Bobby_2021

Laughed out of my ass lmao wtf

I am not an introvert, but this is big for me. I needs lots of time alone and women might perceive that as lack of interest. But that is not the case. Not having alone time will only make me more miserable over time. I just need a break, not a breakup. And that is not because of something that happened. Just some time alone for the sake of it. For me, this is how I want love. By leaving me alone for some time. That would take the excitement away. It is typically how a SD blue mind would interpret what I said. Because all they can see is duty and responsibility. That is not what I meant at all. Availability implies dynamism. There is a possibility of sex, but you do not know if it will happen. Being sexually available do not have more connotations to it. It simply means what it means. They way I suggest needs a higher order of development. It requires the man to judge if she is in the mood as well. As I said this is not your typical forcing people to get what they want. You can be sexually available without having sex, you do know that this is a possibility right? The opposite is not being sexually available. Which leads to more frustrations and breakups, cheating later on. SD Blue = Have sex every Friday because that is how the bible says so. Sex becomes a chore, which is suppressing the woman. SD Orange = Give me sex in return for flashy life, cars, money etc Everything is a transaction. SD green = open relationships with no expectation of sexual exclusivity. SD yellow = Realizing that all previous stages were looking for love and you can maintain exclusivity and love. Give what the other partner wants. That is love. Else there will be consequences that were apparent in the previous stages. I am talking about a yellow way of relationships. There will be elements of blue and orange and green in it. But that is not what I am talking about.

What do you mean lol?

I do not know if it's true, but I read a study that a medieval peasant had more leisure time than a modern day corporate slave. Also I like a lot of physical labor especially if it is adventurous. Going hunting and stuff should be cool.

If you are looking for certainty, I am afraid you won't find it. It's called game for a reason. You cannot predict the outcome. That is by design. If there was some that women could do that would definitively retain a man, then it would be called cause and effect. Not game. Even game for men doesn't imply that he will get every other woman to sleep with him. If he is an expert, then maybe 5% of the women be willing to sleep with him on a lucky day. You will retain him if you don't piss him off, given that he loves you in the first place. But even if he loves you, there is a high chance that you will lose him, if time spent with you is full of chaos & bullshit. I didn't say it will. But not being sexually available will not keep him either. Do you want to maximize your chances of retaining him or not? Yes. He should also get some back love in the form of peace and sex. We are both saying the same thing. She loves him with sex, her feminity or whatever. He loves her with attention, emotional attachment, and whatever she wants. You clearly do agree that she should love him, isn't it? What I am saying is that love isn't abstract, but it come in the form of sex. Love is physical. Not abstract. Love should materialise physically. It should find expression in the body. The best chances of retaining him is in loving him with as much sex & feminity as he wants. Or if he isn't looking for sex he must be seeking love in some other ways. Then give him that love. I don't know what kind of love he is looking for. But most men are looking for love in the form of sex. Loving him more seems to be a reasonable strategy for retaining him. I can't explain it better.

A normal heterosexual relationship implies that she is the only creature in this world he can have sex with. So if she isn't sexually available, where is he supposed to have sex? Note that love for the man comes in form of sex. He will expect to get sex just like you would expect his attention. I said "be sexually available" only if you want to retain him. She has all the freedom in the world to not be sexually available. But then, don't be surprised when he leaves you to get sex from women who are sexually available. No one will force anyone to do anything. On the same note, if the man is not giving enough attention to his woman, them even she will leave him. Two people are having sex because they both were sexually available in the first place. Available to take calls doesn't mean that you have to on phone 24/7. It just means, you are available to take calls when they occur. If you are not available, then no problem. Someone else will take the calls in your place. Don't worry I don't take anything you said personally.

What you guys don't get is that Love takes physical forms. Love takes the form of sex, food, attention, emotional attachment etc. Men want love in the form of sex whilst women may want it in the form of money or attention. For a broke women money is love for her. So it's okay for her to seek love in the form of money. Is it the husband's responsibility to provide? No, but your lady will perceive it as love, incase that's what she is looking for. Love for women comes in the form of attention, feeling of safety being etc. Does it always have to be the case for all women? No. Different people look for love in different ways. If you can seperate sex from love, then don't blame men when goes looking for sex somewhere else. He is looking for love. If he can't get it from his woman, then some other women will give it to him. In this day and age, no one is forced or should be forced to give anything. None of which I said implies anything of that sort. Anyways make up your own mind.

If a women wants to maximize the chances of retaining a man, then be less of a hassle as you can in his life. Make his life as peaceful as possible. Don't nag him or pester him. Dealing with many women has become insufferable. If that's the case, he will definitely leave even before you know it. In short reduce the hassle. Increase what he likes: Be sexually available, be feminine etc. This is the game of retention for women. But just like game for men, no game is perfect. It's just maximises your chances. This game for women is made under the assumption that you have selected the right man for you in the first place. You don't want to retain the wrong man for sure.

