Princess Arabia

It's not about loving more or loving less, but more about how you're directing the love that you already are. If I'm loving someone less, it's because I'm loving something else more. There's no escaping love.

You are loving every minute every day every sec because that's what you are. It is only being disguised as other twisted forms of emotions if it's not directly recognized. When you hate, you are still loving something. When you're depressed you're still loving. Loving as in the verb. You hate this because you love that. You're depressed because you're loving something that's apparently out of reach. You're anxious because you're loving something you fear might not happen because you're expecting something else to happen, You're being selfish because of the love of survival. You abuse your partner because you're loving whatever is causing you to abuse them as in alcohol or drugs or whatever. I can go on but you get the drift. There's nothing but love. So it's not about the more you love as it is to channel your love in a more positive light, because you can love more by loving the drugs you take some more, Love comes in all different shapes and sizes and can be disguised as hate and other negative emotions.

oh my, you scared me. I thought the Aliens were attacking my computer with all those @Princess Arabia's. Much love. Not trying to win, just express.

Nicely put.

ok, you're still navigating from a specific place and all your navigations are going to stem from those memories which is fine, but the rest of your narratives aren't coming from a place of where you'd like to go only from how you'd like it to be but you can't get from point A to B all by yourself and depending on whether you're taking the bus, train or car those navigations are going to have to adjust accordingly. So you see, it's not just about your navigations but who you're navigating with and that will take some twists and turns because you are still using something or someone for the navigation.

It means to hold yourself in high regard. To not let people walk all over you. To set boundaries for yourself that's in your best interest without it being selfishly displayed and hurting others in the process. It means to educate yourself about yourself. It means to know yourself. It means to nourish yourself and to feed it in a way in all types of ways that it grows in accordance with it's intended use and purpose. It means to show and display love to others the best you can because they are a reflection of you. To love others is to love yourself and vice versa. I could go on, but I'll leave it here.

That's not how an empowered person thinks. A woman cannot destroy your life unless you let them. So because you're not capable of securing your own, you set principles that you yourself won't break because that is your security blanket because you don't trust yourself to not lose yourself.

That's fine. To each is own, but it's still a form of protecting your wounds, because you wouldn't even know how to protect yourself if you didn't show vulnerability in the first place and was wounded by it. You wouldn't even know what losing yourself meant if you didn't experience it in the first place. Now, you got a taste and it didn't feel good and now you're making sure it doesn't happen again. Again, protecting and bandaging the wounds. That's why we fear falling in love, nit for the love itself but for fear if losing ourselves. You're revealing more of my point the more you speak. There are patterns that make up our individuality and memories that we cling unto. Nothing to do with conscious choices. You think you're doing it, but the decisions are being made for you. That's what your name implies, no-self, because if you were so much in control, you wouldn't be worrying about losing your SELF.

If you're aware that it's toxic behavior then you're only unconsciously hurting yourself. If you're unaware that it's toxic, you're still only hurting yourself. So, just from it being toxic period, it's of no value, only survival based. Nothing wrong with that, but eventually the so-called "value" will become invaluable in the long run.

The degree to which you love yourself is the degree to which you are capable of showing and giving love. So saying you'll love yourself more than a woman doesn't mean you're showing her less love than yourself, it only means that's how much you're capable of loving yourself.

What you're saying here i get, but I was referring to the fact you said "toxic". I'm assuming you know they are toxic but still stand by them, that's what I was responding to, not just merely having principles or boundaries and stating upfront who you are as a person. If one has toxic principles and are aware they are toxic, and will stand by them no matter what, that,s a wounded individual, that's why I used the word. Maybe your use of the word toxic altered your meaning. Also, stop saying I know nothing about game because I'm the one the game is being played on. I'm the referee in your game. I decide if it works or not. I may not need to learn fame but u sure know how to referee it.

This right here is coming from a hurt individual. A wounded character. If you're going to go into a relationship with a woman, boundaries needs to be set into place but cannot be selfishly and strictly based on principles that are only for your own gratifications. Compromise is key, and the other's best interest. You say if your principles are toxic then, oh well, I won't change them for a woman because that'll make me weak, ilm assuming that's the reason; but that's exactly what makes a man weak when he's not flexible enough to accommodate the woman in his life even if it means to adjust his own toxic principles. This is saying I don't care about you, I'm only protecting my wounds.

What he said is what happens a lot, the most beautiful or the most handsome is not always who gets laid the most or even gets approached the most. Doesn't matter especially with men, beautiful women will get more attractions but men need to step up their game more and it has nothing to do with looks.

