• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Emerald

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday 04/26/1989

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

16,158 profile views
  1. I don't know about that. I think it's best to err on the side of openly vocal suspicion by the populace at large, in this particular case. And that's because it does naturally lead to suspicion for anyone considering the most reasonable possibilities. And that's frankly because of how many powerful people were likely engaging in sex crimes against minors. And Epstein was the one in charge of it all. He knew all the dirt. And because Epstein is dead now before he's testified, the chances of those names being revealed just dropped significantly. And if the powerful people have paid off and/or threatened everyone at the prison, the coroner, and anyone else involved... chances are they will also do the same with the media. And they'll try to roll their eyes like people are being crazy and spinning hokey conspiracy theories like Alex Jones... when it honestly is the most reasonable explanation. And if too many average people went with the truth that "We don't really know anything", that would just help them spin that narrative. Because a lofty truth can help obfuscate other truths. So, it may be true that we don't know anything for sure... but it sure as hell isn't helpful. So, it's not crazy to assume this at all. It's quite logical. In fact, I'd argue it's the most logical explanation. So, regardless of what's true or not, I do think it's a positive thing that so many people are vocally calling something out that smells funny. Can't let 'em get away with everything.
  2. You don't really know. That's true. But if you aren't at least suspicious of foul play, you're being pretty naive to the way human beings work. Imagine this. Some guy has dirt on the mafia. And suddenly, he's committed suicide. A little fishy, right? If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck... it may just be a really weird goose. But let's be real, it's probably a duck.
  3. I fully believe that it was foul play. It sounds like a hokey conspiracy theory at face value. But it honestly makes the most sense. I think it's a bit naive to assume that a man who had TONS of the worst kind of dirt on so many of the most powerful people in the world wouldn't have hits out on him. So many powerful people had a vested interest in him being dead, you can imagine. My theory is that, when he harmed himself a week or two ago, he was trying to get on suicide watch to be protected and watched over constantly. But if we have some billionaires that want him dead, they could easily buy off the guards and the coroner to rule it a suicide. And they could also threaten violence toward their families. At the end of the day, the moneyed class can behave exactly like the mafia when the chips are down. And that's honestly the most obvious answer as to what happened. On top of that, according to first-hand accounts by prisoners, it's a facility that would be very difficult to commit suicide in, especially on suicide watch.
  4. Contrapoints gives some really solid socio-political analysis. And it's very entertaining as well... Here's my favorite, as it gives a snap-shot of the "alt-right", how to recognize it, and its influence on mainstream political opinions... On a similar note, Innuendo Studios does some great informative videos on the "Alt-Right" and breaks down their strategies for gaining a foothold in mainstream discourse.
  5. It's difficult because those neural pathways have been activated toward pleasure in relation to the fetish many times. So, it gets you into a deep habitual groove where you experience pleasure the easiest and strongest through that neural pathway, where others haven't been developed much or at all. Luckily, you can create and strengthen new neural pathways as well, and (in some degree) atrophy old ones through disengaging. So, you'll have to practice climaxing during normal sex. And not get discouraged when it doesn't happen right away or isn't as intense. Also, to delay gratification, when you know you can reach in your mind toward the fetish image and orgasm quickly and strong. So, you have to have some willpower to hold back from the instant orgasm button in your mind. Then, you practice disengagement with the fetish. And like all things, it will get hazier and fuzzier with time. It's like riding a bike. You never quite forget. But you will fall off your game if you disengage with it. And you want to fall off your game with the fetish. ***Now, another thing, is that you have to remove the emotional charge from the fetish by processing the emotions and trauma that caused it. This is the root cause of all of it. Once you do this, it will be a little bit harder to orgasm from the fetish as it will have lost its charge. And it will also be much easier to disengage from and atrophy the fetish's hold over your sexual instincts, so that the energy can take other pathways. As someone who has dealt personally with trauma-based fetish before, I know that it's difficult to unlearn and unwire it. It takes a lot of time, energy, and practice. But it is possible.
