Forestluv

@LfcCharlie4 What LOC score does the highlighted section represent?

You’ve been previously warned not to post about irresponsible, attention-grabbing usage of psychedelics.

It sounds like you have it figured out and your view is working for you. That’s great and I wish you the best.

Because you have a narrow idea of sex and are unaware of certain aspects. These will be revealed when you start having sex. Yet if you simply want to copulate like mice do, it wouldn’t be an issue . To say that skills are involved in mouse sex would be kinda silly.

You are conflating confidence and skills. Fir example, I’ve never golfed before, yet I’ve watched a lot on TV. To me, it looks pretty simple. You just hit the ball toward the hole. Yet even if my confidence level was sky high, I would still not be able to shoot under par because I do not have the skills. Being under-confident or over-confident both cause problems when trying to develop skills. Skills are only one aspect of sex. There are many other aspects. For example, being genuine is a good trait. Also being adept at listening and responding to her cues during sex is a good trait - yet I would consider this a skill that develops over time. It is a different form of communication. There is no way to fake being good at oral sex - regardless of confidence level. That is like a beginning language learner with a lot of confidence. It will still be totally obvious they are a beginner. When I was younger, guys had the “alphabet method” to try and fake their way through oral sex. Yet once someone reaches intermediate stages, the method is a joke. It takes time and practice to develop skilled oral technique. Yet most guys don’t care about that. They are more interested in cutting to the chase and busting a nut. Having confidence is just one component. Curiosity, desire and willingness to improve are also really important. To me, it sounds like sex isn’t much more than a few pumps and a squirt for you. That’s fine, yet you would be missing out on a lot. As well, skill is only one component. If there is no chemistry and a woman feels uncomfortable, sexual skills will not compensate. Chemistry, connection and mutual trust are important components.

@cetus56 ❤️. Did you get to see him in person?

If your story of sex is working for you, I am happy for you ❤️ ?

@Javfly33 One practice I found helpful was to simply be “I AM” for a period each day. This can be during meditation, yoga, time in nature. In this practice, nothing is added to “I AM”. No “I Am this or that”, no “I Am is xyz”. Nothing added. Simply “I AMness” in meditation, yoga, nature. Perhaps an hour a day. Over time, the thought stories of “I Am” was reduced and the Beingness of “I AM” was increased. After a while the “I” in “I AMness” was dropped and there was simply “AMness” in presence.

I haven’t seen this particular story before (that sex involves no skill and is simply an act of inserting a penis into a vagina).

For sure. This is a bizarre one. I’ve never heard one quite like this before.

You are missing a lot. Human sexuality goes way beyond what you are aware of. You don’t seem open to learning via discussion. Thus, I would recommend having actual sex with another person. It would be very mind expanding for you. Or, if you are happy with the story you’ve created and you don’t want sex - then great. Enjoy.

Of course not. I learned it through practice during hundreds of sexual sessions over many years. When I first started, I was very unskilled. After years of practice, I am now highly skilled. There have been books written to develop these skills, yet practice is essential.

@the-philogynist You are not aware of what you are missing. I’m not sure why you have created a story that is so far off the mark. It has a couple similarities to the story I was given in a fundamental Catholic environment. I suppose if it gives you comfort it may serve a purpose. Yet if you want to become sexually active and good at sex, this story in your head is like chans that will hold you back.

You will not get a 100% safety guarantee with any drug.

You are missing out on a lot. You are referring to human sex as if it was dog sex in which an erect penis goes in and out of a vagina. Human sex is much much more than that. It’s not like hammering a nail into a walk. You are unable to imagine what actual sex with another person is like. You would need to get the experience to discover what we are talking about.

The same way you would get confused by trying to play a trumpet while thinking “I just need to blow though the hole”.

You seem to answer your own question. MDMA off the street is a dirty combination of various chemicals and not very safe. Clean MDMA is relatively safe, yet I wouldn’t be doing it every week. I would say LSD or shrooms is safer for more regular use. Yet there isn’t a consensus.

