Posts by Peter Phillips32

Sean Cruz said:I have zero interest in books that try to provide a "recipe" for living based on broad generalizations. As soon as an author claims that a specific fantasy is common among most women—based on a handful of anecdotal cases—it becomes clear how little scientific weight the book actually carries. Being a bestseller doesn't mean anything to me.

I have plenty of reasons to take the book I mentioned seriously.

Believe whatever you want; whether it's about sexuality or aliens, it's your prerogative.

I don't believe we are born with a fixed nature (regarding sexuality—whether straight, gay, or otherwise). I believe it's possible to consciously choose one's own orientation.

I fail to see how that would be biologically possible. If that were true, we would all be born hermaphrodites so that we could actually make a conscious choice about our sex.

Whether it's modern or not, and whether there are generalizations or not, is irrelevant. (And if you're wondering what it's irrelevant to, the answer is logic.)

It isn't a matter of logic. In your previous paragraph, you claimed we consciously choose our sexual orientation. You are contradicting yourself. Honestly, it seems to me that you are simply interpreting things you've read in certain books without applying any critical thinking.

Look, unless you have a source or can clarify exactly what your second sentence is based on, it holds no water.

Go ahead and present your own argument—backed by actual scientific research—proving that the most common sexual fantasy for the majority of women is sex with another woman. Only then can you dismiss my statement. And let me be clear: I am not saying heterosexual women don't have such fantasies, but they certainly aren't the "majority."

Look, there aren't "recipes" in there, just actual experiences from women—their fantasies, their realities—viewed through a scientific lens. It was written by researchers who actually specialize in this field, so you can actually take the data to the bank.
Hehe, well obviously data is collected case by case... that's how science works, isn't it?

I don't even see how that would be possible; if that were true, we’d all be born hermaphrodites so we could just consciously pick which gender we wanted to be.

Pure science fiction.🙂
The biological purpose of sex is reproduction, sure, but let's be real: orgasm is way more frequent. Which gender you achieve that with depends entirely on your own preferences (assuming you actually have freedom of thought). Those preferences come from this messy cocktail of hormones, thoughts, feelings, and whatever is happening in your immediate environment. And honestly, the society we live in plays a huge role too, because it isn't quite liberal enough to let people truly exercise free will regarding what they prefer.

That makes zero sense. In your last paragraph, you’re claiming we can consciously choose our sexual inclinations, but you're totally contradicting yourself. Honestly, I get the feeling you're just regurgitating stuff you read in certain books without actually applying any critical thinking to it.

Actually, yeah, I am saying it's possible to choose which gender you climax with or enjoy sex with.
Think about it: learning starts even before birth with the development of the nervous system in the womb, where a baby perceives the world through vibrations and sound. Up until a certain age—maybe four?—a kid can't really tell reality apart from make-believe. So, since a child is basically a sponge, absorbing everything without questioning it, they soak up the state of the world around them as the absolute norm. When someone is conditioned by their environment to be a heterosexual person (strictly hetero, because society lacks the liberalism to allow anything else), they grow up identifying their sexuality based on the existence of a mom and a dad. Since Mom and Dad are "natural," then being with them feels natural, enjoyable, and desirable. Society loves what is "natural" and "comfortable," and since I'm part of that society, I feel pressured to be natural and comfortable, and so on (I think you see where I'm going with this).
Because this is so deeply ingrained, it gets labeled as "natural"—you know, the whole "we are naturally heterosexual, God made us this way" trope. (And look, don't come at me for bringing religion into it, I'm not going to debate that).

It's just like any other preference—whether it's liking a specific symphony, a certain juice, a TV show, a game, a sport, or strawberries with whipped cream—sexual enjoyment can be shifted. The extent of that shift depends on the ability of the person making the change. And that ability, for whatever it's worth, can be improved, mostly through practice. So, when you think you need to "quit" something (which is usually just an unwanted habit), what you're actually doing is replacing it, because nothing exists in a vacuum. If you can successfully swap one thing out, you can do the second, then the third—and if you can master it in those areas, then yeah, you can definitely do it with sexuality in conscious situations.

Look, if you’ve actually got some hard science or actual research studies to back up your claim that most women's go-to fantasy is hooking up with another woman, then fine—go ahead and toss my point out the window. And hey, I'm not saying there aren't straight women who have those thoughts, obviously, but I am certain it isn't the "majority."

So there's the logic, and to wrap this up...

Like slywolf45 was saying, do you honestly think people are just going to step up and admit the truth when they know they're staring down the barrel of social judgment? People are terrified of being cast out by the very community they belong to, and once you're rejected, you feel totally worthless. You can't forget that most folks just take the path of least resistance to stay safe.

Also, let's be real, why does it seem like both men and women find women more attractive lately? It's because women are putting way more effort into their look these days.

Sean Cruz said:Honestly, those books are just like "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" or whatever. Does anyone actually take that stuff seriously?

I don't buy this idea of "bisexuality" being an inherent trait. I think we’re all essentially bisexual, but we just suppress it. 🙄

In this day and age, it's considered modern to think that way, so you see more women experimenting. In all likelihood, sex with another woman isn't the most common fantasy for the average woman—it's really just for those who are already predisposed to homosexuality.