  6. It's important to realize that this hostile vibe doesn't come from them. It comes from the projection laid upon them. That said, it is an archetypal projection of the "other". So, it's one of the stock projection screens human beings have. And the projection And this projection can be laid upon any other person or group of people. It can be laid upon strangers in general, a gender, a race, a religion, an ethnicity, a clique, a socio-economic status, a team, or really any group of people that the one who's projecting otherness perceives that they don't belong to. And if a person feels like they, themselves are different enough, they can project the image of the other onto all other human beings... which is very isolating. The solution here is to recognize the projection and how it comes from you and not from them. And then, seek out situations where you can be yourself around authentic people of whichever group you're projecting otherness onto.
  7. There are three centers in the body that relate to sexuality and relationships. Those are the mind, the heart, and the genitals. And one or more of these become activated in a romantic relationship/situation. Generally speaking, men and women tend to have opposite currents relative to these three centers. For women, attraction tends to begin in the mind, travel to the heart, and eventually end up in the genitals. For men, attraction tends to begin in the genitals, travel to his heart, and then to his mind. And in there is a cycle that's created between the two in a sexual relationship, where the man penetrates the woman's genitals and the woman penetrates his mind. This is why it's very common for women to want to know what's going on in a man's mind, and for a man to be really focused toward the visceral aspects of sex. One particular challenge of male sexuality is that the sexual instinct in the genitals is so strong (for both man and woman) that it has a gravity to it that the other centers don't have. So, for men this genital-heavy orientation creates a holding point where it keeps that energy from rising up into the heart and mind. So, men who are a bit young or not yet fully developed as people get that energy stuck in the genitals. And it keeps them from being able to keep (or even see the value in) a relationship with women beyond sex. They are not able to see women through the heart lens. But once a man works on himself and integrates his feminine side, that energy can rise up through the other two centers and he is capable of valuing a woman as a partner and has the capacity to fall in love. Some guys are just like this, and have a mature 3-tiered attraction dynamic, even as teenagers. Some guys never develop this capacity for a variety of reasons and remain stuck in the genital orientation of relationships. But most guys have a bit of an arc, where they eventually develop a more mature masculinity. So, my thought is that you may be attracting and getting attracted to men who are still in that immature phase where the heart and mind hasn't been integrated into the sexual experience. And it's rather unnerving to be with a guy like that. Luckily, it has a vibe to it. You can pick up on it, as long as you yourself are mature in that way. And once you mature, you will discover a natural aversion to that energy that under-developed guys tend to give off. And you will start to get naturally more attracted to men with a more integrated heart. So, I recommend focusing toward growing yourself and maturing in the same way. For women, the problem they have is integrating the heart as well, especially if there are trust issues. So, the mind becomes really strong and resistant to being vulnerable. In a nutshell, the way to find someone who is mature, is to mature yourself. And after that you will naturally attract partners that will value you as a person and will make you a priority in their life.
  8. Everything is love on the ultimate level. But in the relative terms of relational love, attraction and love are two totally different things. Attraction is about the sexual chemistry and infatuation you feel at the beginning of a relationship. It's mostly sexual and it fades quickly after the limerance phase of a relationship is over. Love is much deeper and is the process of growing together and opening to one another. It is not contingent upon attraction at all.
  9. While it is true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, unattractiveness (as a general quality) is a phenomenon that exists in all species. There are people that are less attractive than others. That's why I said beauty and attractiveness are not the same thing. Everyone is beautiful. But not everyone is attractive. And there is a general consensus about the qualities that make a person attractive versus not attractive. The same is true in the animal kingdom. But I never said that there are people that aren't beautiful. Everyone and everything genuinely is beautiful. The problem that I'm lighting upon is a sneaky one that actually works against people that don't conform to the general conception of attractiveness. When someone responds with "everyone is beautiful" in a discussion about attractiveness, it comes out of a desire to be nice to unattractive people... by denying that they're unattractive. It may seem a bit nebulous to point to but it's actually a rather insidious thing. It's to say, the thing you are is invalid... therefore I will be nice and pretend you are not that thing. Being ugly is invalid... therefore I will pretend ugly people don't exist so that I can feel better and be a good person. Ugly people are beautiful too. But ugly people are not attractive... and that's okay. They don't owe attractiveness to anyone to be valid. Do you see the issue now with the way this idea of "everyone is beautiful" was used in the previous context?
