Emerald

What I'm realizing in recent years is that my enjoyment in sex, as a woman, comes far more from emotional immersion than physical stimulation. So, it doesn't really matter what kind of technique a man uses on me. If I am not bathed in a soup of erotic emotions and feeling very open and relaxed, there is just no way for the energy to flow. The energy is restricted because I'm too tense and my sexual center is not activated. The way I'll put it is this. Focus on your energy. Your emotions and body have to reflect a state of relaxation for an orgasm to reverberate through the body. It's sort of like plucking a guitar string. If you touch a guitar string, the sound is extremely muffled and stunted because the string isn't able to vibrate. But if the string is unobstructed, the string can vibrate quite a lot which allows the sound to reverberate through the room. Another example, when you try to do the motorboat sound with your mouth, it only works if your lips are relaxed. Otherwise, you just get a stunted hum. Same idea. So, you'll have to communicate with your partner that you need things that will put you in a more erotic and relaxed mood first. And teach him what works for you. You can also take matters into your own hands. But ideally, your partner will be the one that gets you to that state. It will probably take about 30 minutes of anticipation to warm up and relax. So, find out what makes your energy flow, and what keeps you riding the wave of that energy. Also, I recommend differentiating between "sex for him" versus "sex for you". Men are really quick with their sexual energy and don't really need time to warm up. So, in 'sex for him', you can just let him ravish you to his liking. That way, you don't feel pressure to cum and he doesn't feel pressure to make you cum. And this takes a lot less time and effort to please a man. And this is usually such little effort (usually 15 to 30 minutes) that you can do this a few times a week (45 minute to 1.5 hour commitment). And the man will be pleased with this because sexual quantity is most important to a man. But in a sex session that's 'sex for you', that's when sexual quality is most important. And that's when romance and teasing and foreplay and all of that can come into play. And this can be special times when you feel really in the mood... once every week or every two weeks or every month. Basically, to the tune of your libido. That way, you don't feel rushed. And communicate about this arrangement before. That way, he can focus totally on pleasing you as the goal during the 'sex for you'. And you can focus totally on receiving pleasure as opposed to feeling that you need to both give and receive... which is a libido killing juggling act, as far as I'm concerned. It gets me too focused on performance that I can't really enjoy myself or let the energy flow.

The one gets me...

My husband is Hungarian and is super white. I've been to Hungary, and the population is like 92% White 7% Roma (Gypsy) and 1% everyone else.

I wouldn't say it's gross persay to just want sexual pleasure. It just isn't a turn-on for women. It kind of goes from, 'a mutual expression of love, lust, and intimacy' to 'Okay. Time to do my girlfriend chore and help him with his cumming again.' So, if you want to keep the fire burning for her, you have to find sustainable ways to keep her emotionally stimulated. There has to be a bit of push pull, and a communication of desire for her presence. Also, lots of non-sexual affection and flirtation. But no-fap (and more specifically) sexual transmutation will help you stop losing your libidinal energy to base sexual pursuits. You can use that energy toward any kind of creative or loving pursuit. Also, an attractive man is like a lion tamer with a lion. The most attractive "lion-tamer show" is one with a very fierce lion but also a lion tamer who is very skilled at taming lions. So, your sexual desire makes you a very fierce lion because your lower nature is virile. But your lion tamer could probably use some work to gain more agency over the lion. And that combination of very fierce lion and very skilled lion tamer is something that women respond well to. It hits the right emotional buttons.

Women are really excited about sex in the first part of the relationship because there is a feeling like the guy really wants to have sex with her. And this hits the right emotional notes to drive a woman crazy. And this is easy to do in the first few months of a relationship. But often, especially if the male partner is just sexual in general, it can get very unsatisfying for a woman if she feels that you just want to have sex... and not specifically with her. That's when sex feels like a chore for women because sex is an emotional experience for women, more than it is physical. So, if a woman feels like you want her in particular and you use your lovemaking to communicate that desire for her, she will feel emotionally stimulated and loved and very turned on. The motivation to have sex will be naturally high. But if a woman feels like you mostly want sex to fulfill your need to cum, she will feel neutral or obligated about giving you that, but she won't experience that level of excitement and fulfillment. She will start to feel like your cum helper, which isn't a turn on because there is no intimacy there. So, you'll have to learn to work with her pace (which will be slower), build anticipation, be romantic and loving with lots of non-sexual attention, learning to use sex as a conversation and means of expression as opposed to a race to orgasm, etc. Otherwise, you won't be able to play her emotional instrument... which is what motivates women to have sex in the first place. Physical pleasure is so so for a woman, but emotional pleasure is absolutely transcendent. Women will never be motivated just by sexual pleasure alone. They have to be bathed in a soup of erotic emotions to feel sexual desire. So, if all that's left for her in sex with you is physical pleasure, she's going to be bored and will feel both unsatiated and turned off. So, she may use fantasy (or in extreme cases infidelity) instead to get her emotional and sexual needs met. TLDR: Female sexual needs are actually emotional needs.

