Emerald

I see. These types of fears can come up in cases where we deal with negative experiences with dating... or even just in general. I just wanted to emphasize that, even if it feels true that women won't love you, that it's not true. And as a woman, I'm 100% sure that there are zero men in existence who would be romantically rejected by every woman.

The number one thing you can do is to interact with many women platonically just like you do with men. This will remove the mystique. But you may benefit from looking into integrating your own Feminine side. The more a man pushes away his Feminine side, the more he will project negative powerful images onto women as a group. And it leads to this love/hate pedestalization of women, where there is a disgust towards women but also this intense craving and feeling of women having power over you. Look into Anima possession. Here's a video about how to integrate your Feminine side...

From my perspective, this seems like an obvious statement. Of course there will be women out there who will love you. What gives you the impression that women won't love you?

That definitely works too... in similar ways to the double entendre because it's a sudden piercing revelation of sexual intention. With the double entendre, it reveals it in ways that have plausible deniability but still sends a clear message. But with something more direct, it's like building up a bunch of sexual tension first... and then just making one straightforward statement of desire that shifts the entire dynamic to something more erotic. The way that the woman experiences both of these dynamics (when they're well-done) is like being struck suddenly by intense excitement (like shot of adrenaline) followed a moment later by a swooning feeling that leads to deeper levels of relaxation. But the sexual tension has to be built up the right way and the statement of desire or double entendre said at the right time to create that sudden shift.

Obviously he's worse than an idiot. He actually knows what he's doing and is choosing to do what enriched him and brought him more power. But $100 million for a political donation is absolutely massive. Though I'm sure he'd do the same for less money as well. But he was basically doing an open pay for play. And Miriam Adelson was his third highest donor... while Elon Musk was his top donor. But Salman can't possibly give him $1 trillion. There are no trillionaires on the planet, yet. Here's a list of all of Trump's top donors... https://www.opensecrets.org/2024-presidential-race/donald-trump/contributors?id=N00023864

He got a $100 million in donations from Miriam Adelson when he was running for office. And she's a major Zionist. So, that money was given to him as a tit for tat... like "I spend $100 million to get you elected, and you clear out Gaza and the West Bank." But he's also just furthering the pre-existing US geopolitical agendas that were the initial reason for the US allying with and supplying weapons to Israel in the first place.

There are some really extreme Vegans that believe that pets are inherently slaves and who believe that pets shouldn't exist at all. And because domesticated animals like dogs rely on humans for survival and feral cats create issues for local wildlife, some of them even advocate for euthanasia for all cats and dogs. It's even rumored that that's why PETA mostly has kill shelters for rescues.... because the founder of PETA is very anti-pet for the reasons that you mentioned. So, be careful about the perspectives you're advocating for. But definitionally, pets are not slaves.... unless they're service dogs or something. A slave is one who works without compensation. And if you aren't making your animals do work, then they are not slaves. And that's true, even if the human being is getting value from having a pet around. They certainly are captive though, and there is certainly a major power imbalance inherent in that relationship. But there's also a symbiotic relationship between pets and their handlers if the relationship is a good one. Like our cat boys are super lovey dovey with us and seem (to my limited perception) pretty content. Have you ever had a pet before?

You're welcome!

To me personally, it only really has the desired effect if double entendres are very subtle and not too explicitly sexual... but that communicate a very deep sexual urge. Otherwise it just feels like corny neutral sexy banter that can happen in longterm relationships and doesn't quite hit the same emotional chord. Like the milkshakes and protein thing are kind of corny and reminds me of what my high school boyfriend would say when he was in the mood. He used to refer to certain sexual acts as having some cake (before cake was used as synonymous with sexual things). So, it didn't really have that emotional impact. It was just neutral corny sexual banter.... which is fine. But it doesn't really create any sexual tension. That requires some mystery and subtlety. It's hard to give an example because it's very in the moment and context-dependent. But I'll try. Let's say that there's a man and a woman who are out on a date. And the woman is showing signs that she's feeling him and that she's making some hints about wanting to go to his place. And then the guy says something like "Sure, I wouldn't mind taking you home." or "Sure, I'd love to take you home." in a way where his body language and voice clearly but subtly communicate a sexual intention. It communicates something sexual but it leaves a lot to the imagination. And it gives the woman that sharp sudden emotional reminder about his animalistic side that's hidden behind the gentlemanly politeness of the statement. But that takes a lot of skill. It's a bit like comedic timing. You can tell corny jokes and never get a laugh. But the right words spoken at the right time can produce an intense amount of delight. The main thing is being able to strike the right emotional chord at the right time.

