Emerald

I would love to go to Bhutan to visit. My husband has always wanted to go there and to Tibet as well. But unfortunately, relocating there would be out of the budget range for our family. I have a family of four and plane tickets to most places in Asia cost upward of $2000 per person. So, that's already $8000, just for moving expenses. However, plane tickets to Central America cost about $300 per person and South America just a little more than that. Plus, if the spiritual teacher's prediction is true about China being involved in an upcoming conflict, it's quite possible that other areas in Asia may become involved as well. Also, I'm familiar with Spanish and I'm confident that I could become fluent in relatively short order if I needed to. But to be honest, I'm not even sure which languages are spoken in Bhutan, let alone what they sound like. So, that would add another layer of difficulty to moving.

Sorry, I should specify. I didn't call you delusional as a fixed negative personality trait. I said you have delusions, as nearly everyone does. I too, have delusions related to other things. I really didn't mean any personal insult behind my messages, though I do get a little personal when people project upon women as I have some issues with feminine repression and this salts the past wounds that gave way to this repression. But my main purpose, was to point out that you're projecting, so that you can recognize the process and drop the projections. Often times, we get into mindsets that are based in self-deception, and we're not aware of it.

This is still more projection and an avoidance of the fact that you were projecting in a previous post, through use of spiritual bypassing. If you're aware that there is only one thing, and that one thing is God, then why do you assign so many value judgments to large groups of people? And why do you judge the state of the world? Is it not also God, and also you? You still seem to be dividing reality into fractions, which is the opposite of the realization of oneness. Also, if God is "here to be served", and everything is God, why do you judge God's creation which is also God? But if you want to continue the conversation further, you can PM me or create a new thread. It's against the forum rules to post off-topic things, so I try to avoid it.

Alright Kelly Anne, this is gotten off the topic of the thread so I'm just going to quickly explain just a little bit to un-muddy the waters between ideas/projections and objective reality. I understand that he may have come into contact with shallow women before and that he feels negatively about women because of this. But that doesn't mean that all women are shallow, or that it makes sense to blame all women for his negative feelings. So, when he is saying 4999/5000 women are shallow, then this is objectively the definition of projection. And it is objectively a falsehood to say this. No two ways about it. My saying that he's projecting is not an opinion. It's a fact. And since this is a site about developing deeper levels of awareness, I thought it was a good idea to point it out to him. But you seem to want to reinforce his delusions and projections by muddying the waters further with misplaced notions of relativism. Also, when I say that he's being shallow, there is an interpretation there that could be called an opinion if we look at the connotation of the word shallow which tends to be negative. But if we look at the definition of shallow as being 'not deep.' Then his view on women is objectively shallow, because it reflects a shallow awareness of reality relative to women. He simply doesn't have a deep understanding, so I call his opinion shallow. So, this is also a fact. Not an opinion. So, you bring up the ideas that are widely believed in North Korea as an example for how relativistic things are. Truly, North Korea stands as an extreme example of how distorted one's views can get, when human beings aren't grounded in objective reality. There are such things as objective falsehoods that run through every cultural climate, some more than others. So, a large part of personal development, is to ground oneself in objective reality and let go of delusions. So, no more alternative facts please. Hehe!

I was not offended. I just wanted to point out to him that he was objectively being shallow. You can't fix a problem that you aren't aware of.

With all due respect, it's understandable that she called you shallow, as you just called her shallow without even knowing her. You did, in your previous post, project your ideas over about 3.5 billion people on the planet writing off their ability for humanity and virtue, and one of those 3.5 billion is her. This type of projection is the epitome of shallow acts because you ignore the nuances of reality for a two-dimensional idea that you cooked up in your own mind. So, it's not a matter of people not recognizing your depth of understanding regarding the masculine and feminine energies, it's you not recognizing the degree of your delusion, projection, and smallness.