Simply not true. There are many many men that want sex and can’t get it. There are online forums filled with men unable to get sex trying to learn skills fir pick up. You are speaking about human sex as if it was dog sex. For humans, it is a lot more than simply sticking an erect penis in and out of a vagina. The best way yo learn is through experience. For example there are skills of oral sex that took me years to learn. These include tongue dexterity, tip of tongue vs flat edge, different pressures, usage of lips, labia or clitoris, motion style, rhythm, consistency vs variation, suction etc. It’s like playing a musical instrument. There have been books written to develop these skills. Yet you need to get in there and practice. I somewhat agree with your OP in that watching porn is NOT a good way to develop sexual skills. I would consider it counter-productive.

Incels are involuntarily celibate (in part because they lack skills). And if you’ve never had lame sex, good for you. A solo porn session with great imagination is much better than a lame one night stand without any substance and chemistry, ime. There are different skill levels with sex, just like there are different skill levels of athletes.

If that were true, there wouldn't be incels or lame sex.

Although I wasn’t actually climbing Mt Everest, scuba diving or trekking Nepal, the videos were super cool.

I recently watched a documentary about climbing Mt. Everest. It was awesome. I’ve also seen videos on sky diving, scuba diving, space exploration and traveling through Nepal that were super cool as well.

My first book on the path, many moons ago. . . ❤️

@Bno Gotcha. Thank you ?

The reason I entered the conversation was a point about biased perspectives. This is about structure, not content. You are highly oriented toward content - and there is nothing wrong with that. However, when the mind is so immersed into content, it misses structure. In this case, the structure of a biased perspective. It doesn’t matter if we are talking about Trump/Putin, veganism, climate change or video games. There is a similar structure to biased perspectives. The content in a person’s life is continually changing, yet most people essentially wear the same biased lens their whole life. This realization is much deeper and profound than to what extent Trump is leveraged. This realization allows for transition into Yellow. You seem highly motivated to engage in content, which is fine. Yet when we engaged in content, it became a polarized opposition of two sets of content. Look how the conversation evolved when I spoke of criminal minds. . . .Notice the above frame: there is a “me” and “you” as well as “objectively right or wrong”. This is a classic Orange level framework. It is highly binary and dualistic. There is nothing wrong with it. To me, it’s very restrictive and unsatisfying. . . . Imagine I told you the structure of our conversation would be that all words must be under three syllables, the letter “p, m , k” cannot be used, every fifth word must rhyme with bagel and every third sentence must have the word “shark” in it. For some, this framework might be a fun challenging game. Yet for me, it’s a silly framework and it’s just not worth trying to have a conversation within that framework. It’s too restrictive. However, if one tries to reveal the absurdity of the structure, those immersed in the game will say “He is just trying to avoid the question. He doesn’t know ay words that rhyme with bagel”. They cannot see the structure. In reference to the content here, a half step into transcending it would be too look beyond binary constructs. Asking “Is Trump leveraged by Putin/Russia” is a binary 100% vs 0% framework. Trump is either 100% leveraged or 0% leveraged. This is a highly simplistic blue level framework. An Orange level framework can bring in degrees within a spectrum. We could now ask “To what extent is Trump leveraged by Putin/Russia?”. A mind contracted into a binary frame will resist this new fame. Yet it’s important to liberate from a strict 0% vs 100%. Moving off of that is a major expansion, even if we say “Trump is 0.1% leveraged by Putin/Russia”, it is a major expansion. And the underlying question of Trump leverage is irrelevant. This gets at the original question of biased perspectives. It will not help if I present “my view” on leverage. This is within the hyper binary constricted frame of “my view” and “your view” and which view is right or wrong. Within this framework, it’s much better to realize it internally. An internal realization transcends the “my view” vs “your view” framework. One way to do this is to view within degrees. For example, Bernie and Trump have had very different relationships with Putin/Russia over there lifetimes. I would say that neither of them are 100% compromised by Putin/Russia, yet one of them is more compromised than the other. This contrast can allow space for one to explore the nuances of these differences - and most importantly it expands beyond a simple 0% vs 100% binary construct.