Double entendres are good. But only if they're not super explicit as it kills the mystery. The facial one was too much and just cheesy, and feels too contrived. So, it's doesn't have the kind of plausible deniability that creates the tension.

What I'm saying is not that there won't be bloody conflicts in these transitions. I'm sure there will be. What I'm saying is that I hope there won't be quite as much violence towards civilians as in times past.... like with the dynamic you mentioned of tribes merging by murdering all the men, raping all the women, and abducting all the children. And a big part of that is the laws and international organizations created during Stage Orange. My hope is that the transition from Orange to Green will spare civilian populations moreso than in times past.

I have some advice. (and this is advice for an actual sexual encounter or the seduction leading up to a sexual encounter... not for phone sex or something like that where there's a long back and forth of sexy talk). The first bit of advice is to keep it in the moment. Don't come up with lines beforehand. I'm generalizing here, but the thing that turns most women on the most is being desired. So, you want to vocalize your desire in the moment and avoid being too "in the mind" about it. The second bit of advice is to not try too hard. With dirty talk, less is more. Just a few words said at the right moment will strike the right chord. If you want to maximize sexual tension, say only a little and only rarely and unpredictably. It creates mystery and anticipation. The third bit of advice is to make statements of desire.... or statements of desire mixed with a dirty/sweet compliment... or just a dirty/sweet compliment. It could be something as simple as "Your body is so soft" or "You're so beautiful, you make me wanna _____" or "Just looking at your body makes me wanna ____". or even a simple command like "C'mere." As long as it comes through as an authentic read of the desire you're feeling in the moment, it will strike a chord and create an intense peak of emotional excitement for her. So, the best thing you can do in this situation is to make your feelings of desire show in your words (here and there) but even moreso in your facial expressions and body language. And the more you seem like you're fighting a losing battle with your desire, the better.

I'm not disagreeing with you. You seem to be under the impression that I am. I was just telling you that I was responding "Haha" to @Basman and responding to his funny Family guy meme about teachers. I agree that all workers should unionize. What I was saying to you earlier is that some white collar jobs do have unions. I was a teacher in the past. And when I was, I considered joining the union.

Yeah, my mistake for not watching the video nor fact-checking the claim.

I know you're not joking. I was responding to the Family Guy meme that @Basman posted above.

The way that the post was written and by the way that people were responding to it, it sounded like Poland was allowing border guards to open fire on any immigrants attempting to come into the country. And in my opinion, any reasonable person would be against that. But if it's just allowing the border guards to use lethal force if they are genuinely threatened it is fine. I have no issue with self-defense.

Haha. True.

There are white collar unions in the United States. When I was a teacher, I was considering joining the teacher's union. And teaching is a white collar job.

That's true. This merging has been done violently in the past.... when going from Stage Purple to Stage Red to Stage Blue. It could happen now as well, in a similarly violent way. And I hope not. But I'm thinking the transition between Orange and Blue might operate a bit differently.

