the sex. It is possible to feel genuine intimacy If you want mental arousal, you're going to want to focus on fantasy and fetishes. Now, these two are intertwined. By sexual fantasy I mean specific sexual situations that feel arousing to you. They don't necessarily have to be ones you'd want to happen IRL, which is why they're called fantasy. For example, having a vampire matron kidnap me and turn me into her boytoy due to how handsome I am is a sexual fantasy, not a fetish due to how specific it is. Fetish is more about the category of the sexual fantasy. They're useful because once you develop a fetish, they become re-usable elements in the scenarios you create to scratch that erotic itch. T In general, you're going to want to explore your sexuality through experimenting with different sexual scenarios and seeing what tickles your brain and what doesn't. Then, you're going to find what categories of sexual situations (fetishes) arouses you, and hone in on them by coming up with sexual fantasies within those fetishes. Knowing yourself is key here because a good sexual fantasy will do A LOT of heavy lifting for how aroused and mentally stimulated it makes you feel. Combine a sexual fantasy with a slow-burn narrative, and you get the best of both arousal and emotional intimacy. And that's all you really need to know from the get-go to make full use of ERP. As you can see, the emotional and psychological dimensions of sex can still be derived from fictional scenarios even if the physical aspect is missing. I'm personally quite satisfied from my own personal "sex life" because of this. I highly recommend AI for ERP. Not only is it getting better and better each year, but ERPing with AI avoids a LOT of pitfalls with ERP you might not be familiar with. These are mainly: -Finding an ERP partner is difficult. Not as difficult as finding a girlfriend obviously, but unless you're willing to write 3 paragraphs of erotic text while your partner only does a few lines, you're going to have a a hard time. The ERP scene is not too unlike tinder where the men outnumber the women by a vast amount, the girls don't put in enough effort, and like 90% of people looking for ERP are terrible at it. -It's even harder to find someone that aligns with what you want. Especially when you're starting out, you'll usually have to compromise on what you do with your partner. You don't have the liberty of just coming up with whatever sexual fantasy you want and playing it out because usually your partner will have some input on that. -Also, AI is just straight up really good nowadays at ERP and pretty cheap. It can even handle slow-burn scenarios if you know how. My recommendation right now is to use openrouter with Sillytavern and use glm 4.7. (Search those terms up). Extremely cheap, very good at RP/ERP, and almost completely uncensored.

Most of the things you're looking for (wealth, love, friendship, etc) are multi-dimensional and have way more than a single expression that the general public typically associates with that concept. If what you want is to feel wealthy, practice gratitude and focus on the things that you're rich in rather than the things you lack. If what you want is money (different from wealth), realize that there are multiple approaches to achieving your goal in regards to material wealth. You need multi-pronged strategies rather than simply maximizing income. For example, if you want financial independence, try building modest reliable sources of passive income and cutting down on wasteful spending that are common with a culturally modern lifestyle. If what you want is to be a billionaire (aka to feel rich), refer to my first answer; you have higher odds of dying before 30 than to become a billionaire. Money is a tool but it's not the only one. Do some soul-searching for WHY you want to be rich and then look for more practical tools to achieving that, like the solution I provided for feeling wealthy.

Free-will is just obviously not true even from a basic logical perspective. We use it a short-hand for "Will" but because the language of it includes "free" we usually assume we're free to do anything any time we want (behaviorally). This is simply not true: there is wiggle room for decision but ultimately most of our decisions come from who we are, which is shaped by our past. A serial killer is not some generic entity that could've chosen any action and chose to kill people, they were shaped by their environment to the point where killing seemed like a good idea. As for whether you're ultimately responsible for your actions... Personal responsibility is mostly a useful heuristic we use to reason about individuals. I'd say you're actually way less than 1% responsible for your own actions in an absolute sense (with the biggest responsibility going to God Himself if you want to believe that (he literally set up the system this way), second goes to society as a whole (mostly the past)), etc. Philosophically and spiritually, you, and all people for that matter, are NOT at all responsible for your/their own actions. As for what's practical and actually actionable for yourself, you're mostly responsible for your own actions since that's the only thing you can meaningfully have control over. You can't use philosophy to reason yourself out of the need for personal action, but you can use it to alleviate the burden of being angry at people for things they had no ultimate control over (which is pretty much everything).