We are designed to be monogamous in the early stages of child rearing. Human babies are born "three months premature" due to the rapid brain growth needed for human intellectual functioning. So, child labor is very taxing on a woman as the child's head is very large. And the first three months are a time of recovery for her and extra protection for the newborn who is helpless due to the brain growth that has not happen due to the "premature birth". If a baby were born with the mental faculties that come three months after the birthing process takes place, the mother could not physically birth the child and survive. So, especially in the initial stages, fathers have a very important role of protecting and providing for the vulnerable mother and child, who can't (in nomadic times) make it on their own. Mothers would not be able to provide food and care for the newborn child, at the same time. Then, there are neuro-chemicals designed to keep a couple together for the first three years of the relationship (long enough to raise a child to a certain point of independence). Now, there has been the practice of powerful and wealthy men having multiple wives and thus multiple children. The idea is basically the same, as he provides the sustenance and shelter for the women carrying his children and thus his genes forward. Though, in this situation, the women and children tend to be treated more like acquisitions and property. So, if this is the reason for his marriages and children, it doesn't really provide the depth and care as is provided in the family model with the monogamous father. But the biology behind it makes sense. After the point that we get past the first three years after a child is born, we are more polyamorous in nature. But many people choose to remain monogamous to deepen their relationships with their partners. But there is also a natural urge for man and woman alike to switch up partners to add variety to the gene pool, which strengthens our species through creating more variety. But ultimately, there is nothing that's unnatural. If it's happening, it's natural.

(technical difficulties with uploading vision board)

@OhHiMark Completely off topic... I did not hit her! I did not!!!! Okay, resume your conversation.

I saw this, but I'm not sure if it's real. I will have to see if it gets to that point.

Maybe if you knew someone at one point, didn't see them for years, and then came back, their feelings may change if you've changed that much. What I find though, is that people's subtle energy doesn't really change that much and my impressions of a person take even longer to change. So, even if a person changes their mindsets and personality, the people that you already know will continue to see you in the same light. So, with people you already know, the chances of getting out of the friend zone are VERY low. You're still thinking that it's because of something you did or did not do. And that if you just showed more dominant male traits, that she would definitely be with you. This is just not true. It might have been somewhat more likely to happen if you fully embodied these traits right away upon meeting her, but PUA isn't like a perfect technology. It mostly works on the level of the persona. So, if a woman is in touch with her intuition, she is unlikely to bite even if the outward personality changes. From the receiving end of PUA, it can be super obvious when someone is trying to do it to you. Plus, if she knows you more on a personal level, then she knows whether or not she's attracted to you based on your deeper personality traits. PUA relies quite a bit on more surface level techniques and techniques are easy to pick up on in a closer friendship. Now, in a casual social setting where you're meeting new people, like a club or party these traits can make you appear as being more interesting and attractive. First impressions are extremely important in attraction. So, here is where the utility of PUA comes in. So, it's not that PUA can't greatly increase your chances of being successful with someone. It absolutely can. But don't think of it as a perfect science that will work on every woman or even most women. It's an art. You might get one 'yes' for every five 'nos'. And that's pretty good. But don't fall for sales pitches, and expect that you can make any woman attracted to you through doing PUA. People are complex machines, that are predictable to an extent, but not perfectly predictable.

Well said. PUA gurus tend to use this as their sales pitch, but it's definitely not true of me or any other woman that I know. Genuine attractions happen organically. But it can't hurt to know some techniques. Being good at the human mating dance is a plus.

I think women who have a more judgmental way about them, could have thoughts like this floating around. But that would more-so have to do with just being generally judgmental and that personality trait spilling over into their romantic life. For me personally, every time I've ever gotten attracted to a guy, it starts neutral for a few days or a week. Then, I get little spurts of positive feelings coming up, very much out of nowhere. And then the attraction solidifies and stays for a few months or so. It usually dies if nothing happens after a few months or I go through that process with someone else. But there's never a reason for it. At least not one that I'm conscious of. But my attractions are very strong. I understand where your thought process is coming from, and I'm sure it's encouraging. I think that pick-up gurus tend to promote pick-up in that way, anyway. I can just tell you that (for me personally) I've never miraculously gotten attracted to a man that I was previously not attracted to. But I think of attraction as more of an art than a science. It's all about the subtle essence of that person, and not about what they do. So, even as someone who's into personal development, meeting a guy that's into personal development doesn't make me more likely to be attracted to him. I understand. I suppose that I'm the same way in terms of what I prefer for me, if I were to put myself in the same situation. I hate hurting people's feelings though, so I do tend to sugar-coat things. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm going to call b.s. on whoever told you this. Not that I'm saying that they're giving you b.s. on purpose. This is just a really random metric for attraction, and I've never met a woman (straight, bi, lesbian, etc.) who ever set up such particular rules for romantic interest. I think that she might be struggling to find out and come up with a reason why she isn't attracted to you, and came up with this rationalization for why not. But the problem is that there is no "why" or "why not". It just is or isn't. It's not so much that women don't know what they want... it's that we generally don't know why we want it. And without the awareness that there is not rational "why", we struggle and fumble for reasons. This reminds me of the situation with my friend Joe and I. I was in a relationship with a guy named Jeff from the time I was 16 to the time I was 20. And I had known my friend Joe since I was 12, and he always had a crush on me. We even dated for a month way back in middle school. I was always very very mildly attracted to him, but not so much that I would want to pursue anything actively. So, when Jeff and I broke it off, Joe really wanted to spark something up with me. I told him that I wasn't really ready for a relationship, which was true. I had just gotten out of a 4 year relationship. I really wanted to be single for a while, and I didn't really feel that way for Joe. Then I met my current husband, and I really had the hots for him and found him irresistible. I couldn't have stopped myself if I wanted to. So, Joe was really very upset about this. He felt like he had waited for me and put in his time, and he wanted to know why not. And I had no reason to give him. I couldn't articulate it, and I just wanted him to feel better. I didn't want him to think that I found him ugly or something like that. The feelings just weren't there at the time. But I didn't have the self-awareness that I have now, so I just came up with a bunch of rationalizations. I didn't know how to articulate my feelings.

