Emerald

This is exactly what I meant in my post earlier about outrage mobs playing an important role in human society. They have their place. They enforce taboos, so that people don't commit those same behaviors. Why was it different when I supported shaming Trudeau for his ignorance and callousness toward marginalized communities?

Obviously, it's better to open dialogue up. It's more helpful to help people transcend their ignorance. Get the ones that you can get... but it won't be everyone. In fact, it won't be most people. Transcending ignorance is a steep task that takes a lot of deep digging. That's where the outrage mob comes in to solidify social taboos against those who can't or won't transcend their ignorance. Social taboo has its place in this way... even if it's less optimal than the fantasy of having an entire society transcend their ignorance all at once. What must be understood is that outrage mobs are just part of human nature. And regardless of how problematic they can be, they're not going anywhere. Shame will always be a tool that the collective leverages in some direction or another. So, since there is not way to get rid of shaming and outrage from the human collective, the best we can do is encourage it to take on forms that actually benefit society. We can either choose to have an outrage mob that's anti-gay or an outrage mob that's anti-homophobe. But we can't choose to have no outrage mob. There is no intonation of human society that has existed without it. All I'm saying is to accept that and see it as a neutral phenomena that can be of great benefit or harm to humanity depending on which behaviors are on the chopping block. So, the first tool in humanity's belt is to help raise consciousness. The second is mass pressure. Both work incredibly well, though the latter has its problems.

Donald Trump, if nothing else, is quite good at influencing the mass mob and consciously leveraging social scorn away from himself and toward anyone who opposes him. And he has had a major effect in redrawing social taboos that enable more free expression of racist, sexist, and xenophobic behavior. So, he's using the very tool that I'm talking about... But he's using it for things that are harmful to human society. What must be grasped is that humanity is always at war with itself in deciding what is and isn't acceptable. It's always changing. So, if you deem the power to leverage social taboos and social scorn in the favor as inherently wrong/bad... then only the wrong/bad get to use that tool. And the tool is quite neutral as a phenomena. It can be used either way. Let's not poo poo it when it's used to solidify social taboos that help marginalized groups.

All is love. Love cannot be more powerful than love. But on the more relative nature, that you're speaking from, compassion can come in ways that are counter-intuitive. And though those that participate in outrage mobs may seem cruel, there is often kindness in that cruelty. So, regardless of whether or not mob rule is barbarism or not... it simply is part of human nature. And that's not going to change. You can argue against human nature all you want. But there it will still remain. So, you can either choose to resist it and have it take on a more shadowy veneer or accept it as an inextricable aspect of human nature and leverage it more consciously. And truly, what do you think a large scale protest is but a more conscious form of mob rule? That's why we can't discount the importance (and yes loving nature) of these collective dynamics... ugly though they may be at times. That said, we don't need to be involved in the mob. We just need to see the function of them, and stop fighting against them while they're redrawing the taboos to the advantage of all people and not just some. In lieu of waking up, there is nothing that changes individual behavior like pressure from the collective does. It's like wide-scale peer pressure, and it has its place.

I do fully understand that I can end up on the other side of the mob. And if that happens due to some ignorance or harmful behavior on my part, then that's a good thing. Throw me to the dogs too. It will make others question whether or not they want to do the same ignorant/harmful behavior that I did. But yes... I am saying that it is a loving move. It's just a very ugly loving move. Not on the part of the individuals involved, but on the collective phenomena itself as an inextricable part of human society. Imagine how terrible things would be in human society if we didn't have social scorn to discourage them. I wouldn't want to live in such a barbaric place. Would you? So, understand that it's a loving move that human nature itself takes to vet what behaviors will and won't be accepted. And it has its place. But honestly, regardless of how loving it is or not, it is simply just part of human nature. It's not going anywhere. So, it's best to make peace with the phenomena and notice the function it does and has always played in human society... and always will. The best we can hope for is that the force of the outrage mob is working toward the taboo-ification of things that harm society and not neutral or positive things that help society. So, the outrage mob is unwise to demonize and push it to the collective shadows, as it simply exists and always will in some form or another. Once we accept that it exists and make peace with it, we can see its social function and have a better chance at consciously leveraging it to demolish regressive social taboos and implement social taboos that work toward creating a healthier and more conscious society.