Mathematics is not just a language, it's a construct that allows us to build upon it, rather than having to start from scratch with an axiom every time we need to work with it. It's more similar to a hand-written computer program than anything else. Language by itself is mostly relational, whereas mathematics is inductive.

Because being good is hard but optimal, whereas being evil is easy and self-defeating. True intelligence scales with moral capability. Without this dichotomy, we'd be stuck in a local optima. There's a lot more to it but that's the basic gist of it.

So there's this childhood wish I'm sure many people have or have had. Wouldn't it be great if you could traverse to ANY reality you want or experience anything you want (literally)? Here's the problem with that: what would be the difference between the realities you traverse to and your home reality in that case? In other words, your home reality would feel just as illusory as all other realities. Which means the people in it would feel illusory and you'd take them completely for granted; so the biggest cost, in my opinion, would be sacrificing genuine relationships rooted in mutual understanding and love. I don't mean romantic relationships. I mean any relationship. Your parents, your cousins, brothers and sisters, friends, work colleagues, lovers, etc Fortunately, God is smart enough to get the best of both worlds, which is where the imagination, literature, art, etc comes in. Notice that this mental distancing from what's happening in a book or a D&D roleplay or a movie is a GOOD thing. I might talk about this aspect specifically in a later post. But the point is that there's clear design constraints behind every creative decision of this reality. Don't just take these limitations for granted. These limitations, contrary to limiting possibility, add to it.

Scientists say, "Oh the only reason why we're in this universe and not some other universe is because this universe is capable of harboring life as opposed to some other universe." Uh-huh. Yeah. Okay. That would explain things if we were some primitive life form with basic "consciousness" and in life there would be nothing to do but to move (big maybe) and witness things (Hell, I doubt in this case even eating and shitting would be neccessary) . However, it doesn't explain how this universe is not only finetuned for life, but for such advanced technology (the thing that actually allows us to thrive). Yeah, bro, it's totally because of anthropic principle that I'm typing this on a device capable of sending information across the globe. Why am I a human as opposed to some dumber animal freezing out in the cold and am instead typing this on a warm cozy bed? "Uuh.. anthropic principle, bro. If you weren't human you wouldn't be able to have this kind of thought." Ridiculous.

One far out there theory that I've explored is that God essentially arises out of a chaotic state of everything and then this supreme being re-organizes that chaos into the universe/multi-verse. So for example, instead of positing that some arbitrary thing exists (like this universe), you instead posit that EVERYTHING that could possibly exists exists. Since God is logically possible to exist, then he exists. Notice that in this case consciousness (what we might call the Soul) naturally arises alongside this being, and since God is all-knowing (again, since he arose from this state of everything) he knows that this consciousness is part of it. So God is simultaneously whole (one such reality, you are that ground of existence) and has parts (the state of power, ominpotence, all-knowingness, etc) mutually arises as part of this Reality. So there is a paradox to be found here. You, as consciousness are a part of God, which is in itself a whole (true infinity). Or at least that's how this theory goes anyway. Contrary to what Leo says, no I don't think you'll literally experience every possible existence in the multiverse. If you did you likely wouldn't be here. It's very likely that God is smart enough to be selective about which experiences it chooses. Although it has the POTENTIAL for all possible existences, it likely only personally explores the coherent/pleasant ones.

