eos_nyxia

Funky ideas? I have my own set of self-protective boundaries, as does this community. It's basically built into the forum rules; you ought to read it if you haven't. You do too, or else there would be nothing to get defensive about. Have you ever met or interacted with the person in question? In her own way, she did not want to be helped, or she wanted it only on her very specific, often changing terms, which I empathize with... but it was exhausting. (Someone else also mentioned her refusing to get professional help at the time.) She regularly picked fights (or vice versa) with people publically and privately and then would make up with them (or not). Like I said, she set many people on edge, including other people with various diagnosed conditions on here, including people who also suffered from suicidal ideation. Those people matter too, you know. I also tried to "help" as much as I could at times as I had talked to her quite a bit in PM, even when she was.... not so nice to me... though I don't know what good it did in the long term. She and everyone else either got kicked out or moved on. I am not saying that she deserved to suffer, or that she actively wanted to suffer. There is a difference. But I know that multiple people already did their best with her, within their means.

REALITY: I’m getting pickier: why would I settle for subpar interactions with the opposite sex, whether it’s flirting or sex, when I already have it amazingly good? Plus my intuition takes the mystery out of all of it these days. I look into people's eyes, really pay attention to their vibe and what they say, even if just for a moment's notice; I know what I need to know about them and what they have to offer, but also what they COULD offer me if I also offered everything I could offer to them freely. Sure, I could hypothetically find a way to facilitate and find better connections, by why sift through all the trash when things could be peaceful instead? Why is this worth the extra time and energy? cautiousness about rocking the boat. Both my husband and I are fairly physically inexperienced, and I know if we change this, obviously we cannot go back. actually enjoying being someone’s full, first priority in all ways, and I enjoy knowing that I can fulfill someone in this way. To become more fully this with someone. (This is a purely selfish thing. So what? The only thing that’s really wrong with selfishness is if you’re not capable of also being “selfish” on other people’s behalf in return, whether it’s one person or many, or if it’s in romantic and sexual relationships or friendships. Selfish/ selfless, it’s all the same thing at the beginning and the very end of it all...) If I’m being honest, not being at the centre of a poly man’s focus (assuming he was also non-single) doesn’t turn me on. At all. And by not being a turn on, I don't just mean that I would get jealous, though I might. (Jealousy isn't a "bad" emotion, by the way.) I mean that it's an utter, blinding bore... and because I don't hate myself, I like people who are completely certain about being into me, showing it, and making it their priority. If he’s only focused on me when he’s with me because he has his own other partners to focus on later, then I will respond in turn. It's a purely selfish thing for sure and not a game worth playing. I have nothing to gain from this. having trust. This matters more to me than it otherwise might, because my own family and most of my connections were deeply, highly untrustworthy in the past. I spent so long dealing with a lack of variety (in personalities and bodies) that I do actually feel like I probably am not missing out that much. Interacting with the opposite sex tends to confirm that, unfortunately. the thought of excessive complications isn’t that appealing, like the risk/ reward ratio seems far less worthwhile. For example: not wanting to have someone get between us and poison our well, but also not wanting to exclude people and make them feel like an outsider either, or like a 3rd or 4th wheel. (Everyone ought to pick what focus matters most in their lives, depending on what they wish to experience and accomplish, based on your most important values.)