It would be very incorrect to think that human beings aren't still wired in this way. We're mostly not conscious of it, so it feels the way that you describe it. But it's still the thing that drives us to have sex, even if we don't consciously want a baby. So, it's important not to negate the effects of the lower nature's programming on our mating behaviors. Of course, few people think of this when in the process of courtship. It doesn't feel like this would be the thing driving us forward because the higher nature has lots of ideas and ideals that frame and obscure the urges and impulses of the lower nature. We're still animals, at the end of the day. Knowing this will help you understand so much more about human sexual behavior without feeling slighted by the natural differences that occur between members of each sex. But I would caution you also to be aware of your feelings and prejudices relative to women. I can tell you have some anger. If your opinions are negative about an entire gender, it's usually because of personal repression and projection onto the perceived other. I recommend looking into Anima possession. I have a video on it, if you're interested. If you want to let go of your anger, seek to understand and not to judge.

I don't recommend doing this, as it's really uncomfortable to be on the receiving end of a pick-up attempt and having to reject someone. And if she were honest she would just have to say "I don't find you attractive," which sounds like an insult even if none is intended. It makes a woman feel like the man is in a low place and that by telling him her true feelings it would put him in an even lower place. So, please don't do this. But I think a deeper issue is that you're confusing male attraction mechanics with female attraction mechanics. A man (biologically reptilian brain-wise) is wired to "spread the seed" to as many reasonably attractive women as he can. So, from the purely biological perspective, his screening process is based on a few, relatively quantifiable factors that relate mostly back to physical attractiveness. Does she hold up as the potential incubator for human life to come into being? And the standards are not too high, because he can afford a few weak offspring due to the breadth with which he can spread his genes. A man can have thousands of children in his lifetime. It sounds harsh, but he can afford a few duds. Better to mate with someone under his standards and risk having a dud, then to not mate at all. So, in the initial stages of attraction, male attraction can be boiled down to a checklist of a few factors largely based on appearance. And a man knows exactly why any given women doesn't make the cut. But chances are, quite a large number of women will make the cut. From my experience, men are not super picky. Female attraction (from the biological reptilian-brain level) is very different. She can have one child per year and her body, mind, and emotions are taxed in a major way while she's growing and carrying the child. Also, once the baby is born, the woman (in most cases throughout human history) takes on the brunt of the child-rearing for nearly two decades. So, she (from the purely biological level) is not wired to be as liberal with her choices in men, as men are with their choices in women. She CANNOT afford any dud children. She has much fewer chances to pass on her genes, so that man has to be super duper awesome and compatible. There is not a simple checklist of a few quantifiable qualities, that determine whether or not she's attracted. Female attraction, from my experience, comes up intuitively and has no cause. It's just chemistry... either it happens or it doesn't. Now, there are deal breakers. If I have great chemistry with a guy and he does a deal-breaker, this will change my feelings for him and make the chemical reaction inert. But there are not deal-makers. It's either there or it isn't there. Of course, the base biological level isn't all there is. Men and women are a lot more similar than different once deeper feelings come into play. But, with some exceptions, we're totally different with our initial attraction styles. So, don't take it personally, and don't put a woman in that position. It can feel very uncomfortable and intimidating to be approached in the first place, then to have to explain why is just all kinds of awkward. This is coming from a woman with social anxiety who hates hurting people's feelings. It's like going by a kiosk at the mall and they're trying to sell you something. And you say you're not interested, and then they ask you why not. Just remember that she isn't emotionally wired the same way as you are in this manner. Her rejection doesn't mean that she finds you ugly or stupid or annoying or any other negative trait. It's not your fault that she didn't find you attractive and there's nothing you can do about it. It just means that the chemistry wasn't there, for no other reason than that it wasn't. You can't improve yourself into a woman's heart. That's why the friend zone is permanent. It's when a woman, instead of just saying "I don't find you attractive", sugar-coats it and just says "I'd rather be friends" which sounds nicer and avoids the harsher sounding truth.