I personally see it as a redrawing of taboos and the necessary part that the hive mind plays in solidifying those taboos. It's basically a force of nature that will be there whether we like it or not. If a society really holds a value dear, and it's transgressed, there will be people to enforce that value and its boundaries. So, as unconscious as mobs can be, they will always exist. So, it really matters what those mobs are for and against. For example, Before, the outrage mob was focused in on past taboos like being a gay person. And that was collectively decided on as unacceptable and bad. So, gay people had to go into hiding to avoid the mobbing effect. Now, there are growing outrage mobs focused on gay rights. And so, if a person is homophobic, the gay rights outrage mob will go after them. This is how society naturally polices those who don't transcend their ignorance... and most won't. So, whether it stems from unconsciousness or not, there is a kind of wisdom in it that is wise to respect. Taboo exists for a reason, and for optimum effect, it's good to let the agitated masses have their impact.

@Leo Gura How often are you able to experience intimacy with your partner(s)? It feels like you have a lot of mind-rules that could keep you out of experiencing a relationship with your heart. And without that, you're better off disengaging with relationships as they'll only drag you down as opposed to allowing you to grow together. Check-box mentality has its place. But it's only healthy for it to be like 20% of the process of the initial phases of dating. Relationship is inherently intuitive, if you want to do it in a way that's fulfilling for you and your partner. Have you ever been in love before?

Exactly. I find the trait of generosity to be very appealing in a man, regardless of how great or modest his means are. It just has a nice feel to it that he isn't so attached to the fruits of his labor and so much in scarcity mindset that he's afraid to give of himself... financially and otherwise. Generosity conveys security, and scarcity mindset and stinginess are a sign of instability.

Absolutely. It's funny how Orange is more civilized than Red, but is even more dangerous than Red at the same time. The technologies of the time amplify the danger despite the major progression in worldview between Red and Orange.

Exactly. There are too many snowflakes now-a-days wanting to maintain the status quo because it's uncomfortable for them to change. Let them melt is what I say.

I agree with that assessment. It's likely what's given her the hyper-focused awareness on this issue and the motivation to understand it top to bottom. And then the motivation to fight against it without worrying of the social consequences or scorn that the average neuro-typical 16 year old may be fixated upon. I've had students that had varying forms of autism. And usually those who are high functioning autistic are surprisingly dedicated and immersed in one particular thing that's like their thing. And climate activism is probably her thing, and it's really making a difference.

I see the face of someone who understands the gravity of the situation. Anyone who truly grasps the gravity of the situation will be angry, afraid, sad, disappointed, and the list goes on. Honestly, with the trajectory going the way it is, I'm having to imagine my children as young adults potentially starving to death due to food shortage and dealing with the instability that comes from climate change. If that doesn't make you mad/sad/afraid, I don't know what will. Sometimes the presence of fear and anger simply means that you're more aware and not less. Here's an example... There was an older couple leaving their home to go out. And they had a security camera recording their front porch, likely to watch for burglars and the like. So, on the security camera footage, you see them leaving their home as calm as can be as they lock up the door. But in the video, you also see that there's a bear on the porch, like 6 feet away from them just watching them leave. They don't see the bear. They are not aware of the bear despite the fact that they are just feet away from potential mortal danger. So, of course, they weren't scared or freaking out. They weren't aware of the danger. But this lack of fear and emotional response isn't a sign of emotional maturity. Rather, it's a sign that they didn't know the gravity of the situation they've found themselves in. The fact of the matter is that they were in danger. And if they saw the bear, they'd be terrified and would have taken steps to avoid the potentially dangerous situation. This is how climate change is for most people. It doesn't feel real yet. Most of us don't see the bear... bet Greta Thunberg does. So, of course she's sad and scared and angry. That's the more conscious response.

That's true of most politicians for sure. But I think it unwise to shrug my shoulders and give them a pass on it and act as though it's not a big deal or that it has no effect. It truly is a big deal and does have a big effect. An effect, that white people like you and I, can only grasp from the outside... making us highly likely to underestimate the impact. Trudeau's behavior is the exact type of behavior that needs to be taken seriously, as it does impact people's lives in a profound way that he likely doesn't grasp in any meaningful way. And whether his transgression stems from harmful intent or pure ignorance, my answer is the same... Throw 'em to the dogs is what I say. Make an example of him and let the pitchforked internet mob string him up, put him in the stocks, and let them throw rotten fruit at him. Let the brutal wisdom of the hive mind have its effect. And give the hive mind a thumbs up as it happens. Don't attempt to douse the collective rage of the masses with buckets of water that say, "meh... it's normal." It may be NORMATIVE but it's not normal if we define normal in relation to societal health and well-being. Get angry as though his actions are directly impacting you in a negative way... as they truly are. Participating in holding his feet to the fire, will encourage him and other powerful people (and average people) to care a little bit more about marginalized groups. Given that we all have the opportunity to weigh in, I see it unwise to just shrug your shoulders like it's no biggie, when you can call someone out on their bullshit and actually hold them accountable and participate in the establishment and solidification better and more evolved social taboos. Get a few million people doing the same and he'll be shaking in his boots. Make both willful and unconscious racists more uncomfortable with expressing their racism and not less. After that kind of response from the masses, he'll be focused on marginalized group like his life depends upon it... because he will recognize that (effectively) it does. He's also nominally on the left, so he should be held even more accountable for his racism that we on the left hold right wingers. Gotta keep the garden weeded for it to grow right. That way better options can brandish themselves in the next Canadian election.

