Emerald

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

Women don't like to be on the receiving end of men wanting sex. Women do like to be on the receiving end of a man she feels chemistry with wanting her. So, it's the difference between you wanting sex and you wanting her. And to a woman, this is a whole world of difference. She probably felt in many ways like you wanted to use her to get off, without regard to actually wanting the sense of closeness with her as a person. And even if this isn't your conscious intention, it does come as a natural outgrowth of under-development in this department. For women, sex is largely about connection. So, this is extra offensive to women's sensibilities about sex, because it turns something of loving connection and an intimate physical conversation between two emotional beings into a mindless chore of her getting you off and an a to b journey to your orgasm. So, it makes women feel like a masturbation helper, rather than a beloved, which is primarily what they desire from a sexual connection. So, she is correct that your sex drive is selfish, as there is no chance of her (or any woman's) needs being met in this dynamic. But this is just because you have not integrated your sex drive with your heart. In order to really develop as a man, you have to be able to have agreement between these two areas. Otherwise, the woman will sense that she is alone during sex and there will be this feeling of being used that will naturally spring about. So, be sure to integrate your sex drive, heart, and mind. And from there, you will naturally be less selfish and will be able to enjoy sex more deeply yourself. Otherwise, it's just about getting off, and that's fairly hollow.

Haha! Thanks.

The thing that's most important in this matter with regard to women's experience of you as a lover is learning how to push the right emotional buttons. Metaphorically, it's in the same way that someone would get good at playing an instrument, if the sound coming from the strings of that instrument were different colors and textures of emotions. So, imagine that your partner's emotional body is like a harp, and that in order to produce a pleasant sound, you have to know a few things about how to cause that reaction inside her emotional body. And this is 15% physical technique and 25% emotional technique and 60% full authentic expression of your natural personality as an individual man. And the last ingredient of this is most important because, when a woman wants you in a real way, she can't get your essence anywhere else. So, the essence of you is what she craves the most. And making love with you will be like heaven to her, as long as you have the physical and emotional techniques in your arsenal as well. But the thing that attracts a woman to sex is much less about the physical body, but more about the desire for specific types of emotional stimulation from a man that matches her and inspires her. And women intuitively know, when a man can or can't give that to her. She needs a guy with a particular energetic signature and personality to make the right music inside of her. And if you're not the right type of guy for a woman, you won't be able to play her emotional instrument at an excellent level. The sound will always be mediocre. So, it's impossible to be a sex God with most women, as it's just not in the cards. But you can be that way for the women that get struck by the Cupid's Arrow for you. So, if you find a woman who is intuitively drawn to you, you can be a sex God for her. And if you learn the technical aspects, you can also be a decent lay for most women who are looking to experiment. But you won't be blowing any minds of women if you're just on the sexual level with them. The real thrill is the emotional for women, and the physical is pretty "meh" without it. But if you have the emotional and physical together and a woman feels that she can explore you as an individual and what makes you tick and how you think, then you can transport her to another world.

Isn't findom where you literally just give the women money, and that's it. They don't even do anything other than take money? No sex. No talking. No interaction of any kind past just giving money to them. Is that right? I had heard about it but didn't even think it was a real thing. So, what is it that you get out of this arrangement? It must give you some sense of release, perhaps like self-harm... but financial self-harm. Bottom line, you should keep your money as you're paying money just to be financially harmed. And you're using this to reflect the wounds and feelings of powerlessness that you feel and attribute to women. You should look into the topic of Anima possession, as this can cause these very types of behaviors. A lot of guys into Red Pill and especially Incels deal with Anima possession internally, and it causes all these distortions in how they view women and it makes them feel powerless. Those in MGTOW and MRA types cope with Anima possession by trying to feel a false sense of empowerment through masculinity. Those who are Incels, go the opposite direction and become submissive and self-flaggelating, preferring to tongue their own wounds and avoid taking personal agency. So, the former has a coping mechanism that's primarily destructive to others. And the latter has a coping mechanism, that's primarily destructive to the self. But both are self-destructive and destructive to others as they're going around and around with the same internal split, and are doing things to create a greater rift inside themselves as opposed to integrating the Anima. Here is a video I made on the topic...