Actually, the statistics show that legal and illegal immigrants have a lower crime rate per capita compared to natural born US citizens. And it's not cherry picked. Just type in "US crime and immigration statistics" and you will find tons of reputable articles saying the same thing. (I tried to do in with the search query "Europe crime and immigration statistics", but I couldn't find any reputable sources in either direction.) Here's a link... https://www.migrationpolicy.org/content/immigrants-and-crime And here's a quote... "While being present in the United States without authorization represents an administrative infraction (punishable by removal), unauthorized immigrants are less likely to commit misdemeanor and felony crimes than the U.S.-born population and other immigrant groups." And if you think about it for a minute, it makes total sense that immigrant crime rates would be lower. If you immigrate to a country (especially if you immigrate illegally), you're probably going to want to stay out of trouble as much as possible... because you want to remain in that country. And if you're illegal and the cops talk to you at all (even for a noise complaint or minor traffic violation).. you could be deported for good and not allowed to return. And I don't know how it is in Europe. But I can't imagine it would be that much different. Also, my husband is Hungarian, and we even spent some time there. And I'm not so sure that Hungary's crime rate is all that low. Though, there is next to no gun violence... which is very different from here in the states. And he and most of the people that he knows personally are not big fans of Viktor Orban or his immigration controls.

That's true. And that's why we need to move forward and not backward. Otherwise, it just normalizes massacres. Edit: I see that you added more to your response. It really is quite lucky that we've collectively moved forward (at least a little bit) from those times... even if there are tons of people who exist that still want to massacre immigrants on sight.

Cruel laws are both a symptom and cause of a country that's regressing and degenerating. In terms of development, the more the draconian the laws are, the more the society becomes non-conducive to collective actualization. But my mistake was that I should have fact-checked that Poland is actually shooting immigrants. So, perhaps that's not true of Poland.

To be fair, the framework I'm operating from is a mostly Feminine principled framework. So, I understand if you can't quite see the value of it from where you're at right now. Society isn't too keen on that perspective. It's taken me a lot of work and maturing to develop that perspective as it isn't taught or valued in society, and I can't expect the average person to understand or grasp the value of it... especially if that person lacks perspective and experience. Basically, you can't expect someone in Stage Blue to suddenly jump to Stage Green. I just personally feel unsafe in a world where these kinds of perspectives are normalized... and violence is seen as the answer of all answers. It's as nonsensical as building your house inside of a grenade to keep yourself safe. And then, when you try to convince people that building their house inside of a grenade isn't safe or effective, they call you illogical and say that you're not being practical... and that the immigrants will get you if you don't live inside of a grenade. So, I try to convince people to wake up to how deeply connected we are with everything else. But of course, it doesn't work. People have to grow in their own time. I just feel disappointed that people aren't further along. And that makes total and complete sense that I'd feel disappointed and angry about that. It's a collective grieving at how regressive we still are. And deep down everyone feels it. Though some will never acknowledge it. It honestly takes quite a lot of integration between logic and emotional intelligence to start to see the world in this way where there is a recognition that the foreigner is not an inherent enemy. And if you don't get it, perhaps your children will. And if they don't get it, perhaps their children will. And I have to relinquish any attempts to wake people up. The reality is that you're out cold. And that's just what it is. And life will decide whether or not you wake up. I suppose we'll just have to learn these lessons the hard and bloody way... just like we have throughout the entirety of human history. Though I always hope for better. On another level, I do understand though that anyone who's very attached to things like a collective identity will have a really hard time feeling safe if there are others who are outside of that identity, because it threatens to deconstruct that collective identity and move it to a more world-centric identity. But those collective identities are in the process of dying anyway. And I get that that's sad for people, and there's some real grieving to do there. But part of me wants to hasten that process to make the world a better place that isn't quite as bleak. But that's really what the fear is at the end of the day... the loss of identity. The fear of immigrant crime is just a proxy for the real fear. And I am actually a mother of two. I have a son and a daughter. I don't know why you thought I was making that up.

It would be wise to avoid making claims that you don't actually know to be true and that you can't provide solid evidence for. Without those statistics, you don't actually know what the reality is regarding immigration and crime statistics. And you could very well be falling into the trap of unintentionally spreading misinformation because of your biases.

Obviously not. Even if there were some correlation between immigration and the crime rate, there would be absolutely no reason to shoot immigrants on sight. That's just a backward barbaric practice that doesn't belong in the contemporary world. It's just no way to handle immigration concerns. But there are others on here who believe that immigrants commit more crimes when they don't. But even if they did, no country should have "shoot on sight" as their immigration process.