348 posts shown.
Gary James88 said:We can look at it as an evolutionary mechanism. In that light, cheating evolved as a way to survive and secure a mate, while simultaneously driving the evolution of systems designed to detect and punish dishonesty.
The math behind deception is pretty basic: it's all about the cost-benefit ratio. Cheating lowers the cost while keeping the payoff steady or even increasing it. Of course, once you factor in detection methods, the risk of loss goes up. You see this in any society built on social contracts where those agreements can be broken. It’s even visible in nature—think of organisms that puff themselves up to look bigger to scare off predators, or species that mimic the bright colors of toxic animals when they aren't actually poisonous.
Hold on a second—the phenomena you're describing aren't really "fraud" in the way humans define it. To us, fraud requires anticipation; it involves an awareness of gain, a conscious intent, and a deliberate decision to deceive.
Those species that "evolved" to look like toxic animals didn't do so through a conscious choice to reap benefits. That adaptation happened purely by accident through mutation. It just so happens that those specific mutations gave those individuals and their offspring a much better shot at survival compared to those that didn't mutate.
Is a baboon "aware" that screaming will help it attract a mate? It's entirely possible, in some rudimentary sense. We already know chimpanzees have the capacity to solve basic problems. Honestly, it’s a fascinating question: what exactly is missing in chimpanzees that prevents them from developing self-awareness and intelligence comparable to ours?
gentlestag3 said:I wonder what actually makes someone non-homophobic?
For me, I just can't stand those intense activists out there, you know? The ones marching in those over-the-top, almost carnival-style outfits, or those aggressive women fighting for specific gay rights... it just feels a bit much.
But look, I don't have an issue with people (meaning, I treat gay folks just like anyone else), and as long as everything is legal, whatever happens behind closed doors is their business.
So, does that make me homophobic? I guess it’s more that I dislike one specific type of person—not because of who they love, but because of this constant need to prove that gay and lesbian people need a special, distinct status in society. It just feels unnecessary, I suppose.
At the end of the day, everyone is a human being first, and most rights stem from that basic humanity. Personally, I don't see myself as a "heterosexual man" first; I just see myself as a man.
edit: maybe I used too strong a word when I said "hate"—it's more like I just don't really care for it.
To be honest, I don't care if something is legal or not—I only care about my own perspective. 😍
Why should I worry about the law? There are too many governments and too many different sets of rules. 🤷
Laws only matter to me in a "practical sense"—I'd prefer not to end up in prison. But when it comes to morality, philosophy, or ethics... the law is completely irrelevant to me.
mistyraven said:thanks for all the advice, everyone.
people over on Reddit aren't exactly helpful when it comes to this stuff, so I figured I'd move the conversation over here.
seems like there are more grown-ups dealing with actual problems here.
i guess. 😉
If you want to call that ill intent "defensiveness"—it probably hits a nerve with them, making them feel "attacked." 😬
(Trust me, I know a thing or two about defensiveness—specifically when it comes to self-promotion. LOL.)
Tyler Myers5 said:Well, I suppose one could argue that a backside is essentially just two halves joined together🤷
Fair point.
So, she could have said she has "good butts"—though honestly, that sounds way weirder to me than just saying "I have a good butt."
No matter how you slice it, you either have a good butt or good butts, but you definitely don't have a "good butt" in the plural sense if you're talking about one person. 🤣
edit: Actually, I think I figured out why the plural version sounds so off. It's because a butt is usually symmetrical; if the left side looks good, the right side probably does too. LOL. So why even talk about them in the plural? Just saying "I have a good butt" covers all the bases perfectly. ☕
Donna Wood52 said:I have a boyfriend, sure, but I don't feel a thing for him. My actual obsession is doctors—they're the only ones who tell me I'm hot
and they never insult me. One of them actually told me I have beautiful, thick black hair and a great ass. 🙂
A great ass? You've only got one, not two or more. 😬
driftingcanyon16 said:It's really just about a bunch of small, everyday habits.
Thinking there’s going to be one massive, life-altering moment—you know, like in those Hollywood movies—is honestly just a fairy tale...
Not necessarily. You could get into a car accident, end up paralyzed from the waist down, and boom—there’s your life-changing moment. 😬 And that definitely isn't some feel-good movie trope, is it?
Joshua Hernandez9 said:Could be about free will—or maybe just what the hell it can actually accomplish.
it’s interesting that you’re framing will as some kind of "need."
(To me, it feels more like a vector. A force pushing in a specific direction.