This stems from the fact that, until very recently in human history, women have been regarded as week and incapable. So, with 2nd Wave Feminism, there was a movement toward recognizing strength in women. And this birthed the notion of the strong woman, who can do anything a man can do. And this was usually with a Stage Orange framing of being able to be "as good as men" in the workplace. And making the case that women can perform as well as men and be as good as men. And this rhetoric is still used in a lot of Pop-Feminism, which is what the average person is aware of relative to Feminism. So, it's a lot of Dove commercials, Beyonce quotes, and 'Slay girl slay' kind of sentiments. But underneath these seemingly empowering statements of women being strong and just as good as men, there is a shadow. And that shadow is that society thinks that masculinity is superior to femininity. And so, this framing always happens from this masculine supremacy vantage point. So, it's always saying, "women can be as good as men." Like, "You can get there if you try hard and prove yourself." But notice that men are the hallmark that women must aspire to in this 'strong woman' story. And a woman can be strong and excel and be accepted into the boys club in a similar (but not entirely equal) fashion to men... on the condition that she can throw away her femininity in all but appearance and adopt a masculine sensibility about the world. So, there are huge anti-feminine and thus anti-woman shadows to this 2nd Wave Feminist talking point of strong and independent women. And the shadow is that women can excel and be accepted as long as they don't act like women and can draw a distinction between themselves and "the other girls". And we see this in characters in pop culture all the time. Often, the most well-written and endearing female characters are ones that reject femininity and feminine signifiers as trite and silly. Like the (pretty) tomboy who's "not like the other girls" and hates the color pink. And the (pretty) badass chick who's "not like the other girls" and kicks everyone's ass. And the (pretty) down to Earth girl who's "not like the other girls". And the (pretty) manic pixie dream girl who's "not like the other girls". Either that, or you have the (pretty) bitch or the (pretty) dumb bitch, who are always incredibly under-written and unlikable. So, this pop culture trend that was popular when I was younger, that's now in the process of dying out because of the strides that our collective awareness has made in the past half a decade or so relative to our anti-feminine biases. So, what I recommend is not to focus toward being a "strong independent woman" because that's a stock character that exists as a reaction against the oppression that women have faced for many millennia. But because it is an image in resistance to something, it is very much in the same entanglement as that which it pushes against. So, you can never be free from internalized misogyny by adopting an image that was born out of internalized misogyny. It's best to dig deep and be authentic instead. And you can just be a well-rounded person without having to qualify yourself as strong to be a valid woman. Edit: Long story short... the 'strong independent woman' trope was born out of 2nd Wave Feminism and genuinely helped women get more of an equal standing in society and in the workforce. But there are anti-feminine shadows to it, so it's very out-dated and best transcended with a more pro-feminine and authenticity centered way of validating women and people in general, without needing them to be "like the big boys."

@XYZ I wish upon you the privilege to be humbled one day.

Back when I was 20, I paid my rent/bills by busking (playing guitar and singing for tips) in the pedestrian area near where I lived. And most of the buskers were either poor or homeless. I was the former but not the latter. And me and the other buskers would work quite hard to earn our tips. And in the month, I made just about enough to pay my rent and buy some very basic groceries. But I never had enough money to keep the lights on. But I got a bad taste in my mouth about the panhandlers that circled around where I was playing, as they'd usually get more tips than me because they'd come up with some story that they pedaled every day and they'd actually go up and ask for money. One of them was like, "Hey, a couple of buddies and I want to go get some hamburgers from McDonald's. Do you have a few dollars to spare?" And that was an every day story he'd tell. And he even hit me up with that one despite the fact that I was pretty clearly not doing well myself financially, and he was certainly making more money than me. And I think he was probably using. A lot of that is the case. So, because of this experience, I'll opt to get them food from wherever around instead of give money directly. That is, unless I really feel that the person is having a hard time and struggling with pride as they're asking. I just don't want to fund someone's potential overdose as I want to give money to help and not to perpetuate the harm.