🔥

I don't see any solution to this. Israel played the game well and mastered it from the bottom up. They might even issue a public apology that they were in the wrong after they made gaza inhabitable and the world would move on after 2 weeks. Revolutions are a thing of the past. That would do more harm than good. You need power. There is no solution to not having power. That's what get stuff done. Not revolution by the masses. One powerful man can easily clamp down a revolution, in practice. In theory revolutions should work since the masses are bigger in number.

You seriously believed all this crap? In the western world there is group of people knows as the globalists who are incredibly wealthy and powerful, promote stuff like LGBTQ in the name of liberation from oppression. Everyone who doesn't agree with them is a fascist /Nazi/ Antisemite/ racist. I am not even joking. They will throw hundreds of millions dollars in propaganda to spread this narrative and average people who don't have two brain cells gobble this up. They have plans, playbooks and even research institutes to study and orchestrate methods to destabilize governments, and spread chaos and division in the public. They don't not live by anything they preach. In fact they get to rape, kill and bomb people as they like. No one should question them, since others are too broke anyway. Epstein was only a slice of the pie that was forever sealed from the general public.

Biden is a pushover and is too old to dictate terms to anyone. He will bend over backwards to anyone who has strong enough power and money. But Trump is unpredictable. So it might, just might, have a possibility with Trump to get Israel back on its knees. Again, Trump is broke at the moment so you know what would happen. He will gladly take bribes from the, you know who. But you can't say that there isn't possibility Trump would do something other than what Biden is doing right now. He might take the right decisions for all the wrong reasons.

It's so heart touching when you put it in context of all they went through. What a time and what an experience it was to be a Soviet soldier in the 20th century. I wouldn't mess with them.

Taxes do not fund anything. The American people are not directly responsible for paying to develop weapons in the military. It's the people in power and a facade of democracy that's the problem. Democratic government are not there to enact the will of the people. There is still a oligarch style rule going on. Money rules whoever or whichever party comes to power. And Israel lobby has USA by the balls. They own the richest corporations in the US and throw money at US politicians who will send money to Netanyahu. They are incredibly biased and powerful. You can say whatever but average Americans are not funding a genocide. It's just that the governments are disconnected from the will of the people.

@Husseinisdoingfine Thanks. I see you can relate to it nicely. `

I hope they don't starve those people to death.

Thanks for the quick response and action. 🤝🏻

@OBEler @Sincerity I think this topic is more appropriate in the society/politics section. Would you be willing to move it over there?

I live under one, although a much more watered down version of it. I know it's shit. I am seeing the same patterns over and over again and they are slowly collapsing just like every other socialist government did. The world has accepted that fact long time ago and moved on. Communism effectively died by 1991. We are merely seeing all the good that came out of it inspite of all the tragedies it caused. Of course the tragedy part is well emphasized. You can see how Russian art is drenched in nihilism & depression. Even their architecture reflects that. That's what communism implies. To give up the individual for the sake of the community. It drains the souls of the individuals. But it was not for nothing.

Yup. My mother tells me that the newspapers and magazines that were in circulation in the 70s & 80s while she was in school was mostly soviet inspired magazines. Hell even there is a communist party that is ruling the state I am in. All of them drew heavy inspiration from USSR, and some of then even expect them to come back to their former glory. For real though, Britan & US really thought that India would end up like some shithole like banana republics in South America. They tried to pull of their destabilization schemes in India although none of them quite worked. They still fund Pakistan to this day for some reason to keep India in check. In all those testing times for India, we had to need USSR to come to our support. That sense of unity was quite necessary at the time, while the leaders of the "free world" tried to undermine our country. I don't know about others nations, but Soviet Union was a strong emotion in India throughout the late 20th century. Westerners are usually in a bubble of their own so I get why they wouldn't know about these things. Also it's not merely about cultural values per say, the US straight up bullies into submission anyone who goes against their agenda in the name of democracy and human rights. So people understood that deal with the US is as good as a deal written on water. They will turn against us in a moment's notice, while USSR had our backs and maintained relationships all along for a long time.

That would mean that others can see what we think too. Scary.

Russia has paraded a 3,000-tonne nuclear submarine "K3 Leninisky" nicknamed The Whale through the streets of Russia. This gigantic submarine, measures about 352ft - roughly the length of a football pitch - made its way through Kronstadt, close to St Petersburg, yesterday. This will be turned into a relic and kept in a museum. And i have a strong belief that this is the same submarine that Russia deployed in the Indian Ocean during 1971 war. U.S supported Pakistan by sending an aircraft carrier in the Indian Ocean to intimidate India. Russian nuclear submarine showed up in the Indian Ocean to support India. A simple story of "showing up for a friend”. https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1682167/putin-news-russia-nuclear-submarine-K-3-Leninsky-Komsomol-ussr