I don't know. He did it like 3 times. And one time in particular, he really looked like he was getting ready to perform in a minstrel show. So, it makes me think it wasn't just a case of stupid white people syndrome, like an "Oops! Derp! I tried to go to Halloween as Little Wayne. I didn't know the historical context and did a racism." With the repeated use of black/brown face, it does betray a kind of mocking nature to the portrayals. And his policy does reflect a kind of callousness to people of color. For example, there is a problem with Mercury poisoning in the water at Grassy Narrows, Ontario which has a large Indigenous population and has been for a long time. And Trudeau promised to take action to fix it. But when a Native Canadian brought it up and talked about how his family and community was dealing with the mercury poisoning at a high dollar fundraiser that Trudeau was holding, Trudeau responded by dismissing him and derisively/sarcastically thanking him for the donation while everyone in the room laughed at the joke. So, I personally do think that he has some issues with being dismissive of issues that marginalized groups face. Now, I'm sure he's not "Join the KKK" racist. But being unwittingly racist and failing to recognize the human struggles uniquely experienced by different groups still has profound effects given his position of power.

Well, honestly there are conspiracies going on left and right. And it's free public knowledge even. It's just that the real conspiracies are of little to no interest to most conspiracy theorists. They prefer to focus on "Flat Earth" and "Elvis is secretly still alive" rather than focus on the fact that "The government is bought and paid for by billionaires to do their bidding at the expense of the average person." The real stuff just isn't sexy enough for them.

Damn good. I'm glad that there seems to be a tide turning, both in me and outside of me, since around the time the news of the Amazon being on fire broke. My impression is that the gravity of the situation is starting to hit larger swaths of the population. Let's hope that that gravity hits enough people soon enough.

I'd say that men are underestimating the importance of these gestures. They're very important to women... and for the VERY SAME core reason why wealth and status tend to attract women. Most women aren't consciously sussing out men based on wealth and status. (Some are, but those are gold diggers - which is a different story). But the attraction to wealth and status is a background process. But the purpose of that background process is much more vital and important than the wealth and status that it can home in on. The background process's purpose is basically to determine, 'Is this man stable and responsible enough to be a good father and provider?' It's based upon very old subconscious evolutionary structures in us, where a woman and her children's well-being is squarely in the hands of her mate who had to do nearly 100% of the hunting/gathering duties while she's giving birth and taking care of a newborn baby. And if he couldn't provide or just up and left, she and her baby are literally dead. So, she is evolutionarily in a very vulnerable position in that way, and relies on a man a lot. So, all of her wiring is looking for signs of male investment in her particularly and signs that he can provide for her and her children's survival. And her wiring is looking for this, even if her conscious mind is not. And those evolutionary structures are still in place, despite the fact that we've long evolved out of the nomadic ways that gave rise those structures. So, when a man does small things like paying attention to a woman's interests and buying small things, it registers emotionally in a very similar way to a man being wealthy to women's evolutionary wiring regardless of whether the guy is wealthy and high status or not. That is, unless the woman's in her head and consciously seeking out some rich guy (aka shallow women and gold diggers). But if she's just letting her instincts run in the background and not getting up in her head, as most women do, she will be just as enamored (or more) by a guy of modest means buying her some paintbrushes than some money-bags kind of guy buying a piece of expensive jewelry. It's that he's showing her investment in her specifically that's important. But the giving of gifts (especially gifts that show investment in who she is as a person), really hits the right evolutionary buttons because it communicates investment in her as a specific woman on the part of the man. Like, he's taken some of the money he's worked for and used it to procure something to give to show his affection and investment toward the woman in question... and not some other woman. Now, modern people might have lost this meaning consciously. But evolutionarily speaking, novelty and gift items based around hobbies are a luxury and register as such. Paintbrushes now, might be something you could pick up for $3 at a bargain bin. But in nomadic times, an item as mundane as paintbrushes would be the epitome of luxury. And so, subconsciously, when a man buys a woman a gift item, even if it's modest, it will register physiologically and emotionally as a signifier that a man has the capacity to provide for all the basic needs and then some. As he has bought her an item that's for fun and enjoyment and not for survival. It's like a little birdie that collects trinkets to attract his mate. But it's not about the trinket or how much it costs, it's about the meaning it lights upon. And most importantly, it shows that he's gone out and done the work with his lady in mind.