If we decide to leave, I'll be sure to post about it on here. And I'll mention you in the thread. But there's another post I made in this thread where I talk about the things that have to happen before we decide to leave (i.e. nuclear war threats, Trump gathering a civilian army, internment of Muslims/immigrants/etc., Violence in public spaces as the norm, etc.). We'd rather stick around if we can, so we'll only leave if it's really serious.

It's definitely a concern of mine. My husband and I have a Plan B for our family if particular things happen, that I mention earlier on in the thread. We live in Florida. Plan A is to live life like normal. But if things take a critical turn, we know to go sooner rather than later.

I'm not sure if you read my earlier comment. But I went to a New-Agey workshop back in April 2016, when the primaries were still going on. I think Trump might not even have had the Republican nomination yet. But I was definitely still rooting for Bernie, as were many others who attended. So, the spiritual teacher there, who is known for psychic abilities told me and a group of about 20 other people all the stuff that I wrote above. I don't know if these things will actually come to pass. But so far, it all sounds eerily plausible. And several things have already come to fruition.

It was all said in a general conversation, so I don't recall an exact timeline. They had mentioned that Trump was set to win the election, because he would crash the system quicker and that we all opted into this from the perspective of the higher self. They said Trump would get in there and begin making drastic changes immediately, and that he would crash the system causing WWIII and economic collapse. They said Russia and China (and maybe North Korea - if memory serves) would get involved. And that Vladimir Putin would be involved. They said a bit about Putin that I don't recall. But I do recall that they called him a sociopath, making him incredibly dangerous as he's able to make moves that are against humanity without feeling remorse. Then they said that just about the only place in the world that wouldn't be experiencing the war and devastation would be in Central and South America. Which they lamented because they don't really like those areas that much. They also said that the history books would remember this war as being unofficially started in 2001 as a result of 9/11 and George W. Bush's presidency, and would just come to a boiling point under the Trump presidency as a result of having Trump in office. They said that it was best to make plans to leave ASAP and not to give it more than 3 or 4 months into Trump's presidency, because these things would happen in fairly short order once Trump takes office. That's all I can recall. I do wish I would have paid more attention to when they were talking about China and Russia though.

Haha I'm glad the video was helpful. It can be difficult to spot the underlying causes. But I can clearly see now, in retrospect, how my life circumstances were setting me up for obsessions to occur.

I've had two intense romantic obsessions in my life, and both had deeper causes than I was aware of while in the midst of them. I share my personal insights on obsession in this video. I hope that it is helpful.

I'm glad that you dodged that bullet. My husband, who is Hungarian, was in his early teens when it collapsed. He said things were tough for a lot of older people who were used to Communism. But the situation in Hungary after the collapse pales in comparison to what was happening in Russia, due to the fact that the Hungarian government mellowed out quite a bit in the 70s and 80s. Long story short, I'm glad that you didn't end up in a child gang or some other crazy stuff like that.

I don't see how this relates to what I said. Can you clarify?

Well, I think it depends on what you feel when you listen to it. So, if it makes you feel empowered then it is positive. However, you want to be sure not to mix the empowered feeling with the negative meanings in the song. So, if you feel empowered by the music but the lyrics say "do cocaine!", then be sure to separate out the idea "do cocaine" from the feeling of empowerment. I was always a big fan of progressive rock, grunge, and other hard rock genres. It made me feel on top of the world, which was important to me as someone who had always been walked on it life. So, I found a healthy outlet for my anger, an anti-dote to powerlessness, and an expression for my darkness and strangeness in these genres. However, some negativity did come along with these musical tastes due to the fact that I had a very strong ego and I romanticized certain negative things or convinced myself that I liked things that I didn't because of my identity that was very much shaped by my musical tastes. So, I don't think there's anything inherently negative with enjoying metal and it's important to be honest and not resist what you truly enjoy. However, just be sure that it doesn't feed into an unhealthy ego- identity, and that you can separate out the wheat from the chaff.

I'm sure evangelical religious people feel the same way. But on the receiving end of evangelizing, people feel uncomfortable with people trying to convert them over to a new way of thinking. It's best to give up on it and lead by example. Those that are suited for it, will mostly silently appreciate your example. But it's best to let go of the desire to introduce the lifestyle to close friends and family.