Here is an issue; it’s a categorical one: people want to fit the entire value of human connection into this box: monogamous relationships people want to fit the entire value of human connection into this box: polyamorous relationships Good relationships are good relationships, the form can vary. Harmony can occur in various containers and structures. I've spent over half my life considering myself poly by sexual orientation, both sexually and emotionally, but have veered sharply towards monogamy in practice. It's a choice I made. But the thing is, even a bunch of “good” partners would not take the place of my husband, especially now more than ever. IDEAL POLY: everyone is truly mindful and advocating for everyone else’s best interests and desires everyone has the space to be fully seen and heard, and people allow themselves to be truly seen and heard people honour each other as human beings first and foremost, without prioritizing “getting theirs” first (which can be difficult if you’re part of a LTR/ marriage unit as you tend to prioritize that person by default) everyone has the chance to have their desires realized in a mutually agreed upon, open, and self-aware way you have ways of processing your emotions as a group and disentangling from each other when necessary (again, for everyone's mutual benefit) there are more opportunities to grow and explore than there would be if you were just restricted to monogamous relationships, an opportunity for a different sort of complexity and richness than there would be otherwise (like a soup with many different ingredients, lol) more opportunities for actual emotional commitment and development in your life (for those of us who were never just interested in keeping people in our lives, having deeper connections, not just a rotation of sex “friends” and flings) more emotional support from different people with shared values (like a built-in community or "village"), more variety of emotional support with people who have different strengths and energies... if it works well, arguably this can be more balanced than just relying on one person to fulfill all your needs and desires. I think of it a bit like having a large extended, involved family instead of a nuclear family (the latter which is pretty "unnatural" because the structure is most often a result of societal conditioning first and not two people spontaneously being in love with each other and making that choice out of pure desire rather than in the spirit of restriction).

Not just drama on the public forum, but in private messages and getting directly between people who otherwise would not have so many issues with each other, or would at least be able to sort things out in a more straightforward way. Source: I was there. A lot of the people she dealt with in PM were dealing with issues themselves, including myself, as I had a lot that I needed to sort out at the time. I don't think... ultimately she was good for any of us. I mean this respectfully... I think her heart was in the right place. She's on another forum now anyway.

This is a terrible idea... Even if you're not held legally responsible for someone killing themselves (are you? can you be?), people in a community will hold you morally responsible if that person ends up doing it, whether you could feasibly have done anything to prevent it or not. It follows people who are considered to be in "role model"/ leader type positions around like a black stain, at least until the original people leave or memories fade. This happened at least once on this forum already while Preety was still here. Personally, I would only ever be directly responsible for someone in this way if 1) we had a long-standing, otherwise stable relationship (friends, partner) 2) they're my relatives, or if we lived in a world without any other social resources or infrastructure. Unfortunately, I have a finite amount of time and energy to direct toward certain causes, even if I did happen to be competent with dealing with distressed people. Feasibly, someone could be helped/ supported if they had more of an outside support system and if they could manage mutually beneficial boundaries (or at least, manage their own boundaries). People who come to spiritual communities are often severely lacking in both. I'm not blaming them; it is what it is.

Added Thought: To make it too much harder than it already is... is patronizing, since it's most often based on the assumption that people can't or don't deserve to make their own fundamental decisions about the quality and meaning of their own life and experience. If you truly care about the well-being of suicidal people (as opposed to obsessing about them being able to do it in a more "convenient" and painless way rather than killing themselves), then forbidding this is likely to backfire and cause those people to suffer more because of the sheer amount of invalidation already existing in their subjective experience. It is unlikely to stop someone from either wanting to kill themselves or actually doing it when it gets bad enough and they get desperate. IMO this is a bit different than the government not providing assisted suicide facilities because they've decided that making decisions about death isn't their jurisdiction, just because it is not within their scope of responsibilities as a government. Intentions and reasons matter, especially when people don't live in social vacuums. Often it is actually INVALIDATION, ISOLATION, and self-negation at the heart of suicidal ideation, not just "pain" alone, whether psychological or physical, even if the pain seems massive and unending in scope. It's believing that you are fundamentally alone, incurable, unreachable, not understandable, unlovable, not worthy... whether by humanity, God, Life itself, etc. Or believing that it is legitimately all for nothing.