I know exactly what you said. And that's why I responded the way that I did. My entire argument is not that you think women shouldn't have the right to vote but that you're foolish for playing devil's advocate with something on a public forum that contributes to the already popular trend of 'playing devil's advocate with women's rights.' And this dialogue creates a dangerous gray area in the social and political discourse that can and often does have a real impact on people's lives. And then, I was also criticizing you for thinking that you're truly capable of being open-minded with this topic when you have no skin in the game. So, all this questioning only amounts to mental masturbation and armchair philosophy for you, and can actually have real consequences for women's lives. And the thing you said in the last paragraph is as laughable as suggesting that the sheep and the wolves should have an open civil dialogue and negotiation about the merits of allowing the wolves unfettered access to the sheep pen... and just having a respectful eye-to-eye conversation and negotiation about it. Because those with differing opinions should be able to engage in civil dialogue in the marketplace of free ideas... right? And the best ideas will win out anyway... right? I mean, it doesn't mean that the men can't have some valuable input about what rights would be wise to strip away from women... right?

I think the main thing that helps is finding the deeper emotional roots and needs from which these issues spring, and dealing with the underlying issues directly through awareness and direct structural change. So, for example, if we look at misogyny, a part of getting rid of it is changing things practically and structurally in terms of how society works and the paradigm we ascribe to. But a lot of the misogyny is directly because of how men are conditioned to repress emotions and punished for any signs of anything that could be construed as feminine. And the glue that hold back all the self-esteem issues and keeps men emotionally safe is a mix of misogyny, homophobia toward gay men, and trans-phobia toward trans-women. But what's really underneath that is a lot of pain, and those things function as a coping mechanism to both hold back the pain and fight against who they perceive as the bringers of that pain. So, these communities of pain, based around hatred and victim's mentality, are really just a group of people in pain who are scapegoating to cope with the pain. But it just winds them up more and more. But if you make the communities of pain obsolete, then they won't gain any more traction. And the regressive ideologies will fade more and more. But this would take a complete overhaul of peoples state of consciousness, which will likely take many generations to really address everything. But I think this emotional core of these issues is the most effective pressure point to target to make incremental change and help people face their shadows and love themselves. It's always the most insecure people who are in victim's mentality that are the easiest to recruit, brainwash, and weaponize. And so we have to address those insecurities at their roots to make the hate groups obsolete.

Exactly. So, there are two things here. One of the things is self-exploration and pulling things apart and being able to suspend beliefs. And this is incredibly important for consciousness work. It's about turning over all the rotting logs inside yourself to free yourself from what holds you back. And to become aware of what you would otherwise hide from. The other thing is much more external, practical, and results oriented. And those are the parameters, rules, and guidelines for how society runs. And it's important that we're able to draw blacks and whites even though reality and our relationship to it is anything but black and white. But if the end goal is to have a functional and healthy society (which is wisest if you value a high quality of life), then you have to be able to draw a distinction between what's acceptable and unacceptable. And when these devil's advocates are mentally masturbating and pontificating upon the validity of women's rights, then it create a gray area in the social and political discourse. And it opens to doors to human regression. And as a woman, I have very real skin in the game. I would probably rather kill myself than live in a society where I don't have basic human rights, as I'd rather die with dignity. So, it's very annoying and extremely disturbing to see these "rogue intellectuals and philosophers" casually questioning the validity of my right to be seen and respected as fully human. And then thinking of that dangerous game of armchair philosophy that will never affect them as virtuous and open-minded. And then chiding me on my own open-mindedness, when I'm the one down in the trenches as they're watching the war from on television.