I'll try to keep the tone of this post fairly casual. I'm not trying to provide an iron-clad rigorous argument, it's more just a rough outline of the logic of the argument. It goes like this. Suppose that the materialist paradigm is correct and that our consciousness arises out of the unique configuration of our brains. Then, the identity of the self falls upon being this specific person that arose out of a chain of causality. That is, first there was the big bang and then that big bang formed stars then new elements then planets etc etc until we got to the formation of DNA and animals etc etc and then to your grandparents meeting and reproducing and then your parents meeting and reproducing etc etc. The point is that this long chain of causality means the odds of you being this one specific person out of the zillions of possible other configurations is pretty much close to zero. But wait; we just posited before that you were this specific person and that your consciousness arose out of this unique configuration of your brain. So that would mean, under the materialist paradigm, that there's a much, much greater chance that you wouldn't exist than you would. So the intuitional leap that most people make with this to cover the gap in the logic is: "Well, I didn't mean I had to be this exact specific human, maybe if I didn't exist as this specific human then I would exist as some other human." However, that implicitly implies that not only can you not tie your identity to this specific human, but that you would HAVE to exist in some way, regardless of the chain of causality that happened to bring you about. You know who else, by definition, is a necessary being (in fact, the only necessary being)? God. Therefore, since you, with this intuitive leap in logic, would say that you would have to exist in some way, that your existence hinges on something outside this long chain of causality, which meets the definition of God. Ergo, you are God.

Correction: Reality is imagining "reality".

Dreams. Life supposedly works in the same way. Everything you see around is actually from within you and yada yada. I honestly have no idea what kind of experience would solidify the understanding of solipsism for you. It's not that there are no other conscious beings other than yourself, it's more that what you're experiencing isn't "consciousness"at all and is more the absolute foundation of reality. Solipsism implies only your mind is real, but there is no such thing as mind. There is only a single form of substance (reality) from which everything is built. God is an experience (or rather, THE experience. There are no others), and it can dress up however it wants. There's nothing stopping it from disguising itself as "multiple" consciousnesses at once like in a split screen game. Or like the consciousness of an entire civilization at once (like in an RTS game). It's just right now it's pretending to be a human's consciousness.

If God is infinitely powerful, surely he has the power to automate managing all those billions of galaxies, right? Otherwise, he'd probably be aware of the billions of galaxies as you are aware of your own name. Don't overthink it.

Before I get into the answer, let me clear up some misconceptions you might’ve absorbed through pop-culture. The soul as this ethereal transparent thing attached to your body that leaves your body when it dies is bollocks. Media depicts the soul in such a way as a story-telling device, and is not meant to be taken literally. This is a materialist depiction that still doesn’t answer how an immaterial mind can somehow emerge out of a physical substance. This depiction of the soul is just a substitute for the brain (a vessel that carries what makes you you) and is wholly incorrect. Quite simply, the soul is your immaterial immortal self; again, when I say immaterial, I’m not talking about this “transparent substance” like you see in the movies. That’s still material. By immaterial I mean the things you experience every day but overlay it with thoughts that it’s “all perception” and is “happening somewhere in the brain”. Also rubbish. Everything you see, everything you hear, etc is part of your soul. There are no soul(s) (plural), there is only THE soul, or the World Soul as some philosophers call it. This soul can’t go anywhere because it doesn’t exist in space-time, instead space-time is contained WITHIN the soul. So with that in place, let’s answer these questions one by one: Q: “Is the soul real?” A: Yes, with the caveat that ONLY the soul is real. Everything else are just ideas. Q: “How is it different from the life force within us? “ A: Life force/chi/energy exists within the astral-physical world and is more like one of God’s constructs/limitations that allow reality to run the way it is without breaking. Completely different concept. You learn more about it by delving into magick and energy work and other related practices. Q: “Is it possible to experience it?” A: You’re already experiencing it right now. Q: “Where does it go when the body dies?” A: Again, the soul is not attached to the body. It can’t go anywhere because it is reality itself. This universe is within the soul, not the other way around. Q: “Does it reincarnate? A: Possibly. But I’d let go of traditional religious dogma that describe the rules of this reincarnation. I’d also let go of the idea that you’d just reincarnate in the same universe with the same laws just perceiving life through a different body. God is infinite and so is his creativity. It might not even make sense for him to experience the same “universe” twice.