Feeling the Bern!

There are no top-tier men or bottom-tier men. There is the man you want... and then there's everyone else on the planet.

I love Cornel West! Such a graceful man.

Could totally see the similarity branding-wise.

Perhaps you have fewer energetic and emotional blocks in the sexual center of the body compared to others.

I started watching this a few days ago. He was doing well until about halfway through when he began talking about hypergamy and veered completely off track. It’s not because women want Mr. Perfect to be completely open with them. That would be equally off putting if it happened. Women are attracted to mystery and ambiguity because female sexual attraction begins with curiosity. Women like a man who’s a challenge to get to know deeply. But the women in the video answer that way because they are unaware and have likely been burnt before by men who have been dishonest. So, they think that, in order to be safe, they need a man who is completely predictable and straightforward. But even though that makes them feel safer, it isn’t what attracts them. What they really want is an trustworthy man who is reserved enough to make her wonder about him but open enough to have a deep connection with. And she wants that feeling of emotional safety that comes from being in that man’s arms. The actual answer is that women are focused on what they want but not HOW they want it. They want a trustworthy man to open up to them... but not because he’s open in general. She wants to feel like the man sharing his feelings is something rare and special that only she gets to see shine through in intimate moments. She wants exclusive access to his secrets. So, the man in the video is saying the equivalent of “Men actually do want an easy woman. But when he says that, he’s not taking about you... only Ms. Perfect.” But the reality is, that men don’t usually want an easy woman, even if they think they do and even if she’s Ms. Perfect. Men want a challenge and to know that they have won that challenge in the woman’s eyes and been granted exclusive access to the woman’s companionship.

The reason why is because there are tons of women looking to hook-up. And they are attracted to men. So, because you are a man, you will be attractive to some women automatically... on a dating and hooking-up level.

I think you misinterpreted what I was responding to. The OP was saying that Trump will try y to break the rules and try to stay in office even if he loses or if he wins a second term and his two terms are up. And I told him that that’s not going to happen. And if he tries to, there would be far more people against that illegal move and not for it. Also, impeachment as a process, is a joke. Because of the partisan stakes and the need for a 2/3 majority vote in the senate to successfully impeach, it’s basically guaranteed that no president will ever be impeached because it’s unlikely that any political party will ever have 2/3 of Congress. And if a president were ever in danger of that, they could just pull a Nixon. So, Trump certainly violated the emoluments clause of the constitution. But because establishment Democrats like Trump in that they can use his corruption to mask their own and look like the good guys by contrast, they likely don’t actually want to get rid of him. So, they make a case for impeachment that’s impeachable but not very strong... likely because Trump was looking into Joe Biden’s corruption. So, the impeachment is mostly for show to please their constituents and perhaps to obscure view of DNC corruption, as they knew Trump would be acquitted in the Senate and that it would give him a ratings boost following the acquittal.

That’s not going to happen. And there a more people that dislike Trump than like him to counter-march on Washington.

No judgment here. And of course, there is no ethical issue with any of this if it breaches no one’s boundaries... and it appears that it doesn’t. That said, have you explored into the roots of the addiction together? Addiction of any kind can reveal deeper issues that don’t necessarily have to do with the content of the addiction itself. And since you both have the same addiction, your relationship can be great for exploring the underlying causes deeper.

So, the Iowa Caucus app is apparently malfunctioning. So, here are some facts. Do with them what you will... The App is called Shadow and was created by former Hillary Clinton backers (Edit) The Shadow company received money from Pete Buttigieg's campaign, apparently for another service they offer Bernie Sanders had members of his team monitoring about 60% of the caucusing sites that showed him having a 5 point lead over Pete on average Mayor Pete already claimed victory before the results have fully come out... in a pre-scheduled tweet and in his speech Mayor Pete's campaign is getting a ton of positive media coverage Still no clear results

And you didn't respond to what I said at all. You just decided to deflect and focus on how you perceived that I didn't spend enough time to process what you said. I just want you to questions whether or not you're self-deceiving. If a person goes around trying to call everyone out for not being conscious enough, then it begs the question as to whether or not they have some errors of grandeur. And in those errors may be convincing themselves that they've attained some higher state, and then going around trying to flaunt their spiritual superiority to others. To me, your posts really smack of this. I'm not saying you definitely aren't where you think you are because I don't know. But I am saying that your posts make it seem that way.

You seem to be very invested in all this and make a lot of assumptions. Are you sure that you're not skipping straight to the "mountains again" part?

It's the very first state to weigh in on their choice for the nominee. So, the winner gets a media bump because they're starting out on a good foot. After this, once a week, there will be new states that do their primaries. Next Tuesday is New Hampshire. Then after a few weeks, it's Super Tuesday where a whole bunch of states do their primaries. And then, after that, it keeps rolling until June when every state in the US. has done their primary. But Iowa is the very first step and sets the tone for the entire primary process. So, since Pete did well, he got a bump in the polls. Since Biden did poorly, he has really fallen off. People changes their votes to go with who they think will win. So, most of Biden's support has gone to Bernie and probably some to Pete and the other candidates. Now, a new poll came out after Iowa, showing that Bernie is poised to win in most states, with Biden only winning a few.