A need is something that drives you—something you're being pushed by—whereas will is the thing you use to push.
)
(I haven't really organized my thoughts yet, so I'm just throwing out bullet points and letting you guys do the heavy lifting.😁)
Well, I actually used the word "impulse" rather than "need"—though they’re pretty close. An impulse is essentially an "inclination." A "decision," then, would really just be our "consent" to that inclination; and it's the kind of consent we only become aware of half a second AFTER we've already "decided." This implies that decisions actually happen "on their own" (subconsciously), and we only realize them once the choice is made. From there, it follows that freedom is an illusion, which aligns perfectly with the materialistic view of the world as a collection of matter and energy entirely subject to physical laws—both the ones we know and perhaps some we haven't discovered yet.
By the way, let me reiterate—this whole conclusion triggers some "depressing thoughts" for me, LOL. According to that logic, it simply means my psychological makeup is such that certain ideas produce depressive effects. That's why I say I prefer a mystical explanation, even though I don't actually believe in one. It serves as a sort of "safety valve" so I don't completely lose it.
Joshua Hernandez9 said:Think about someone struggling with obesity and all the health issues that come with it.
They feel hungry.
Basically, they have this craving for food.
That craving is the trigger—they start plotting how to get their hands on food, focusing on a near-term future where they finally satisfy that urge.
But what actually drives them toward the fridge, the grocery store, or a drive-thru isn't willpower.
Willpower would be the exact thing that stops them from walking to that fridge in the first place.
So, you only really recognize willpower when it's clashing with some intense, primal, or habitual impulse—maybe even a biological one.
Using willpower is basically our way of breaking free from being slaves to whatever we've just accepted as "normal."
That’s a bit of a mystical explanation, don't you think? 😬
The materialistic perspective is much more straightforward: that "will" to prevent something is actually the exact same thing as the will to eat. It’s just that the craving for food is incredibly simple and obvious; it’s an innate drive with a clear biological foundation. The willpower behind a diet is a bit more layered. Someone might want to lose weight to look better, to improve their health, or for some other specific reason. But at its core, it’s still that same "inner compulsion"—it's just that this particular impulse isn't quite as one-dimensional as the raw, primal urge to grab a snack.
I have to admit, I’m starting to lean more toward this "mystical" idea of free will myself—it honestly feels more compelling than my old naturalistic explanations. But hey, sometimes you just have to go with whatever makes more sense in the moment. 🤷 😠 😢
Hmm, let me give this a shot.
I wouldn't try to "define" will (not in a strict sense), because it’s too complex a philosophical concept to pin down so easily. In fact, the moment you try to define it, you shut the door on so many other ways of thinking about it. I think we should approach the concept intuitively.
It's pretty clear that the question of will is tied directly to whether that will is actually "free."
It also seems obvious that it can't be "free" if we view will as a material phenomenon—just a manifestation of specific brain functions. Nothing in physics suggests that "freedom" could exist within a system governed by immutable physical laws.
Because of that, I look at it through two different lenses simultaneously: the materialistic and the mystical. (Though, personally, the former feels more convincing to me.)
If we assume a material basis for "will," it becomes easy to conclude that it isn't "free" at all. (The very concept of "freedom" is quite mystical.) From a purely materialistic standpoint, here is how I would define "will": it's the term we use for a certain complex internal *impulse* that we experience as being "our own"—meaning, it's an impulse we accept.
See, there are internal impulses we dislike (again, due to various psychological reasons, mostly shaped by social feedback), and then there are internal impulses we enjoy. We label those latter ones as our "own will." It’s a bit of a nonsense distinction, really, because it still isn't "true will"; it's just an internal drive that we don't feel the need to fight against. (Since we see no reason to.)
Of course, we don't call every single internal impulse "will," just certain ones. Which ones? I’d say the ones directed toward the future—specifically, conscious "goals" that aren't so trivial that we mistake them for basic biological impulses. We recognize basic impulses as "instinct," not as an "expression of will." (I mean, nobody is going to point to an erection as proof of free will, LOL).
To put it simply: will is the term we use to describe a complex need arising from the interplay of instinct, reason, and self-awareness, specifically regarding conscious, imagined future goals.
(That’s from my materialistic perspective, anyway. I'll leave the mystical side to someone else...)
Linda Taylor11 said:See, that’s the thing—it’s all subjective, I guess. For me, it doesn't even feel sad or anxious; honestly, it feels pretty mellow and kind of optimistic.