This is the KEY right here. It is kind of pointless to ask if women are attracted to looks because that depends on who's looking. What some fail to understand is that just because one is attractive, even if EVERYONE in the whole wide world thinks that person is attractive, it doesn't mean everyone will find them SEXUALLY attractive. We're not talking about a modelling contract here or trying to hire someone for a poster event, we're talking about sexual attraction and people have different things they are turned on by. An ugly girl with long legs could attract a guy who just loves long-legged girls or big boobs or curly hair or whatever, but when it comes to women, for the most part what attracts us is a guys personality; but don't get me wrong, i didn't say he has to have a good personality or one of high caliber. He can still be an ass a jerk a moron - whatever, or kind, gentle and compassionate, but that's what attracts her most not his looks. When a guy approaches, yes she's looking at his looks but that alone will not deter or repel her nor the opposite, his game, personality and how he makes her feel is more important. Not his butt size or lack of a six pack or beard.

I'm not saying these are the only criteria or even what they set out to do consciously. People of good quality and positive traits and characteristics will still have vain ways about them and doesn't mean its the only thing that they look at when it comes to settling down in a monogamous relationship. What you're saying is great and should be why people are together but certain things are inherent and are not even done on a conscious level and are sometimes survival based.

That's just a belief. And not one with any merit either. You're just going off of assumptions here. Probably looking at groupies and women who are really just gold-diggers and who provide no value and who might not care about fame or status and will just milk you just for milking sake. Just because a woman likes men of status or high-value (which can be defined differently) doesn't mean she's a gold digger or is of low quality. That's just a personal assessment and carries no weight.

No, that I need to look better than you, is how most attractive women feel. That you won't be in the mirror longer than me and that you won't spend too much on your looks and spend it on me instead, and that you don't outshine me physically. Outshine me in status, personality, accomplishments etc., but not looks. That's how they think, indirectly. Subconsciously.

Please don't ask Leo about how much does looks play a role in relationships or influences a man's attractiveness. @kamillsaid it perfectly. Of course, if you're dried up and look like a bum on the street or dirty and smell like garbage it won't work so well, but that's the obvious and works both ways, but on a general scale most women don't really care and, listen to this, because it's very important ESPECIALLY THE HOT, VERY FEMININE ATTRACTIVE ONES. They're not running around seeking handsome dudes with muscles, a six pack and who dresses like Don Juan, they are mostly attracted to men's traits, character and personality - whatever that may be. The looks is just an added bonus.

Yeah, makes sense.

Grandma ain't making the laws. Sorry. Most people in politics are stage red or orange. I noticed you didn't mention these stages. Even the so-called stages you've mentioned have engaged even if it's by patronizing.

I'm in the sex industry, sorry. Speaking from direct experience.

Didn't even knew it was possible to be something or someone other than yourself in a dream. Anytime I've dreamt, that I can remember anyway, I was always myself. Not the same character I am now as in doing the same things and having the same friends, but me as a person. I dream a lot about celebrities. Like me and Beyonce are friends in the dream and I'll be hanging out at her concert or me and 50cent hanging out in a platonic way. Beyonce more than once, and it felt so real. More celebs but I can't remember who exactly now cause it's been erased. I think J-lo and Mariah and Puffy. BTW, is it true you can never die in your dreams. Someone told me that, but idk if it's true or not. I've never died in my dreams, but have come close. Always woken up at the verge when I was about to. I used to dream of plane crashes and one would crash three days later in real life. Not in a while with that one though.

Nothing to do with morals. These law makers don't care about morality. It's mainly because these girls aren't paying taxes. Just like selling drugs, drug dealers don't pay taxes. They legalized marijuana and now they're getting their cut. It's a lucrative business. Always look at the monetary side of things before you see morality. People's best interest isn't in mind when it comes to making laws, it's about dollars and cents. Now, in order to legalize the sex industry a lot has to be considered, that's why it's not that popular. Not sure of all the details but nothing to do with morals. Neighborhoods and vicinities are sometimes a factor because of what goes with the industry. Ilm referring to the US anyway.

These girls aren't out there enjoying the act, no. They just tolerate it and do their job. Porn is different. You'll find most enjoy it their but mostly because they're drugged up. It's not common to find females enjoying sex with strange men. Also bear in mind the sex industry doesn't always involve intercourse. Sex work entails a variety of things.