It’s important to get your paradigm right if you plan to live in a society... or live a human life in general. So, it’s unwise to engage in spiritual bypassing by invalidating relative truths by writing over them with higher spiritual understandings. You have to be non-dual and hold space for both. So, if there is a potential that elections are being corrupted, it is of immense practical importance to push back on that as a populace. Otherwise it encourages more corruption and detrimental outcomes on the relative. To be truly aware, you must become aware that relative truths coexist with absolute Truth. And to make a distinction and prioritize absolute truisms over practical truths, will be incredibly unwise. It would also create a false dichotomy between spiritual and mundane that doesn’t actually exist So, practically, if we don’t push back on potential corruption or are too trusting, it leaves us wide open to even more corruption happening. And that wouldn’t be healthy or functional for our society.

@whoareyou Yeah, gullibility and passivity in the face of potential corruption enables most devilry that exists. It’s those that do nothing and say nothing in the face of wrongdoing (or potential wrongdoing) who are complicit in devilry by allowing it to go unchecked. Honestly, at this point, if people aren’t seriously contemplating the potential for corruption in the Iowa Caucus, then I just think of them as being incredibly naive and unworldly. Also, lots of spiritual bypassing going on here too. From Leo and a couple others. Using more spiritual truths to invalidate practical truths as though that is the conscious choice. That’s why it’s so important to get the paradigm right and not use truths from one paradigm to lie to one’s self in another paradigm. If they recognized that, they’d see that they are speculating just as much as anyone else. Also, that corruption is a perfectly reasonable speculation about the events that are unfolding. And practicing blind faith in the integrity of the political institution and the election process and defaulting to “there is no corruption” as the only valid interpretation of the events at hand is a huge assumption not based in truth at all. And not based in historical precedents either. And even more importantly, an assumption with far greater potential for negative consequences compared to the alternative interpretation of events.

Update: The results are still at 97% with Pete ahead in delegates by a razor thin margin of 0.1%. The satellite caucuses that Bernie did best in have still not been reported. Tom Perez, chair of the DNC is now calling for an “Immediate” recanvass of the votes from scratch... “immediately” almost certainly meaning before the remainder of the votes are counted. Again. Do with this new information what you will.

Devils in the government will keep getting away with devilry as long as fools continue giving them the benefit of the doubt. When there is motive, stakes, conflicts of interest, inconsistencies, and a history of corruption, it is pure devilry to convince people that their lack of trust in the establishment is unfounded. And it’s specifically your type of devilry that keeps truth from coming to light.

I disagree with the idea that a bug would be so significantly more reasonable to postulate about as the cause of what is happening in Iowa, in a political system that’s based mostly off of politicians doing the bidding of major corporations and industries for money. And that’s especially true when an anti-establishment candidate is running who may upset the continuation of that corruption. But you seem to think it’s like a 1000 to 1 chance that some corruption is happening. If I were to guess, I’d put the odds at 70/30 in favor of your bug theory. But because the chances for corruption are still so significant, given the financial ties and the inconsistency in numbers and the establishment’s extensive history of corruption, you can’t just rule out the possibility of corruption as though it’s somehow ludicrous to suspect. Government corruption happens every single day on an ongoing basis. Also, I can’t stress enough how important it is for everyday people to practice healthy skepticism toward the political institution. It helps keep them more honest, so that they’re less likely to try something funny. Don’t just give them the benefit of the doubt. It’s better to be over-suspicious and wrong than it is to be under-suspicious and get fucked over. The worst case scenario with the first scenario is that you say, “Nanana bo boo. Told ya’ so.” to me. And I can live with that minor ego blow. The worst case scenario with the second scenario is that we fail to push back on corruption and many people continue to get messed over. And we miss the opportunity to get someone in office who will work to turn the tables.

Yes you did Leo. You’ve been arguing up and down that it’s just a bug to everyone on this thread with everyone as though it’s a clear Occam’s Razor. And you’ve been insisting that anyone who as much as suspects foul play is foolish, despite the fact that any sane person would be suspicious of what’s happening in Iowa... especially given the details that I shared in my original post and the fact that our political system is already riddled with corruption. Also, do you seriously expect that the truth about political corruption will magically reveal itself with “calm and patience” if no one at the grassroots level is suspicious about it? If so, that’s a foolish expectation... and you’re smart enough to know that. The truth only comes out if enough people are pushing for it. And that process of getting the truth to come to light is anything but calm. Don’t expect corrupt institutions to reveal their corruption to you on a silver platter. And I haven’t made one single accusation. I’ve only told you what I’m suspicious of and the facts that make me suspicious. Also, this is NOT an ideology.... anymore than it’s an ideology to state that ‘perhaps foxes shouldn’t be allowed in the chicken coop.’