If you actually listen to what the lyrics are saying, you'll see it isn't about giving up. It's not like, "Let's all just end it all," it's more like, "Things are rough right now, but I'm gonna keep pushing through."
😍😍😍
Gentle and optimistic? Yeah, right. ☕ 🤣
Brenda Cooper3 said:I don't know. If I decide there’s no reason to feel anxious or down, then I simply don't. If I do find myself feeling that way, I either hunt for the root cause or, if I already know what it is, I try to fix it. If it's unfixable, I just have a good, honest cry to some melancholy song, or I vent here on the forum and wait for a kind soul to offer some solid advice. After all, two heads are better than one 😁
Regarding the author—do you have any idea what might be triggering this anxiety? Even if you aren't sure, try to speculate so we can figure out what's actually bothering you in your life.
- Perhaps you expected more from life? - From yourself? - From others?
Those are the usual suspects when it comes to feeling depressed. Is there anything else you could add to that list??
What is it about that song above that makes it feel so heavy and anxious?
Larry Thomas6 said:Look, Brenda Cooper3 didn't mean any harm. It’s just that, unfortunately, that isn't how reality works.
One piece of "advice" I keep hearing is that we should always consider those who have it harder—and there will always be people in that position—so by that logic, our own lives should somehow feel easier. I don't know. To me, that just makes it worse. I see the suffering and the misery that I am powerless to change... and it feels as though that is the true nature of this world, while everything else is just a fog.
I know she wasn't trying to be malicious. She just seems to think that because certain things come naturally to her, everyone else should be able to achieve them just as easily if they only wanted to.
As for the rest, I agree. You can actually change your own life—but you can't reduce the world's suffering by even a single micrometer. Therefore, the only thing left to do is try to become numb to it. 🤷 (Some people don't even have to try—they were just born that way. Xexexe.)
Larry Thomas6 said:If it were actually that straightforward, this entire thread wouldn't exist. 😉
I am fully aware of what I am dealing with. I try to fix it. I read the psychology books, I even go through those mindless daily affirmations you find online, but at the end of the day, I have to conclude that it is all just an act. If you look at a black wall and insist it is white, the wall doesn't suddenly turn white.
I don't know how to fill this emptiness I feel. I am truly not a spoiled person; I don't care about designer brands, shopping sprees, or showing off. In fact, I despise all of that. I am at my happiest when I find a good book to lose myself in, but that is merely an escape, and one is supposed to actually live their life.
How does one find the will to face tomorrow?
There’s a song that perfectly captures this feeling:
The show must go on uf
Man, I get chills every single time that intro starts playing...
Brenda Cooper3 said:If you want to change, then just change. It’s that simple. Just tell yourself—"I have no reason to feel anxious, so I won't be anxious. I am not anxious!"
Is that really such a difficult concept? O.o
Exactly. ☕
Let’s say someone is dealing with colon cancer—would you suggest they just convince themselves they aren't in pain? Because, clearly, we all know pain is just "all in your head" xexexe. You just tell yourself, "Oh, I'm fine, I feel great, nothing hurts," and suddenly it's reality. Isn't that just easy? 😬
Sandra Morgan2 said:☕
Here we go again... 🙂
You’re claiming I’m just deluding myself, yet you haven't offered a single shred of evidence to challenge my logic. 😁
On the contrary. I’m convinced you only hold these misconceptions because of your own personal experiences. How else could that be? 🤷 😬
Here it is again—just another way for you to tell me I’m delusional.
Why pick A over B? Or why not just give me the whole alphabet from A to Z all at once? You dodged that question quite elegantly, haha. Since I don't want to push for indiscretions—and honestly, even Sam wouldn't touch an intrusive question like that—you took my restraint for "backing down." Heh. Ah well. 🙂
Not at all! I clearly stated that love takes many different forms—and that physical intimacy is just one part of it. It’s optional. It doesn't have to be done. If you show up in relation to A, B, and C... if you're appearing in relation to the entire alphabet? That’s what we call being "all over the place."
Alright then... looks like I've got you stumped. Don't sweat it! I actually find it quite charming when a smart guy loses his words while talking to me. It’s adorable.😍
👍 I see you have no trouble spotting sarcasm... 😍
Sandra Morgan2 said:☕
Here we go again... 🙂
You’re claiming I’m just deluding myself, yet you haven't offered a single shred of evidence to challenge my logic. 😁
On the contrary. I’m convinced you only hold these misconceptions because of your own personal experiences. How else could that be? 🤷 😬
Here it is again—just another way for you to tell me I’m delusional.
