eos_nyxia

I've got one thing to say to you:

...I'm not sure whether I should suggest you to let off some steam somewhere else, or to turn that psychoanalytic eye on yourself for once. Why you harassing people? Haha. Do you always harass people who are trying to figure out how to do something nice in a genuinely no-strings-attached kind of way?

I've heard this from both my husband and a few of my closer guy friends over the years. They've preferred to be close friends with women overall, even if they've had male friends they've known for ages, because they can actually talk about their emotions without it getting super weird. With my husband, he never cared for the element of mindless competitive fist-bumping that groups of younger guys especially often do; it's just not his thing. I think it's made worse by the fact that he had a working-class upbringing, and he was still left with the concern about being "too sensitive" and "having too many feelings" even though he's always had some sharp edges and never took shit from people. I get it because I'm a similar way in that I've never cared to compete with my female friends, and on some deep level, it always made me sad when it has happened, or when my intent was interpreted as competitive. However, I feel like a lot of girls either outgrew that habit in puberty (puberty is a confusing hellscape for lots of us!) or else it became much more subtle. As I've grown older, at least in the "real world", it's been a lot easier to gravitate towards people of like mind anyway. IMO the purpose of friends is to find (or create!) a deep level of common interests and shared perspective, and I think it should also be to genuinely uplift each other and have enjoyable interactions. I feel like it's not a real friendship otherwise. I'm super duper basic/straightforward in this way, lol. Thank you for your very helpful perspective as well. I will keep it all in mind, especially the part about not trying too hard.

@Princess Arabia Thank you for your response. It's all good food for thought. TBH Surprised that people took this post... so personally? When this convo came up, it was very casual. Like a thought experiment that might or might not work in reality. Didn't expect this to turn into free psychoanalysis by strangers (especially so quickly lol).

@Buck Edwards How did you manage to make a post where I was mostly interested in general answers, as personal as possible? (Though maybe I didn't make that clear originally IDK.) When I made this post, I wasn't particularly asking for a free critique and a bunch of assumptions about my personal life. I was more interested in... how do straight men want to receive compliments from women in general? The only reasonable answer you gave to that is... "don't give any compliments to any men because you're married and they can't have you, and or only say the right things that aren't about their looks because that could be interpreted as flirting." with a nice heaping side of "and that's probably your fault, you attention whore you." (why are you such an attention whore, and such a woman?). All the other stuff is a bunch of projections and a lack of interest in understanding. Which makes me wonder why you're wasting time talking to me. I did not ask for a dissection of my backstory, which you know nothing about. Details of individual situations and context are sometimes everything, ya know. Why are you going out of your way to project secret ill intent into my motives though? Or to find things wrong with me?

Perhaps true, but also perhaps projecting. Perhaps I missed something, perhaps not. Legitimately, maybe I do not know for sure. What drama though? Not sure where you're pulling these assumptions out of. Husband = no male friends? Got it!!!!!! Wait, don't you try to meet everyone's needs in some way? Friends? Family? Etc. You don't really know anything about my dynamic with my husband, I'm not sure why you keep interjecting about him into this conversation when you don't know what the dynamics of our relationship is like, our level of trust, or even if I'm a following the traditional monogamous life path or not? What I'm talking about is literally everyone else. I've known him for a long ass time; hopefully when you know someone for that long, you truly, actually know how they think and feel. It's not my job, but I still wanted to know and to ask. Experience has not proved this to be true, personally. Men get bored too, it seems. So it really just is about getting compliments from people you only want to date and have sex with, and where there's a real chance of it? If that's true, I guess that would be simple enough then! Either way, I'm not sure why y'all are writing to me like I'm having a massive life crisis about this.

Y'all need to stop projecting.