Also, relative to this point, which I didn't address before. This deep digging that I've done into this topic has been specifically to untie myself from what constrains me. And it's a pattern that affects every single person... especially women. It keeps them cut off from their natural power-source of the Divine Feminine. And this is 100% necessary for humanity going forward. So, the pain of this exploration is worth it to me. And if you've enjoyed my perspective in my videos, as I know you've said you've enjoyed them and got a lot out them. Then, you can only thank my willingness to descend into what's ugly and dark and pulls everything apart in me. As I wouldn't have the perspectives that I have without having done this.

Sometimes it's important to take the kid gloves off. And it's always wading through this lazy devil's advocacy with so many people online. And it has a real effect on people and is fundamentally boundary-breaching which conjures a natural feeling of anger that anyone in this position would naturally feel. So, the feeling is the same with what I wrote here, but I usually conceal the frustration more because it more because it can be weaponized against me. But I figured I was safe to express in that way here. Please don't prove me wrong with your notion that I'm not being nice when i'm just being frank.

I've questioned this topic inside and out for the greater part of decade. And I've really crawled around in the darkness beyond modern concepts of Feminism. And I've done this as someone who would actually be disenfranchised and has an entire self-concept wrapped up in the situation. So, I don't want to hear a single word from you about open-mindedness, relative to this topic. If it doesn't feel emotionally like you're ripping off your own skin, you haven't even scratched the surface of open-mindedness. But that skin-ripping, radical open-mindedness that I've engaged in relative to my place in the world has been quite valuable and enlightening to me to question this topic because I'm actually in the group that's being oppressed. I've walked this labyrinth for a very long time, and I've seen things that most men would be too comfortable to look at and most women would be too uncomfortable to look at. And this descent into the repressed feminine is how I've been able to understand where these regressive perspectives come from and what makes them tick. This is a topic that I know up and down, in a way that few others do. And I'm not saying that to toot my own horn, but as a matter of fact. I've spent longer with this issue, questioning everything more than anyone I've ever known. I've been in the belly of that beast, having all of my attachments to pride and self-hood torn apart and digested. And the reason why this is possible for me, is because there is no place for me to become comfortable with this topic because I'm a woman. It always feels like death and dismemberment to shed my attachment to my personhood and questioning the validity of my own rights. So, I either have the choice to block it all out or dig deeper. And I'm one to dig deeper because I have a morbid curiosity and a touch of masochism. So, I'm the one wading through a sea of lemon juice with tons of open wounds. You are not. And your version of open-mindedness and the irresponsible way that you share it, is both disturbing and laughable to me. If a man is doing this type of questioning, it won't typically yield positive results because he is fundamentally comfortable asking such questions. He doesn't actually have much skin in the game and fundamentally doesn't understand what it is like to be in this position relative to these questions. So, any so-called "open-mindedness" from your perspective is a easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy game of devil's advocate. Where you're just engaged in arm-chair philosophy about the validity of women's rights. And asking these questions in a public forum the way that you are has real consequences as it normalizes these questions as legitimate platforms which enable things that regress us as an entire species and put women and the Divine Feminine back in the pinions that they used to be in. So, there is real weight behind the way that you're doing your questioning. So, dafuq up out my face with your ideas about open-mindedness. Go dig into your own wounds looking for evidence that may undermine your entire sense of self and maybe we can have an eye-to-eye conversation. And stop playing devil's advocate. It's not a virtue like you think it is. And that's because it's too easy.

No shit Sherlock! I sincerely hope you don't think that I was buying into the things he was saying or thinking in that way. My post is clearly not in favor of his worldview. Number one, I don't "follow" him in the first place. I've seen several videos of his over the years, and thought they were okay at best. Just a weightlifter who'd learned some basic personal development stuff and some New Agey stuff. But I was a bit surprised when I stumbled across the video where he was basically entertaining the notion of 'men needing to do men things and women needing to do women things' and 'maybe stripping women voting rights being a good thing.' His previous videos hadn't been that bad, even though he was always all about "being alpha" which is somewhat of a red flag, so perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. On another note, you seriously need to stop preaching to the choir like they're not the choir. This is the second time within a few days where you've given me some really 'duh' advice.