IMO, a bottleneck-type effect is more than enough to deter people who might be doing it more "impulsively", which comes in the form of whatever series of passes and checks that people have to go through to reach their objective. For whatever already exists for countries that allow assisted suicide, this is likely a process that involves multiple years, I imagine at least 2-3 years at the bare minimum on top of a longer waitlist, and likely multiple psychiatric and/or medical assessments. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong...) That automatically weeds out the impulsive and those without determination, leaving a very small fraction of people who were actually serious about the outcome, have likely already thought about the outcome extensively, and have had more than enough time to come to terms with what they desire. Much like anything else which is difficult in life that involves going directly against the grain. Though I don't think we collectively have much to worry about when it comes to this issue of influencing impressionable minds to commit suicide. I wouldn't say that it's making suicide more glamourous or accessible, since people who really want to do it, even if the motives are highly emotional and impulsive, will just do it anyway. Which by the way, was already a known thing with certain cults and even literary works, which triggered clusters of suicides. For example, Goethe's "Sorrows of Young Werther" triggered many suicides when it came out in the late 1700s. Ironically, the book was written because the author himself was trying to process his own suicidal feelings, and his art came from figuring out how to make something positive and constructive despite it all. Art is probably always going to be more glamourous (and therefore influential) than mainstream science and the government, and therefore more influential with impressionable and young minds. Should we just go back to banning art and media? (This is actually what happened with the Sorrows of Young Werther; I believe it got banned in 3 countries.) The primary influencing factor is a fundamental shift in the emotional and moral fabric of the society first and foremost, and not the government permitting people to do something that most people fundamentally DO NOT want to do anyway. Correct. I was more thinking about this in terms of citizen involvement, people like you and I, discussing these issues on the internet. Though perhaps we should also take a look at what politicians DO first, and then measure that against what they say. Talk is cheap... Decision-making without empathy usually leads to decisions that end up harming the people they are meant to protect though. I think of it as Essential Step 1... Without a deep empathy and comprehensive perspective, there is no foundation for anything good and lasting.

There are ways to encourage people to live and re-evaluate their lives, their narratives about life, to continue trying, without wishing to COERCE them into living. And if you can't release your iron grip on your attachment to "life", can you truly love life at all?

1) How is anyone supposed to prove that things get better after you die without supernatural or paranormal means? Or did you mean something else? 2) In any case, what justification does anyone have for the sheer selfishness of telling other people to be in pain... basically for your own benefit and moral code/ belief system? So that your reality is kept safe and intact, so that your idea of a fair/ just worldview is preserved? Look. It's not like any of us are going to be taking on anyone's else pains directly, living out their life for them. Very, very few people are doing whatever is possible to see things and empathizing with people directly from their perspective (as much as humanly possible anyway) rather than pushing their own agenda first and foremost. IMO it's not so different in attitude with people who are pro everyone having kids, but when it comes to doing something themselves about creating a better social support system for mothers and families, let alone actually being the person to help these people directly.... pretty much all of these people who tell others what to do with their life are conveniently absent and absolved of responsibility. Nope, it's just a bunch of people who want to tell people what to do. It very much has the effect of condemning people to life. Ironically, it's very hostile to the human spirit and life itself. Trivializing the subjective quality of life tends to do that.

I had some version of the same anxiety when I was younger, though I tried not to ruminate on it too much. I simply could not trust anyone at a deeper level, which I think was the root of it all. I also got some anxiety from my mom, not about my dad, but her bio dad was a deadbeat. I'm 35; I met my husband when I was 16. He's only grown so much more into me over time, his interest in me has never wavered, and TBH I get even more other attention now than I did when I was younger as well. If there's anything that will "save" you IMO, it's: 1) Are you capable of truly trusting and leaning into that trust? 2) Is the man you're with worthy of your trust, character-wise? And are you capable of seeing him for what he is and what he does with open eyes, rather than through the eyes of your fears, anxieties, and idealistic hopes (or lack thereof), regardless of your feelings for him? With 2), you'll see and sense disinterest and dishonesty miles ahead before anything like cheating would occur, IMO. People usually leave their tells everywhere through their actions, or they will literally tell you who and what they are to your face. So even if you can't trust other people, not yet, you can at least reasonably trust in yourself.

@LambChop If all goes well, you will hopefully age out of feeling this way without needing to do much. Don't let the societal narrative brainwash you! Well, let's be real. Was your dad ever a great partner to your mom before she got "old and conventionally unattractive"? I seriously doubt it. TBH, being this pliant and accommodating rarely works out well for the woman, despite men often saying this is what they want.... look at their actions, they tend to get bored and take them for granted. On some level, the lack of self-respect is repelling to people regardless of gender, age, or background unless they're a leech. Being a doormat is for being used, not being loved, unfortunately.

