Posts by Elizabeth Bishop4

So, I went to check on my appointment today—they actually scheduled me for April 2012 😱

I've got this really weird spot on my leg (inner thigh) that hits every single red flag in the book—it changes color constantly, going from red to purple and now looking totally colorless, plus it’s irregular and keeps shifting shape... I also have one on my nose (though that one’s been there since birth and is pretty symmetrical) that I’d love to just get rid of, an unusual one on my nipple, and another one on my back

There is absolutely no way I can sit around waiting a whole year just to have someone take a look at this...

Honestly, I am more than ready to shell out some serious cash to get this sorted quickly, because if I stay like this, I feel like I won't make it long enough to actually do anything about it

Does anyone have recommendations for a solid private clinic in NYC? And do they even perform histological analyses over there?

Man, he’s got so much raw talent, honestly it's impressive enough to make you stop and think about it for a second.😍

fadedskipper21 said:What really gets under my skin is how almost everyone seems to just fall right into these cookie-cutter stereotypes these days.

I don't think that's some modern phenomenon, though; honestly, it’s been this way since forever—just peer pressure and all those same old social dynamics playing out over and over.

If you don't fit the mold, you usually end up being the target of judgment or scorn, where most people look at you like you're somehow lesser or just fundamentally broken.

But what about you? Is that really how you see yourself?

Why are there so many people in America who just follow the crowd, and why does it seem like there are so few women who are truly original and do things because they actually want to, rather than just doing what society expects of them?

I guess it's just easier, you know? It's the path of least resistance.

At the end of the day, none of it really matters anyway; we're all just eventually going to be worm food.

So, what's the deal here? Are we just talking about trolling, I guess?

Good grief,

I’m exactly the same way—only really interested in guys who are actually good-looking... and honestly, I’m not even talking about some massive, over-the-top ego or anything like that.

It’s pretty simple, really; I just love hooking up with a man who is attractive and hot, someone I can kiss, look at, and touch.

Why on earth do we have to turn everything into some complicated science project?

Oh, come on, now... just those good old days 🙂

I mean, why don't you just sit down and have a heart-to-heart with your mom and dad?

Mom always has that way of being the most loving one in the bunch, so maybe try making an effort to get a little closer to the rest of the family too.

Gosh, I don't know, kiddo...😁

I honestly feel like people’s core personalities don't really change much over time, no matter what happens in their lives.

You know, there are just those certain types of people who always seem to be carrying this underlying sense of discontentment... like they've got this restless energy that they can't quite shake off.

And I don't think bringing a child into the mix would suddenly fix that internal struggle or make them more content.

If anything, I'd argue things might actually get even messier; if someone is already struggling with deep depression and decides to have a baby just hoping it'll give them a sense of purpose, that's a heavy burden to place on anyone.

That's some pretty heavy stuff to drop on you, man.

crimsonheron80 said:I honestly have no idea what a "monster" actually is. Can someone explain it to me? I can't even find a clear definition online.

I remember once walking past this certain institution where there were these distorted, deformed people wandering through the garden, screaming and wailing...😱
During the war, everyone fled that facility and ran through the streets completely naked.🤷

It isn't about being intellectually disabled or having some specific disorder or illness. My mother used to call them "monsters"—and later, a relative of mine studying medicine said the same thing. I still don't quite grasp what that term actually implies. Most people just are, I suppose.🤷😕😂

Oh, come on, what you saw wasn't monsters at all; if you look at it from a certain angle, it's actually performance art—real art, honestly—especially if those guys running the show aren't too repulsive to look at.🤷

Edward Flores4 said:Honestly, modern society—with all its isolation and lack of connection—basically provides the perfect vacuum for these kinds of people to act out the darker impulses of our collective subconscious.

It’s always so much easier to just point at a "monster," slap a clinical diagnosis on them, and pretend that society isn't partially to blame for creating the conditions that allowed such a person to exist in the first place. It's a way to dodge accountability for our own negligence.

Think about it—there were likely hundreds of neighbors who knew the girl had "gone missing," but nobody really gave a damn. People just stayed behind their locked doors in their suburban houses, minding their own business and ignoring the fact that she was essentially leaving her kids on the doorstep. Everyone stays in their own little bubble, focused only on their own lives.