Why pick A over B? Or why not just give me the whole alphabet from A to Z all at once? You dodged that question quite elegantly, haha. Since I don't want to push for indiscretions—and honestly, even Sam wouldn't touch an intrusive question like that—you took my restraint for "backing down." Heh. Ah well. 🙂
Not at all! I clearly stated that love takes many different forms—and that physical intimacy is just one part of it. It’s optional. It doesn't have to be done. If you show up in relation to A, B, and C... if you're appearing in relation to the entire alphabet? That’s what we call being "all over the place."
Alright then... looks like I've got you stumped. Don't sweat it! I actually find it quite charming when a smart guy loses his words while talking to me. It’s adorable.😍
Right, exactly: horniness. I asked specifically about your famous "love," not about being horny. I don't think we need to waste lines discussing horniness; I'm pretty sure everyone knows what that is. 😬
So, tell me—why does this overflowing love pour out for person A, but not for person B, or seventeen other people all at once? If that question isn't too intrusive. 😍
Sandra Morgan2 said:Of course it's poetic... you don't actually think I believe love lives in a pump. Love is simply beyond the mind... Anyone who has ever loved knows it has nothing to do with mental processes.
By the way, I'd love to test the strength of your convictions—to see what logical paradoxes you'll fall into while insisting on this vision of overflowing love—but I'm afraid we'll drift too far off-topic... and it might get a bit too indiscreet...
It won't be off-topic, nor do you need to be indiscreet. It's just that you have no actual arguments to refute what I said, and no way to back up that rushed claim that love is in the brain. So, you're elegantly retreating with that flimsy assumption that I don't live what I speak about. 🙂
The human capacity for self-deception is limitless... (c) by Michelle Obama 🙂
Sandra Morgan2 said:Of course it's poetic... you don't actually think I believe love lives in a pump. Love is simply beyond the mind... Anyone who has ever loved knows it has nothing to do with mental processes.
By the way, I'd love to test the strength of your convictions—to see what logical paradoxes you'll fall into while insisting on this vision of overflowing love—but I'm afraid we'll drift too far off-topic... and it might get a bit too indiscreet...
It won't be off-topic, nor do you need to be indiscreet. It's just that you have no actual arguments to refute what I said, and no way to back up that rushed claim that love is in the brain. So, you're elegantly retreating with that flimsy assumption that I don't live what I speak about. 🙂
On the contrary, I am convinced you arrived at those delusions through your own personal experience. How else could it be? 🤷 😬
You elegantly bypassed the question of why it's "A" rather than "B," or why it isn't everything from "A to Z," haha. Since I don't want to push for indiscretion (even Sam wouldn't answer intrusive questions), you interpret my restraint as me "retreating." Heh. Ah well. 🙂
Grace Ruiz4 said:Look, if I walked into my bedroom and found my wife with three other dudes, I wouldn't even be jealous. Honestly? My wife wouldn't even exist to me anymore. I’d just rip her out of my heart instantly. That’s what we’re talking about here!
And it's the same deal with dating. I don't have anything to worry about or get worked up over if, say, my girl comments on how hot some guy is, or how charming this guy is, or how cute that guy looks—as long as she isn't actually cheating. I'm not getting jealous or paranoid. But the second she cheats? Then I’m telling her "there's the door." You're done. You aren't for me anymore. 😁
😍 I knew you weren't really buying what Cherie was selling, haha. 🙂
It looks like Soul sister got a little confused...
Sandra Morgan2 said:🙂
"Quote:"| So, tell me one thing. Why do you "love" this specific man—this person you call "my love"—instead of just anyone else? Like some random stranger walking down a street in Chicago? You claim he’s so overflowing with affection for others because of his total self-love, which implies it shouldn't matter who he's with at all. That would align perfectly with Frommov’s "the art of love," wouldn't it? So, why Person A instead of Person B? |
Life is all about possibilities, lonegardener—it’s just the opportunity for light to finally reach the art of love. Love is truly the finest vibration we, as human beings, are capable of manifesting. Once it starts flowing out of us in its full capacity, this energy—which is essentially formless on its own—pours toward others from our sheer abundance. It takes on so many beautiful shapes: parental love for children, a child's devotion to their parents, friendship, deep respect, compassion, service, giving back, acts of kindness... and, of course, romantic love.
Self-deception fueled by that whole "romantic love" myth leads people to believe this kind of intense sexual connection—where you feel this overwhelming need for total unity and complete immersion in another person—can only, and exclusively, happen with one single individual. Maybe it can. Maybe it can't...