I like to think about things that many people see as small things and deconstruct them and analyze them. Small issues usually relate directly to bigger issues somehow. I also like to think about society in general, which is in a way always open-ended. Always becoming and transforming. I like to try to understand these things. And as mentioned above, a lot of my emotion does actually follow my "logic" first, and not vice versa, so I need to have some sort of clear logical understanding, perspective, or praxis governing my emotions and behaviour. I'm under the understanding that this is actually quite alien to quite a few people. Yea, I know that? This is about complimenting men more in situations that I would like to remain platonic. I've lost a good handful or two of male friendships for this reason over the years (some of them were very good ones IMO), and I think I've had one where we stayed friends but we aren't particularly close anymore anyway. I would like to avoid situations like these if possible. This isn't about my needs; I know how to not compliment everyone on the street, lol. This is at least partially about men complaining (or feeling wistful) that they don't get compliments from the opposite sex more. I myself was just wondering about myself, coming from the opposite side of the equation. What could I potentially do to meet some collective, unmet need? So it has to be this way because it's been this way since time immemorial? I guess if that's truly the case, no compliments for anyone then! Seriously though.... people complain that modern urban society is cold, insular, and unempathetic, I am legitimately trying to figure out how to be kinder and less.... cold, insular, and unempathetic. Lol............

Yea, I think you're right about everything that you've said.

To a degree, being around people is a chore for me, unless they really feel like "my people" (or "my person", in the case of my husband). There has been a high degree of social masking involved throughout my whole life, since early childhood. It IS draining and unnatural for me. It's likely related to this issue, but is also a whole other can of worms in and of itself. I actually do sympathize a great deal with men who feel like they have to learn social skills and inference from scratch, because in many ways I have been doing the same thing, though probably I started when I was much younger. Basically: 1) observe 2) take action 3) see how people react 4) observe 5) draw conclusions 6) rinse and repeat steps 1-5 7) assess conclusions again Basically, a lot of everything that I do socially is done manually or deliberately, and sometimes that involves a lot more rumination than is really technically necessary. (Or you could say "consciously", but I don't put my own behaviour on a pedestal here, it's just my defacto state.) A lot doesn't come automatically or impulsively, especially the older I get. This isn't about my husband or my relationship with him, actually. There is no anxiety there. There is a highway of compliments going both ways, but I actually learned a lot about how to be much freer with compliments from him, based on the way that he treated me. I didn't grow up with compliments or positive affirmation, and it's really hard to model what you don't know. However, I do actually have the desire to spontaneously compliment positively. I used to work in education with youth for a time, I was very free with my compliments. It wasn't natural to me though (see above), but I learned. Sometimes it's been like I've wanted to say something complimentary so bad, but it always seems so WRONG, either what I say, or how it comes out. At times in my life I've been quite isolated, and that hasn't helped at all with the hyperconsciousness thing. The original post is moreso about dealing with and meeting new people, having friendships with the opposite sex, making sense of ambiguous expectations, etc. I like to minimize problems. So much so, that I think about problems that don't technically exist yet (but probably will, lol). The other thoughts are just things I thought were worth talking about, as a social issue. Aka. why can't cishet men get more compliments if they need/ want them? I don't think it's a bad sentiment to want to meet people where they are, and help the collective needs of society be met somehow, do you? I'm not of the mind of people automatically understanding and hitting it off with me and then having excellent, effortless relationships all the time without some sort of "effort" or "work" on my part anymore TBH. And also just expecting it to go somewhere, and then actually have it go somewhere according to my expectations/ ideals. Also, isn't it worth learning to get along with people and understand them, for everyone's greatest good?

I might just start saying "no homo" after every compliment I give to the opposite sex now.

This Bharatanatyam dancer. I feel that this is a much more bold and fierce style than you would normally see: I admire her strength, grace, and general athleticism.

@LSD-Rumi Nice, thanks! I did think that the aesthetic (in both style and content) did look very distinctly Persian. It's nice to see a variety of sources from around the world.