  10. That's a bit different from what I mean but it relates a bit. What I'm saying is that unattractiveness is a phenomenon. There are people who are more attractive than others. And ignoring that has a bit of shadow to it, even though it seems to be nice to say. And the reason why is because their is an association that unattractive=bad and attractive=good. So, in order to call everyone good, then it has to be understood that everyone is attractive. So, there is still an underlying association of unattractive=bad. What you're referring to is the wanting to spend your life with someone which is to do with love more than attraction. Though these things relate, especially in the initial phases, it is very different.
  11. Certainly, everyone is beautiful. But not everyone is attractive. But being unattractive doesn't make someone's value lesser in any existential way. I feel like denying that unattractive people exist is a bit backwards in a strange and unexpected way. It has good intentions of helping unattractive people's self esteem... but ultimately it denies a reality about some people and gaslights them. And in that denial there is a hidden difficulty in accepting the existence of unattractive people. It's like those Dove commercials that are all about being more inclusive about beauty standards. And they show a lot of moderately attractive women of all ages, races, and body types. But the striking this is... they don't show any ugly women. There is no one under a 5 on the attractiveness scale in those commercials. That said, unattractive people can find a partner just like anyone else. So, nothing is truly off the table. But I feel like the "everyone is beautiful" line, is a way to deny the uncomfortable reality that some people are unattractive. And the unwillingness to admit to that, unconsciously sends the message that there is a problem with the existence of unattractive people.
  12. This is interesting... I don't know if it's conservatives trying to trick liberals into supporting a border wall or If it's liberals trying to trick conservatives into investing in renewable energy The world may never know...
  13. Women who are in touch with their emotions don't want a man as a commodity. That's a common projection coming from society thinking about women as a commodity. And it comes from a sense of insecurity and low self-worth. And it also comes from being too much in masculine-mode (mind-mode) and not being enough in the feminine-mode (heart-mode). So, there is a desire to quantify and objectify everything, instead of being in the intuition and heart. If a woman really wants a man, she wants him for him and not for the laundry list of things that he provides. But a woman really needs a companion that can meet her emotionally where she is. Women don't get a lot out of mutual masturbation or a relationship born out of shallow needs for resources and the like. There are women who will go for that. But that's only because they are not in touch with their feminine energy, so they don't experience the world through the heart. So, a woman needs to be in her heart and have a man who complements her that is also living from his heart. And they need to be able to make that situation work in the real world, which means that both partners are working together to create a life. This may seem trite or simplistic, but this simplicity is the good witches brew for a fulfilling relationship.
  14. I'm of the mind that women rival men in regards to sex drive, which runs counter to most folk wisdom about the topic. I think this because I can't imagine that a man would think that much more about sex than I do, which is often. So, the difference, in my view, is slight. That said, women are less likely to want to have sex. And this is for several reasons. Number one, for men sex is a medium risk, high reward activity. For women, sex is a high risk, low reward activity (most of the time). So, women are inclined to be more selective about sex because they are less likely to feel physical pleasure and sexual satisfaction but are risking pregnancy and have to be vulnerable to someone stronger than them. Also, they are more likely to contract STDs from men than men are from women. So, these are the practicals. But even moreso than this, women's satisfaction during sex has to do with emotional stimulation and fulfillment. So, not just any sex will do. There is a relatively high bar for what is good sex for a woman, and most of it's bad sex. For men, their satisfaction has most to do with a physical body reaction as this is what produces a child. And so, mostly, all sex is good sex for them. So, if we think of this in a different analogy, let's take enjoyment of food. So, let's say there are thoughts that men enjoy food more than women. And men in this imaginary society will eat any food and be excited about it, as long as it's okay. So, men will enjoy fast food, gas station food, casual dining, fine dining, etc. Men just love food, and are more simple about it. But the women in this imaginary society are naturally pickier with their food. And so, unless it's just the right food, eating something else is so putrid to them that they'd rather not eat at all. But when they do enjoy food, they enjoy it in a way that the men do not. They take in all the textures and flavors that the men don't. Men just like eating, women like experiencing all the sensual pleasures of the food and not just any food will satisfy. Their palettes are more refined, let's say. So, this is essentially what the difference is. So, at that point you can ask the question of who is more sexual and ask the question. So, who loves food more... Is it the person who will eat anything and just loves eating? Or is it the person who is more of a food connoisseur who has a more refined palette, that won't be particularly satisfied by a McDonald's cheeseburger?
  15. Definitely. And most women don't know how to communicate this because they haven't crystalized this insight themselves. So, it's like a blind leading the blind situation.