"Quote:"| Or better yet—why choose? Why not both at once? Person A and Person B. Or honestly, whoever asks! 😬 Honestly, it’s such a waste to see that kind of beautiful, selfless love poured into just one nobody. Imagine if she could bring happiness to so many others instead... Total nonsense, LOL! |
To quote you in my own words—it’s neither right nor wrong...🙂
"Quote:" In short, Wolfgang Pauli is on my mind again... 🤣
NHF? 🙂 Life has a way of forcing people into all sorts of mental constructs... |
Exactly... but love actually happens somewhere about twelve inches below the head, right in the center of the chest—maybe a little to the left. It has absolutely nothing to do with the mind or all its logical constructions! 🙂
Give me a break. Whatever. 🤣
I agree—human capacity for self-delusion is truly limitless. If we can at least find common ground on that, I’ll take it. 😬
Sandra Morgan2 said:🙂
"Quote:"| So, tell me one thing. Why do you "love" this specific man—this person you call "my love"—instead of just anyone else? Like some random stranger walking down a street in Chicago? You claim he’s so overflowing with affection for others because of his total self-love, which implies it shouldn't matter who he's with at all. That would align perfectly with Frommov’s "the art of love," wouldn't it? So, why Person A instead of Person B? |
Life is all about possibilities, lonegardener—it’s just the opportunity for light to finally reach the art of love. Love is truly the finest vibration we, as human beings, are capable of manifesting. Once it starts flowing out of us in its full capacity, this energy—which is essentially formless on its own—pours toward others from our sheer abundance. It takes on so many beautiful shapes: parental love for children, a child's devotion to their parents, friendship, deep respect, compassion, service, giving back, acts of kindness... and, of course, romantic love.
Self-deception fueled by that whole "romantic love" myth leads people to believe this kind of intense sexual connection—where you feel this overwhelming need for total unity and complete immersion in another person—can only, and exclusively, happen with one single individual. Maybe it can. Maybe it can't...
"Quote:"| Or better yet—why choose? Why not both at once? Person A and Person B. Or honestly, whoever asks! 😬 Honestly, it’s such a waste to see that kind of beautiful, selfless love poured into just one nobody. Imagine if she could bring happiness to so many others instead... Total nonsense, LOL! |
To quote you in my own words—it’s neither right nor wrong...🙂
"Quote:" In short, Wolfgang Pauli is on my mind again... 🤣
NHF? 🙂 Life has a way of forcing people into all sorts of mental constructs... |
Exactly... but love actually happens somewhere about twelve inches below the head, right in the center of the chest—maybe a little to the left. It has absolutely nothing to do with the mind or all its logical constructions! 🙂
That’s just a figure of speech, honestly. Love lives in the brain—and if we're going to get all mystical and talk about some kind of transcendental entity, there’s really no reason to pin it to the "heart." Lol. At the end of the day, the heart is just a blood pump. Period. 🤣
Actually, I’d love to put the strength of your convictions to the test—to see exactly how many logical paradoxes you'll stumble into while defending this vision of overflowing love. But honestly, I’m hesitant. We might drift too far off-topic, and I wouldn't want to become overly indiscreet.
Sandra Morgan2 said:"Quote:"
The more you love yourself, the less room there is for jealousy or envy. It’s simple. True self-love leaves zero space for those toxic feelings to take root. On the flip side? Pathological jealousy is just a massive red flag—it’s a clear sign that someone lacks fundamental love for themselves.
How can you even tell if her fears are irrational and completely detached from reality?
I just can't... That’s why I said he was nothing more than a catalyst. He just stirred up something that was already lying dormant inside her. Once she actually digs into it, she might realize—among other things—that he totally deserved to be kicked in the ass. Or something like that, anyway!
If you’re really thinking along those lines, tell me: would you honestly look your boyfriend or husband dead in the eye and tell him to go hook up with someone else just because he's into it? ☕ Is that the art of love? 🙄
Yeah. It wouldn't be cold, per se, but I’d keep it warm and human. "Look, honey, I can see you're struggling... so let's just cut to the chase. Figure out what you actually want. Are you just chasing impulses? Are you bored and looking for a change? Maybe you've fallen for someone else, or maybe I'm just not the person you need for this next chapter of your life. Either way—don't worry, be happy." I'm not giving him permission, obviously. I'm not his owner; he's free to do whatever he wants. But he needs to realize everything comes with a price. And the price for exploring other people might just be that I won't be standing by his side anymore. That's the art of love, Sean Cruz. But because of a century's worth of social programming regarding this nonsense we call "romantic love," you'll probably think I'm being sacrilegious.