I'm mildly surprised that no one mentioned the autism diagnosis. Why are so many people acting like they know what it's like to be her, and what sort of unseen, intangible subjective experiences she might have gone through? There is so much more to suffering than being born in a first-world country or not... in some ways, it seems like being forced to fend for your own can survival significantly simplify the human experience, and that's not always a subjectively negative experience, even when people go through terrible ordeals. Haven't you noticed that people who go through these type of challenges tend to have some sense that there is at least a point to it all? In my own experience, if you used to live in the simplicity of survival mode, whatever the source or cause of it, living in a reality which is calmer, more open-ended, more peaceful... it can be extremely unpleasant and overwhelming. The past catches up with you, particularly if strife and aversion to your own body and experience is hardcoded into you since childhood, including at the raw sensory level which is something that many, many autistic people have to live and make sense of on a daily basis. For example, I remember reading about this fairly recent study, as well as some related, earlier studies specifically involving autistic women and childhood CSA. : https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2022/04/27/frontiers-behavioral-neuroscience-sexual-abuse-women-with-autism-widespread/ That's just one of many possible issues.

@KingCrimson It works. Thank you!

Complete derailment of the topic: I thought the lady on the top left still was Gina Rodriguez (an actress) without the glam, and got hella confused.

It looks like this is not officially available in Canada?

Are people still coming to this type of conclusion based on reading "The Singularly is Near"? (Or something adjacent and well-known that's more recent) IDK, I feel like it takes a special type of human to truly, completely, and unironically commit to the transhuman philosophy and techno-utopianism, to believe that problems of inner self-image and management plus the cure to all our existential woes will be wholly resolved and released from yet another form of externalization. This most often seems to be what's at the heart of the spirit of techno-utopianism... though arguably, -true believers- believe in the spirit of the machine in their own way. It's actually not so far from religious/ spiritual fervour. There is an extreme, childlike naivety to this tendency though. As for everyone else, I get the sense that they grew up watching too much sci-fi and cyberpunk media: whether it's books, movies, tv shows, etc. It's good to think about WHY certain cultural narratives are either chronically dystopian or utopian, and what that says about yourself and your culture, and not to look for the truth of the future in these narratives, when it is near-impossible to focus with eyes-wide-open because you can only see what is projected from the emotional root of said narratives. Though if there was a use, this would be more on par, prob: We've barely explored the capacities of the human mind unaided though, for what it's worth. At times, technology has been a huge, unavoidable distraction. We'll never get the best of our selves through directly via externalization technologies and processes, and therefore are limiting what is possible with technology because of said limitations in our beingness.

Is there actually any major culture where this isn't crammed down young girls' and women's throats? Without even necessarily being super direct about it with words, though some cultures and places are super direct about it, still... the message is read loudly and clearly. It's evident enough through people's actions and what is sexualized most easily and availably in culture and media. Alternative cultures and reactionary cultures are just that. Anyone who has read a book involving history or folklore from the past (including fairy tales) or grew up watching Disney movies surely will have gotten the message on one level or another. Try even younger than 30 or 25 in mainland East Asian culture, though maybe it's shifted somewhat. Like my mom is Chinese, "18" is THE age, and East Asian people look young by a lot of other culture's standards too, lol. Though...whatever women might hypothetically have to gain materially and from """high value men""" from that type of thinking is paid back many times in the form of self-hating brainwashing and displacing yourself from your own sovereignty. Like literally... you have to live with yourself either way, and then be in denial most of the time in order to live somewhat peacefully with yourself. Whether you win materially, or you don't. It's an actual lose-lose situation for women. You still have the rest of your life to live... why bother disowning yourself? What did you expect? Living with the cope sprinkles itself freely across all genders and all cultures... I'm sure some would just agree with you and call it a day though.

Always on the money. Add to that list all the other things a man could use a woman for. I'd also add to that list: men who are not emotionally present or who literally do not show up in other ways. Like if they want to be there, they will be THERE. You will be their priority. Everything else is just excuses. And for myself, as much as my teenaged self was rough around the edges emotionally, I always had deadly accurate instincts about who was serious, and how much, and intuitively, what the conditions were. Violating my own intuition and instincts about men came at my own absolute peril.