A lot of people would disagree with you. But still, "smaller" issues that people face are still issues to be dealt with. ....you seem to have a habit of reductionistic thinking, as in, making complex issues extremely simplistic in questionably appropriate ways. You and mostly everyone else, it seems. I admit that I'm not that interested in what would support the either decaying or due-for-serious-upheaval social infrastructures of one country or another, or one continent or another. Nor am I that knowledgeable about the best practical ways to adapt social infrastructure so that we don't fall apart into unnecessary chaos and conflict. IMO short-term sacrifices are necessary for long-term gain though. Mostly I'm interested in what would make this world a more beautiful, harmonious place to live for every single human being that lives here, for the animals that live here... where we can have both spirituality and advanced technology in a state of environmental balance. I'm mostly interested in the big-big picture, or the extremely long-term picture. A world where we seriously prioritize having MORE PEOPLE! isn't a world that I would enjoy living in, personally. I also hate being in giant, crowded cities, regardless of environmental impact. I'm talking about the spiritual, subtle qualities of this experience. Big surprise, right? Personally, I really do not understand humanity's fixation on the "quantity" of human experience, rather than sheer quality first. It's like people took the "be fruitful and multiply" sentiment (which is "natural" enough, I guess) from an era where there were far, far less people without global environmental concerns, and their deeper-value system is prioritizing replicating their particular cultural ethos and bloodline first and foremost above all else. I don't care about this. And if you reproduce knowing how precarious the future is (or could be) without thinking about it carefully, you're either very driven by animalistic impulses and have made that your life ethos, you're very susceptible to cultural indoctrination, or perhaps you just have a bunch of screws loose? Admittedly, if I had it my way, humanity's population would cap off around 1-2 billion, maybe 3 billion at the absolute tops. I know this is probably considered an extremely radical perspective amongst the general populace (?), but I'm of the general awareness that quite a few environmental scientists agree with me, and may not be considered that radical in that field. And again with the fixation on the sheer quantity and masses of humanity: just because you can choose to max out Earth's carrying capacity, it doesn't mean that you should! Like say you're having a party, will you have a better party by shoving more and more people within a very limited amount of space, without considering the aesthetics and dynamics of the space itself?? For some people: I guess a busy party is always a better party? For me: this is a headache. I don't discriminate at all based on culture or poverty levels (though I think deliberately bringing children into urban poverty is asking for a lot of problems on both a social and environmental level). I think everyone should have either less or no children. People in very poor, rural eras with extremely limited access to modern technology have a significantly lower carbon footprint, no? TBH I don't exactly agree with environmentalists and environmentally inclined people on everything though, mostly based on sheer, raw intuition. For instance: I'm not as concerned with global warming as many people are. I consider it to be par-the-course, a point that we are reaching sooner rather than a bit later, though done in a very haphazard way.

Oh... you mean, when will they communicate physically, to our faces? You mean something "benevolent", right? Probably when our beingness is as still as the dead of night. We are much too loud, too unsubtle and unperceptive, too conflicted, and turning our energies every which way in haphazard, unholistic ways. Arguably for no known greater, actual existing cause for the most part. There is a certain lack of directness, understanding, openness, and actual clarity across the board. A sort of base level of "matching" must occur in order for there to be a... match. It's the simple universal law of communication/ communion (or having matching "on par" enough vibrations, as the New Age calls it). Even if there is a means to override this, most harmonious beings and species do not prefer to communicate in inharmonious ways. Which is why merging with the "law of least resistance" (even if eventually and not right away) is a sort of spiritual principle as well. This is moreso my conjecture from observing watcher-types: have you ever just observed people who are homeless, who might possibly have a condition such as untreated schizophrenia? Have you ever tried to communicate with such a person, or watched another person try to communicate with them, and observed the ways in which they very much appear "not here" or "somewhere that is clearly elsewhere", as if drawn up in some other, unseen conflict in some otherwise unseen world, as if collapsing upon themselves onto perpetual sharp edges? Would you want to get too close to this, would this serve any real purpose? How do you truly communicate with someone who knows nothing except how to have ongoing arguments with themselves? Would you want to stand right in front of someone who is flailing around erratically, screaming, with a knife in your face? Would you enjoy this? Would it give off acceptable vibes? Would it feel "safe" or proper? Wouldn't this screaming still hurt your ears even if you don't take it personally or become reactive? Is this actually to anyone's actual highest good? Great, now imagine a giant room full of people like this. The way of the "enlightened universe" is generally non-interference, and letting life live itself and figure itself out, and letting "karma" and nature take its course (within reason). If you cannot be open as you are, you stay in the shadows. That is the path of greatest harmony/ the least resistance anyway. Beyond this, there is the issue of the biological compatibility of their "energy" in our body and what this would do to us psychologically and psychologically, and sometimes vice versa as well.

To communicate? If and when we are hollow like glass stones. Void, open, and receptive. What reaches you when you are not this way tends to be... not so great, if anything reaches you at all. Also, the more bogged down and attached to various constructs you are, the harder it is to assess the quality of anything received, it seems. The whole process of having non-discreet identities, thought and emotional dramas, psychological fixations, and being overly attached to human culture and ways of doing things isn't particularly helpful either. It really doesn't help that human culture and collective priorities are not very compatible ATM and have not been for most of written human history. Either these are bypassed in some way, or you minimize it and do things properly in clear, open consciousness. Being able to communicate through sheer "beingness" rather than "trying" (or the forceful, pointed nature of having and directing thoughts and emotions) is a big part of it. Alot of beings either cannot or will not participate in this sort of "beingness matrice" (for a lack of a better term...).

