aurum

That's why we have drugs.

Various forms of ethical non-monogamy can be a way to achieve variety. But you also have to be able to handle your partner having sex with other people.

Something like that, yes. But I also think anything is going to start to feel mechanical once you've done it enough. We just place a much higher standard on sex to be exciting. Sign my petition to sometimes allow sex to be boring, please

I feel like sexual quantity is easy for me to satisfy. I can have sex 1-2x per week and be perfectly content. Maybe even less. The bigger problem I've had has been variety. It's easy in a LTR for sex to start to feel mechanical, or to start fantasizing about other women.

The point is to discern bias from non-bias. Her bias is pro-male, anti-feminist. Which is not to say all her points are incorrect or invalid. You can be biased and still make valid points.

She makes some fair points, but the bias is obvious. Calling it unbiased is a stretch.

This is like baby spirituality. Nothing serious is going mainstream anytime soon.

God cannot be a human, because a human is a limited finite form.

Connor is one of the most developed masculinity influencers.

@Meeksauce Don't speculate. Just initiate something with the friend and you'll have your answer.

A thought is made of the same substance of everything else. Pure consciousness.

I mean if you contemplate all the things the mainstream is right about, you will realize it outweighs what it gets wrong. Anti-mainstream bias is also full of shit.

I don't see how that changes what I said.

The mainstream is actually more right than wrong. It's just that on areas where it's wrong, it's a big deal. Because then all of society is essentially brainwashed. It's easy to take for granted everything the mainstream gets right because it's just so obvious. Anti-mainstream bias is real.

Okay but why is it superior to other relational models? You can model reality in a trillion different ways. Why should I use your framework for analyzing a fight with my spouse over other frameworks?

@Cred It's certainly a unique way of trying to categorize people. I just don't understand what the point of it is. What unique explanatory power does your model have they we don't already have?

Are you seriously simping for Jeffery Epstein right now?

A good summary:

Okay. But then if it's not philosophy, what are you defining as a "meaningful conversation"? What is actually "interesting"? And why would she need to be into self-development for that to happen?

I actually think we're quite similar. My mind is also very active. I need analytical, philosophical depth. I need to be working on a bigger vision. The difference between you and I is that I'm not expecting those things from a romantic partner. Those are mostly things I do when I'm alone. As yes, it does require that I prioritize alone time even in a relationship. Which can be challenging. But then that allows me to authentically feel engaged when I'm with her, just in a different way. It's allocation of needs. As far as values, I don't really care what she values in the abstract. I would never ask her "what are your values?" when screening for a relationship. Instead, I look for the end result of how we operate together. How is our chemistry? Is there polarity? Is there intimacy? Do we both feel like our needs are being met? If so, that's what matters. This is a felt experience, not a narrative based one.

But what is a meaningful conversation exactly? Talking about spirituality and philosophy? If so, I do not find that is where intimacy comes from in a polarity relationship. I like when she pulls me out of my head, not into it.

I visited there years ago. Lovely people, but the project itself essentially died with Jacque. It was more like a museum of his work when I was there.

I use the word "God" because I grew up catholic. It's also the word that came to me during one of my first awakening experiences. Otherwise I don't care at all. I'm also fond of Pure Consciousness, Infinity or Source.

Polarity, intimacy and someone who could be the mother of my kids. Everything else is negotiable.

That's where you and I differ. I don't think like that at all. I've not found that to be the case either. As long as she is not actively restricting my growth, I'm able to grow just fine. Whether she deeply understands my growth is not essential for me. I'm looking for polarity, intimacy and someone who could be the mother of my kids. Development-wise, I think SD Green is a reasonable ask.