In the Incel community a guy who isn't getting laid as a result of only wanting the most attractive women is dubbed by many as a fake Incel and is called a StandardCel instead. But Incels are basically guys who think they can never get laid. And they are usually very misogynistic and diminishing of women because they see women as taking everything from them. They call women Femoids (a mashup between Female and Android) because they see women's purpose as to determine which men have value and which ones don't. And Incels have decided that they don't. But if you look at most Incels, they're really just a bunch of normal guys with low self-esteem and body dysmorphia. There is not actual basis to their label of themselves as Incels.

Can be. But more-so, what I mean is that you'll find people who are dealing with similar but reciprocal issues and life-patterns. But there can be incompatibilities in other ways too. And this can be leveraged for better or worse. For example, someone dealing with having trouble expressing anger might find themselves in a relationship with someone who is chronically displaying anger. This, when taken unconsciously, is a recipe for disaster. But when taken consciously with the intent to help eachother grow can be an opportunity for both to understand themselves better and heal.

You must understand, that the abundance of men trying to get a chance leads to a certain kind of security in finding "a" man. I can just walk into a gas station and there will be like 5 men there ready for some form of romance or another. Lots of supply equals little demand. Male interest is as cheap as a gumball. But there are very very few of those men who are right for me. And finding one of them is like finding a diamond in the rough. Little supply equals lots of demand. So, the task for women is to sort through a sea of diamond-shaped gumballs to find the actual diamond. And you know that eventually one will just surface. So, you let it be. And there it is. So, for women, they have to really lean into their intuition to find the right man for them. And this is because the man a woman is with will determine so much about her life. Also, having a baby is a much larger investment for the woman. Plus men are stronger, leaving her in the vulnerable position in a relationship. So, women have to vet men in order to keep their lives in order and to keep themselves and their potential children stable and safe. And not just any Tom, Dick, or Harry who's dtf will do. And to find a man who can match your level of care and investment... which can be incredibly difficult. There are a great many men who simply aren't mature enough to fall to the depths that we, as women, tend to find quite natural. But in my pickiness, I've found that the right one makes it through the funnel. I don't care to look for men, but my feelings will present me with the answer. Now, the man who makes it through the funnel, won't necessarily be the hottest or the most successful or the most confident, etc. He may not be the most (fill in the blank). But he will the right one. And at that point, being around him will be like a drug independent of any trait he does/doesn't possess. And there is usually an uncanny level of mirroring happening, in way of both positives and negatives. You will be the right one for someone. You just have to interact with women. Also, you have to take a leap of faith and try. Those that try will eventually get success. For men, cold approach will be best to get some success. But women prefer warm approach. So, if you want success go for the former. If you want a more fulfilled partner, go for the latter. It's also important to understand that you're projecting male attraction dynamics onto female attraction dynamics, which makes it feel impossible. You're combining the strategic, objective quality aspect of male attraction to the specificity of female attraction. Male attraction is easy and objective. Female attraction is hard and subjective. So, you're thinking female attraction is both hard and objective, which makes it feel cold when it's anything but. And this conflation of dynamics is why it feels so hard. But you don't have to be Superman to be the apple of someone's eye. You just have to have the right stuff for her. Women are always looking for their mirror. You will be that for someone. You just have to have realistic expectations, have some social awareness, and swing the bat. You will be successful if you do those three things.

For sure. But it also gives contrast for the genuine connections, which are worlds apart emotionally and connection-wise.

That depends on you. Some people are less oriented to wanting lots of sexual experiences than others are. You just have to be really honest about what you want. So, ask yourself, "If I settled down with this person for the rest of my life, would I be willing to sacrifice any future sexual relationships with other people?" For you the answer may be yes or no. Either way, be very honest with yourself even if it's uncomfortable.