@LSD-Rumi Artist/ painting names?

My dude, there has always been direct access to the collective consciousness. But is it generally not treated as a precision art form/ science/ whatever. Most people just go the dream/ daydreaming route, or rely on seemingly random bouts of inspiration.

There is only so much you can do with -isms as a root framework of thinking, you know? I tend to think of it as a living relic of the 20th century/ "Western" modernistic thinking, though my time frame here might not be totally precise.

@Tenebroso It's not particularly healthy to make a whole universal philosophy out of your own traumas, you know? (Though it is healthy to protect yourself in a mindful way.) It's a bit too easy to switch around the genders in mostly everything that you wrote.

Pretty much no one lives in this kind of reality. It only appears that way from the outside, from a very safe distance.

There is a truth to this. There are always reasons why you can "think" your way for or against one thing or another, if you're really determined to do so. But at the same time... I'm really not a big fan of this "don't think, just breed, worry about problem later!!!" mentality that pro-birth people have. This is actually a social pressure that is put on women specifically, even if it's also put on men as well. But with women, it is more. It often involves permanent changes to our bodies, and still often enough involves a very uneven division of labour, both emotional and physical. There is our "window of fertility" which is an added pressure. This stuff matters. For the most part, no males are going off to war and getting themselves shot in Western countries anymore, not in WWI trenches or elsewhere, nor are they working in sewers, even as giving birth is not quite what it used to be with modern medical science at our disposal. Also: my mother grew up 3rd world poor, as in... at a starvation/subsistence level. I heard quite a bit about this growing up, even if I did not grow up in this way myself. Still, my link to it is closer than most people I've known who have been living in a first-world country for generations (with the exception of the indigenous people living here). It's probably not a great idea to assume what I do or don't take for granted considering this stuff was drilled into my head as a kid, thanks. For me, this is not about the morality of "comfort". It is about the morality of having children in an overpopulated and environmentally precarious world just because "it's what people do!" . (Again... apparently an extremely hot take, lol.) I don't see anyone shitting on people who truly, deeply want kids and are as prepared to be good parents as "reasonably" possible. Of course, some of us have much higher standards for what "reasonably prepared" is. This is not universally true. I can only assume that you have not had traumatic enough experiences with your own parents, caregivers, or siblings to have even conceived of feeling otherwise. I cannot conceive of someone being so unempathetic in this way otherwise. That you have not been profoundly abandoned or abused in any way by them. In that case... enjoy your privilege, I suppose? Like... what if you have a narc-like parent who habitually turns one sibling against the other? (Basically talking about my dad's case.) Tell this to all the people whose bond with their parents and siblings are broken and often unfixable, and who can't do anything but be alone (or perhaps hopefully with other non-family) on Christmases and Thanksgivings. What about those people? What about all the people who have been abused horribly by their family?

SHOEGAZE-Y (cont.) It's still been a Slowdive summer... I think this might be the best track of the three they've released so far... Man, I love everything about this. 2nd gen (?) shoegazy-ness:

"RANDOM FOLK": This song has been living rent-free in my head for the past couple of days. I can't remember if I actually heard this in a public place (like a mall), or if I heard it on a playlist, and then was reminded that this existed. Buffy Sainte-Marie might actually be the most well-known Cree woman worldwide, ever. Possibly the most anti-war song that ever anti-warred. So apparently there was a cover by Donovan which I think was more famous back in the day: Apparently, there is also a Finnish version of "Universal Soldier" by the dude above (Hector), which makes me think this song has probably been covered a lot. (Sometimes I go down the rabbit hole of covers.) Another one which I've been enjoying lately by Buffy Sainte-Marie:

@Swarnim It's pretty interesting to read about your positive experience of being an older brother. I know it's probably not uncommon at all, but it wasn't my experience, nor was it the experience of anyone that I was close with. The person who I knew who tried the hardest to be a positive influence in his younger sisters' lives, he was deeply conflicted about it. Himself, his whole family (emotionally and physically absent or unreliable father), etc. Probably just a "him thing" too.