Romantic love centers on drugs, which only sets the stage for jealousy. It's fragile, fleeting, and honestly? Just infantile. Real, mature love is built on self-love.
I agree she needs more self-confidence, but why shouldn't he sacrifice something for the sake of the art of love—if that's what he's feeling? 😉
To me, "sacrifice" is a disgusting word—honestly, it feels like a curse. When it comes to the art of love, there is no such thing as sacrifice. Love is simply giving, caring, and being attentive. Someone who truly loves won't hurt their partner because wounding someone goes against the very nature of love. And let’s be real: if you actually love yourself, you aren't going to hurt yourself either. If a guy says he's "sacrificing" himself by not texting some other girl just to keep the peace, that’s not love. It just means he still wants to do it, but he’s suppressing his urges so she doesn't get upset. That isn't devotion; it's just being well-trained. He still wants to be talking to someone else.
Honestly, listening to this "spiritual" nonsense makes me want to gag. Just focus on yourself, practice "the art of love," and you'll be fine. 🙏
Sure, maybe for people who let certain "spiritual" gurus brainwash them, everything will feel "fine" because they’ve successfully convinced themselves that's how life should be. But from what I can tell, steeltiger2 actually has a brain and knows how to think for herself, so I doubt any brainwashing is working on her.
And my take? I get the impression that steeltiger2 realized something was deeply wrong with her inner life—that her reactions were becoming irrational, that she had pushed herself nearly to the brink of self-destruction, and that she’s finally ready to change. She's open to hearing what others have to say and then actually doing something about it. That *is* working on yourself, no matter how much it nauseates you...
Hmm, let's think about this.
So, that's what love is supposed to be. No expectations, no jealousy, no possessiveness...
But tell me one thing. Why do you "love" this specific man—the one you call "darling"—instead of just some random stranger on the street? If a person is truly overflowing with love for others because, as you put it, it stems from total self-love, then logically it shouldn't matter who it is with. It would align perfectly with Frommov's "the art of love," wouldn't it? Why Person A instead of Person B?
Or better yet—why not both at once? Both A and B? Or whoever asks? 😬 I mean, it seems like such a waste to spend all that beautiful, selfless love on just one loser. If she could make so many people happy...
a loser, LOLIn short, Wolfgang Pauli comes to mind again... 🤣
No hard feelings 🙂—life just forces people into all sorts of mental constructs...
Sean Cruz said:🙄 Oh, please. Jealousy can mean all sorts of things...😲 Sure, jealousy reflects insecurity, but there isn't a single person on this planet so supremely confident that they never feel a pang of it. Only pathological jealousy points to a deep-seated issue; it's not every little instance of feeling uneasy. How can you possibly claim her fears are irrational and disconnected from reality?
If that's your logic, tell me: would you sit there stone-faced and tell your boyfriend (or husband) to go sleep with someone else just because he finds them attractive? ☕ Is that what love looks like? 🙄
The solution doesn't lie in changing his behavior, nor in his making sacrifices, or altering his character; the fix lies within you.
I agree she probably needs more self-confidence, but why shouldn't he sacrifice something for the sake of love (if he actually feels it)?😉
work on herself
Honestly, when I hear this "spiritual" nonsense, I feel like gagging. Just "work on yourself," practice "free love," and everything will be fine. 🙏
Sure, for people whose brains have been turned to mush by certain "spiritual" movements, it might be "fine" because they've successfully convinced themselves that's how life should work. My impression is that steeltiger2 has a functioning brain and knows how to think for herself, so I doubt any brainwashing would stick with her.
Then what's the issue when he notices other women are beautiful, smart, or impressive? What's the problem if he admires a well-toned body?
Did you even read the thread? She isn't complaining about him noticing other women; she's talking about how he constantly brags about how much others like him and responds to messages that are clearly personal rather than professional.
Take it easy.😍
That whole concept reminds me of
this video, LOL.
Listen to what these two "geniuses" have to say 🤣—especially that plastic bombshell, haha. ...
"as a WOMAN, I have to say - wow, you rock. 🤣 I mean, it says something about your self-confidence, your security with yourself, your masculinity, that you're able to enjoy your wife enjoying herself, even if it's not you causing it; because most men are so insecure that if their wife is enjoying anything that they didn't cause, they are jealous.">
Regarding all of this, I can only echo what Wolfgang Pauli said when he looked at some physics student's paper:
"This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." 😂