At the end of the day, you get the individuals that the culture produces. Nothing happens in a vacuum!

I really have to agree here

We’re all interconnected, you know? We're constantly influencing one another, whether we want to or not.

But nowadays, everyone is just looking out for number one, pulling inward, and I guess this broken state of affairs is exactly what we get for it.

"You aren't some special, one-of-a-kind snowflake. Truth be told, we're all just the same decaying organic matter, eventually becoming part of the exact same compost pile."

Man, Brad Pitt is just ridiculously good-looking—he's got that smooth look, and honestly, he’s got an incredible physique too. 😬

Chris Cooper5, you seem like such a sweetheart to me, so I have to ask, what's actually bothering you? 🤷

wiredbear2 said:How? Well, it’s quite simple, really—you just learn to be whole on your own, realizing you don't strictly need another person to witness or share your most beautiful moments, because you can experience those joys entirely by yourself. You can explore your own sexuality, too, finding ways to make it feel absolutely incredible through self-discovery and deep exploration... and Andrew Sanchez572 is always sending me messages about exactly that. There is nothing wrong with that, and you can certainly feel fulfilled and find spiritual elevation through it. But—that isn't the whole truth. I truly believe that human beings are designed for partnership, not for total isolation. And I think that applies to our sexuality as well...
Perhaps it works for a limited season of life due to various circumstances, but it shouldn't be the default setting...

But what happens if, say, you just can't find someone who actually fits? Does that mean you're basically sentenced to a life that feels incomplete or unhappy?

wiredbear2 said:Maybe I’m just being dramatic because, honestly, I have zero desire to be my own everything—even though I know I could pull it off if I really had to.

But seriously, what does it even mean to be "self-sufficient" in that way? Could you maybe dive a little deeper into what you mean by that?

Andrew Sanchez572 said:I’ve honestly found that I have much more meaningful and emotionally deep connections with men than I ever have with women, and that feeling just seems to get stronger as I get older—and I’m talking purely about friendships here, totally platonic.

That’s definitely true, though I feel like once you throw sex into the mix, that emotional depth just kind of evaporates, right? It’s like the whole dynamic shifts completely. I really think you can build these solid, lasting friendships with guys as long as they’re certain there isn't any romantic tension involved, because then they don't go looking for it; instead, they actually see you as an intelligent person they can just sit down and have a real conversation with. But, honestly, I suppose that’s just another byproduct of our patriarchal culture and the way we were all raised, which is something none of us are really immune to, regardless of how hard we try.

I don't know, my own life experience isn't exactly a massive data set or anything, so I'm probably just throwing out theories here.

Sean Cruz said:...every woman is more or less jealous of another if she happens to be more successful in any given area.

It's funny because you're calling out that kind of generalization, even though you're doing the exact same thing yourself.

Andrew Sanchez572 said:Oh boy, I simply cannot agree with 😲

Regarding this whole issue of patriarchal indoctrination, I don't believe it has anything to do with hormones or biological drivers at all. Rather, I would argue that these supposed hormonal issues—this specific type of behavior seen in men—are merely the byproduct of patriarchal conditioning. It’s a system that has historically stigmatized women as nothing more than wombs and men solely as providers of seed 🙄
which reduces sex to a mere tool for reproduction, rather than what it should be: a profound spiritual and emotional experience.

That being said, based on my own life experiences thus far, I have to say I haven't actually encountered many such emotionless men. In fact, I find that most men are quite exhausted by the roles forced upon them... in about 90% of the men I know (not to mention those I have personally dated), I observe sincere, deep emotions and a genuine need for connection.
I have only ever noticed true lack of feeling in people—both men and women—who have actively suppressed their own sexual and emotional needs, or even embraced celibacy as a shield.

The example Brian Lopez6 brought up, where a woman becomes "uninteresting" to her male partner immediately after sex, perhaps speaks more to how much he was attracted to her in the first place. I suspect that if he were truly interested in her as a person, beyond just the physical aspect, the situation wouldn't feel nearly as frustrating for either party. However, that is precisely the point. In a culture like this, women aren't given the opportunity, nor are they encouraged, to develop their own unique personalities and character; meanwhile, men are indoctrinated to view women as nothing more than reproductive vessels. Women are dehumanized, while men are deliberately prevented from achieving any real, deep connection with their partners.