Yes, that's generally how it goes. You've dealt with all the nuts and bolts of the English language which native speakers take for granted. Likewise, I find that I'm usually way more efficient and direct when I've written in other languages because it's far easier to ensure clarity and general grammatical correctness when you keep things simple. And it's easier to train yourself to write and think simply and directly than it is to account for the number of mistakes you could be making in a foreign language when you make things convoluted. In English, I have the privilege to get away with being as sloppy as shit if I want to be, and still know if it literally means what I intend it to mean and generally falls within the range of acceptable usage and grammar. Though this is done on my own time and terms, obviously. Yes. Communication is generally a compromise of sorts, or meeting people part way. Give or take. There are varying connotations to specific words, many of which are highly context-sensitive. Generally speaking, most of the words you pull out of a thesaurus are not viable at all for specific use, if you consider both literal accuracy and style. Or you can use them and they'll be technically correct by the base dictionary definition of the word, but it will be off to anyone who has any sense of nuance in their native language. Let's just say as an example, often I find words in the thesaurus that have about 30-50% viability in both accuracy and stylistic feel (if I were to quantify something which most often has a moderate degree of subjective interpretation), so I would never select them for specific uses. There are often words that are very simple and broad in their connotations, and there are many words which are much more specific and nuanced in their use. Usually, it's harder to use these less direct and simple words well, and many people consider it stylistically superfluous anyway. So it's not like you're alone with preferring simple, direct language. Really, at a certain point, it's an individual judgment call about "good taste" and communicability. This is the stuff that's often out of reach for non-native speakers unless you spend a ton of time studying and using words in specific contexts: for example, scientific language, editorial language, languages specific to one academic field or another. Word creatives such as novelists, especially the more experimental variety, often have a more novel approach to language and the context (the creative medium) and the reader is expected to adjust their expectations, to a degree. Just like how poetry has different rules and conventions that don't apply to plain English. Some people write the way they do to keep outsiders out. It's a human thing.

You're looking at neurotypical/ mainstream dating places. You're not neurotypical. The odds are extremely stacked against you in your environment. ANY woman? Please. There is no such thing as someone who is good for everyone. This is a fantasy. You're not dating women as a whole category, you're dating individuals who may or may not have various things in common. This is how it's supposed to go; we sever connections with people when our goals are not fundamentally aligned. IMO it's better to get this thing out in the open ASAP and not be sneaky about it so people don't waste their time and energy. The truth is that a lot of people either do not care about these things, or it does not translate into something valued by the other person in and of itself.

Why are you zeroing in on the most dysfunctional, visible dynamics? There's some element of trauma involved in that... why focus straight on the lowest common denominator? Strength of character gives one the power to choose be vulnerable in a way that's meaningful to people. Generally, that's what's attractive. Maybe "most women" and neuronormals are not your type? If I had to do conventional online dating, I'd probably never have dated at all, lol. It's not for everyone. It's cold, superficial, and impersonal by the nature of it.

Yikes. Isn't it better for women to be alone and at least have some kind of peace of mind rather than to settle for someone so clearly settling for you? (Which again goes against RP rhetoric which acts like a bad relationship for women is better than no relationship at all. But then again, who are they fooling except for the very young, naive, and insecure?) How utterly dehumanizing though. But then, dehumanizers dehumanize themselves first.

Out of the many things I could point out in this thread, not all women who look conventionally attractive are showy extroverts, you know. (And some who are, are masking or constantly putting on a performance.) Though maybe that's what people's eyes often gravitate toward; it's understandable. Late bloomers are a thing too. Not everyone actually peaks in high school or college, man or woman. (Despite RP cope propaganda lol.)

I can't believe anyone here remembers all of this. What a trainwreck that was. A lot of the original people who were here either got booted or left of their own accord anyway.

Both Jesus and the Buddha are very... mid-tier? They got the name, the image, and the reputation... that's it. There's probably at least 1000 nameless who do not parade around advertising themselves, who know how to not be seen, as their chosen purpose isn't to ""help people"" IRL, where you'd have to nerf yourself anyway. It's barely worth it. Not to mention that both of them were very much capped by the time periods that they were living in. More powerful, more perceptive, more radiant examples of human beings existed going back in time, also mostly nameless.