I've found that it's very difficult to fantasize in the abstract about an ideal man. Like I can't imagine a random attractive, knight in shining armor kind of guy and really have it hit the arousal button. I'm bi-sexual and can fantasize about random attractive women, and that works... though it's very surface level. But it doesn't work toward men the same way. I have to fantasize about a real man that actually exists in life, that I already have an attraction to, to get aroused by a fantasy about him. And the fantasy must be laden in the context that we already exist within. Otherwise, it's very dead and platonic feeling. And porn doesn't work. And erotica doesn't work. It's all too abstract and it doesn't stimulate my heart center in the way I need to actually feel the rising up of the erotic emotions that give way to attraction. The only way to get those feelings through a fantasy is to paint an entire scenario where some kind of intimacy and emotional tension happens. Of course, that's very hard to get through a fantasy. So, it's not an active process and there is never a decision made with the conscious mind as to whether I am attracted to a guy or not. It just blooms at random. So, if I'm walking around a mall, I will register an attractive man my age and a little old woman with the same degree of platonic feeling. It's all so very neutral. I feel like men kind of scan and strategically figure out if a woman is above or below a certain line for them in a very mind-based laundry list kind of way. And I feel like this logical scanning process is going on constantly. But it seems that the more mature a guy gets, the less neurotic this tendency gets and it becomes more subtle. And when a man matures, he integrates his feminine side, which means he can lean into more his intuitions to make relationship decisions like women generally do. That's my impression anyway. You can definitely tell the difference between a head guy and a heart guy, and with the head guy, your intuition will lead you away from him if you've developed your intuition woman. They have an essence about them that's very unappealing, and you can see it in how they talk and how they move. For me (and I wager for most women), there is no rhyme or reason to when an attraction will come about. It's very much like you're in the middle of a still lake, and then suddenly (once every couple years or so for me) something interesting suddenly surfaces to be explored. Now, when I was like 12-15, I would consciously scan and focus toward guys based on looks and style. But once I hit like 16, I was much more picky and not so focused on being in a relationship. By 16 you pretty much discover that there's no scarcity of men in the world... the problem is really to keep them away as most of them are wrong for you and the majority are just lonely or looking for sex. They don't want you in particular. They just want a woman. So, attention from them feels no more special than an acknowledgement of gender. So, at that point when the novelty of male attention wore off and I became more disillusioned with it and wise to the tricks, I started leaning much more into my intuition to decide for me who I'm interested in and being very open-handed about. And I've never had the problem of being luke-warm or finding guys who were luke-warm about me. Yet again, everyone will attract what mirrors them. So, even though I don't have issues attracting luke-warm guys, I have other things that I do attract. So, the intuition isn't always perfect as it also reflects past traumas and problems as well.

Centrists are the ammo that regressive extremists load their guns with. Extremists (by definition) are fairly small in number, and would never get their agendas put in place without the help of uninformed feckless Centrists that they can easily confuse and trick into validating their worldview. And thus, Centrists are always easy to radicalize once they believe that's normal. They are the easiest people in society to weaponize by those with regressive intentions because they have no personal code of ethics beyond appeasing both sides. It's really nothing other than herd mentality dressed up in a respectable diplomats clothing. And this is because Centrists have nothing they fundamentally stand for, other than being in the center of whatever the most socially acceptable viewpoints of the day happen to be. So, all you have to do to trick large swaths of Centrists into greenlighting and supporting harmful agendas is to convince them that one side of the political spectrum believes in it and that it's normal. And you can look at a history book to see how easy it is to convince humanity that barbaric, war-mongering, exploitative, genocidal social patterns are normal. So, he who has control of the Overton Window, has control over the Centrists... which are like 70% of the population. And most of them pat themselves on the back for being so even and fair to everyone. Centrists think themselves in the enlightened position by being 'neutral', and this compounds their lack of real values and their lack of education on political topics. They stand for nothing, and thus fall for anything... because their fundamental agenda deep down is to avoid conflict and be accepted by everyone. But this rather shows a lack of courage and vision. And really just outright laziness. And all regressive radicals have to do is pat them on the head and make them feel accepted and enlightened for them to cozy up to them and see regressive radical viewpoints as more normal. This is why you find so many people on the far right end of the spectrum now-a-days being very strategic in their branding and trying to appear as normal as possible to seem legitimate to the Centrist eye. So, in many regards Centrists are far more dangerous than any other political group, as they hold all the power by shear number. And there is the saying to "Never underestimate the power of large groups of stupid people." They are so easily weaponized. Important Note!!! Just like the term Centrist, the term Extremist is also a relativistic term... just like big and small. You can't say anything is inherently big or small because it's a comparative metric and not an absolute metric. The same way, you can't say any viewpoint is inherently Centrist or inherently Extremist. It all depends on the context and societal structure they exist within. So, Centrism is defined by whatever happens to be the average of the most common viewpoints in a particular society. So, Centrism has no ideology that's solid and universal. Centrism is always shifting with the tides of the society that the Centrism is laden within. So, in a Nazi society, Nazi-ism is Centrism. In a Communist society, Communism is Centrism. In our society, Capitalism and Neo-Liberalism is Centrism. etc. Extremism is also a relativistic term in that it's defined as whatever is on the fringes ideologically. So, it's on the outer edge of what society considers normal. So, in a Nazi society, anti-Nazi-ism is Extremism. In a Communist society, Capitalism is Extremism. In our society, any and all changes to the status quo is Extremism. So, with Centrism and Extremism, neither can (in and of themselves) be a measure of having a good or bad viewpoint. There can be Extremists with ideas that will benefit humanity, and there can be Centrists that have ideas that will harm humanity. So, all views have to be examined on their merits and not how moderate or extreme they're considered in the eyes of society. So, all a commitment to Centrism does is take society's current viewpoints as gospel and poo poos any changes. To be Centrist is to be attached to the status quo and to avoid any critique of unhealthy social structures.