If Brian Lopez6's argument were actually correct, men would be entirely incapable of any kind of emotional relationship whatsoever. Yet, we see that men—especially those types—understand each other quite well and are perfectly capable of fulfilling those emotional, spiritual, and intellectual needs among themselves.

But you have to admit, men like that are pretty rare, aren't they? It’s not that they lack the capacity for emotional intimacy entirely, but there are so many women out there who just can't seem to build a real, deep bond with a man, let alone tap into that whole spiritual side of sexuality we're discussing here. And honestly, I think women carry a good chunk of the responsibility for that, too. Sometimes, it feels incredibly draining just trying to have a basic conversation with a guy without getting that nagging, unsettling feeling that you're just never going to be on the same wavelength.

Brian Lopez6 said:I really think this whole physiological setup is at the core of why there’s such negative baggage surrounding sexuality, and it basically feeds right into that old-school patriarchal culture built on competition—it also seems to underpin this whole idea that we need to practice abstinence if we want to actually be productive members of society.

I suppose what it boils down to is that biological drive where a man feels this urge to spread his genes, you know, that primal instinct to fertilize as many females as possible. Once he’s been intimate with one woman a few times, that biological clock in his head tells him his job is done and it's time to move on.

Since there's this fundamental gap between the sexes—which, like you pointed out, is rooted in our very biology—it makes me wonder: should a woman just accept that compromise and settle for a guy who's going to roll over and fall asleep the second he's finished, or should she hold out for something more substantial? Honestly, I don't know; I just feel like men and women are wired so differently that these gaps might just be impossible to smooth over. I mean, at the end of the day, you can't really fight against nature.

brightnomad5 said:I approached this topic through a purely logical and philosophical lens. I didn't realize I was throwing out theological citations—though I have plenty of those at my disposal from various texts—so I don't see the basis for this objection. Even if I had been quoting scripture, there is no reason why such an explanation should be dismissed simply by labeling it "dogmatic" and attaching that negative connotation to it. The truth is, everyone loves sex and finds ways to justify it, but everything I said is a straightforward, verifiable fact; if someone takes offense to that, that’s their problem. Personally, I wish I could balance both at once and find the absolute best way to integrate them: sex and spirituality.

Look, I respect your position and your decision to steer clear of practicing spirituality through sex, but you’re underestimating the people who actually choose that path.

Who, when, and where exactly was I being condescending? I was simply stating my principled stance on a specific phenomenon and providing the reasoning behind it. 😕

I don't view sexual magic, Western tantra, or tantra in general as being some kind of sexually deviant phenomenon.

I’ve said before that if someone can’t master their sexual energy through celibacy, they can still redirect it toward awakening higher levels of consciousness. It’s certainly a better path than succumbing to mindless debauchery or the reckless misuse of sexuality. However, even that isn't anywhere near the optimal way to reach one's spiritual goals. It’s simply a practical alternative for those who, for whatever reason—whether objective or subjective—find themselves unable to practice more advanced methods.

Furthermore, both men and women can practice sexual magic—along with any other discipline—entirely on their own. In fact, practicing solo is actually highly recommended during the initial stages.
Personally, I’ve had very little experience practicing this within a relationship; I find that I feel much better when I do it on my own.

There are various ways to work with sexual energy, but at its core, a sexual encounter is a connection between a man and a woman—though, naturally, that's entirely up to individual free will and whatever anyone chooses for themselves.

Thirdly, regarding sperm: beyond the possibility of redirecting its energy through specific exercises, it serves as an energetic guide. Following a sexual ritual, it can be consumed as a sacred substance—along with vaginal fluids, naturally. The release of both seed and vaginal fluid, and their subsequent blending, is the essential component; this mixture becomes consecrated once the ritual is complete.

Wait, what? 😕 Consume? What exactly do you mean by "consume"?

It’s probably oral.

He can't even reach a climax without ejaculating, so what's actually the point of the semen?

People who practice tantra claim that a man can actually reach a climax without any ejaculation at all. It makes me think there's probably some kind of internal switch you can flip.