The thing to understand here is that the initial stages of attraction and the deeper aspect of the relationship are very different. But since you're very young you've likely only experienced the former and not the latter. And that's normal. So, when Leo spoke about looks being the most important thing and the personality being the cherry on top, he's talking about relative to the initial attraction phase. Men are attracted primarily by physical signifiers primarily, and are attracted to lots of women. Women are attracted primarily by their feelings of chemistry with the man, which is heavily contingent upon his personality. But if the relationship is to become real and fulfilling, it must evolve past that initial phase. And the concern for looks must (and will naturally) fade gradually into the background the more real it becomes. As far as the deepening of a relationship goes, intimacy is the number one thing. It's about growing the relationship deeper and deeper and holding space for one another. So, if you have a relationship based primarily on looks, all women will eventually lose their good looks. You're 20 now, and you're probably feeling that forever youngness vibe of dating in your early 20s. And you may not be aware of this because you're around a lot of women your age. But for women, looks will always depreciate. For men, they will depreciate too... but a little bit slower. So, if you base a relationship on looks as the primary thing, be prepared for a life of swapping out your girlfriend every five or ten years or so for the younger model just to recapture a relationship with that aesthetic drug of female beauty. And be prepared for the relationships to be shallow and unfulfilling, as a woman's looks will never sustain a relationship. The Coolidge effect will set it and the limerence phase will end. And even if she's the hottest chick on the planet, you will grow used to her and other women will look hotter. Now, you're very young. So, it may be the case that you're not ready yet to move on to the deepening phase of a relationship. You may be more interested in getting new and exciting experiences with many women, which is perfectly valid. Most young men are not ready to really open their hearts until their mid twenties. It's all about the penis before that, and it's just a developmental stage to grow through. And it's important to get it out of your system, as you will likely have a harder time giving up what you've never had when it's time to settle down with someone. So, it's important to really know what it is that you want. If you're focused toward a deeper relationship, you'll go with a woman that you're drawn to in both regards (attraction and compatibility)... and you wouldn't be focusing elsewhere. If you're focused toward excitement and experience with many women, you'll always be looking elsewhere in any case. Now, potentially what happened is that you got into a relationship with someone you weren't attracted to and didn't have chemistry with in the first place. This can be a problem as primal sexual attraction has the function of bonding two lovers together in the initial phase, which is the seed of the relationship that everything grows from. The heat of the initial phase of a relationship certainly has a bonding function, even though it cools down rather quickly by its nature. You have to be able to read your sexual and platonic chemistry with a woman before dating if you want a deep relationship for this reason. You must integrate your feminine side to open your heart and access your intuition which will tell you clearly who you fit with. And be in touch with your animal instincts to know who you have sexual chemistry with. But this is a maturity process. So, don't expect yourself to be older than you are. You're 20, and it's probably healthiest for you to experience a lot of what sexuality has to offer. Do it all now, so that you can see the emptiness in it and lack of fulfillment. And you can easily let it go when you're ready to settle down with a woman in 5 to 10 years. That's my 2 cents.