Look, I haven't even heard of the book you're bringing up, so comparing them is a total reach on my part. If you haven't actually sat down and read both of them, then honestly, this whole comparison just feels totally unfounded.

Does anyone actually take this seriously?

I mean, I’ve got plenty of reasons—actual arguments, if you want to call them that—to take the book I mentioned dead serious.

I don't buy into this "bisexual nature" thing; basically, we're all somewhat bisexual, we just suppress it. 🙄

Honestly, I don't really buy the whole "it's innate" argument either—whether we're talking about being gay, straight, or bi. To me, it's more about the fact that you can consciously choose which gender you want to go for.

It's the modern way of thinking these days, so girls end up experimenting.
Anyway, sex with another woman definitely isn't the most common fantasy for most women, just for those who lean towards homosexuality.

Whether it's "modern" or not doesn't matter, and making broad generalizations is just as irrelevant. (And if you're wondering why I say it's irrelevant, the answer is simple: use your brain.)
The bottom line is, unless you've got some actual source or can explain exactly where that second sentence is coming from, it's basically just hot air.

Sean Cruz said:Where on earth did you read that?

I think I saw it tucked away somewhere in Anaïs Nin - Delta of Venus 🙂

Just wanted to jump back in here and follow up on post number 6.
It’s pretty much common knowledge that when you talk to women about their sexual fantasies, same-sex attraction pops up more often than you'd think. Honestly, we don't even have solid numbers for guys because, let's face it, most dudes aren't exactly running to a therapist or a forum to vent about their deepest thoughts and feelings—they just keep it bottled up.

As far as I'm concerned, sex is basically the ultimate level of intimacy you can reach with another human being. You've got no walls up, no defensive mechanisms running; you're just raw. Think of it this way: sex is how you truly round out a connection with someone. And look, it doesn't matter if you're hitting that level of closeness with a guy, a girl, or a whole group of people.
I mean, the whole point of having sex isn't just about making babies, so it's obviously used for way more than just reproduction.
Up until now, I haven't seen much actual criticism here, aside from the usual unhinged nonsense coming from those "holier-than-thou" types who think they're morally superior to everyone else.

If you want to look at it through a different lens—like how we control our own muscles, emotions, and thoughts—it works similarly. If you can associate the act of sex with the opposite sex in a way that triggers arousal, then sure, you can also trigger that same response with the same sex, or with both. That's essentially how you end up with hetero, homo, or bisexual orientations.
For anyone who thinks this theory sounds a bit out there, just take a second to really think about how and when sexual orientation actually develops in the first place.

A few random things to chew on:
The brain is hands down the most powerful aphrodisiac out there.
From a physiological standpoint, male nerve endings run from the base of the penis all the way through to the anus—both externally and internally.

(sarcastic) p.s.
Wondering why there seem to be more bisexual women than men? It's probably because "macho" guys are too busy playing the role of the big, tough provider who only knows how to give, never receive. They've gotta stay "strong," right?

Calf Toning (from the AFL)

Focus area: on those calf muscles
Breathing: sync it up with the movement
Repetitions: 5 reps per side
How to do it: Stand with your feet spread slightly apart, toes pointing outward. Just tuck your hands on your hips and get ready.
As you exhale, lift your left heel and shift your weight onto the ball of your left foot—you want to make it feel like your right leg is basically doing nothing at all. You should really feel that burn in your calf muscle.
Inhale and bring it back to center.
Do this 5 times on one side, then switch and do 5 on the other.
Let your arms hang loose and just settle back into your starting position.

Why bother:
It builds up the strength in your feet and calves, helps you find your balance, and makes you way more aware of how much stress your feet and legs are actually taking. Plus, it’s great for boosting circulation and helping out with varicose veins.

So just go out there and train 🙂

Drew Bennett2 said:The idea that sexual orientation can be altered through therapy is simply not possible; that is the scientific consensus. Anyone claiming otherwise is being unserious and, from my perspective, is operating from a place of total misinformation.

PS. I wasn't too lazy to double-check this across several sources. I even went as far as reaching out to an acquaintance of mine—a psychiatrist who trained abroad and runs his own private practice here in the States—and he confirmed it definitively: you cannot change it, period.

Oh, so because it's the prevailing opinion, it must be the absolute truth, right?😁

PS. I didn't mind doing some digging across a bunch of different sources, and I even checked in with an acquaintance of mine who's a psychiatrist trained abroad and runs his own clinic, so yeah, definitely—it’s impossible, period.

Right, so he studied overseas, owns a private practice, you checked "multiple sources"—which apparently means asking one guy you know. Truly top-tier argumentation there, dropping a "period" at the end like that to shut down any actual conversation.😁

Look, I'm just speaking from what I've seen and dealt with personally... so, whatever you say, man.

@Carol Thompson
I'm just gonna stick to my guns here and say what needs to be said. People shouldn't be getting all caught up in taking sides; you’ve gotta stay true to the facts instead.

From where I'm sitting, there isn't anything wrong with how you framed the whole topic.
I'm also on board with your point about how someone could shift from being bi to homo to hetero, and how it's totally possible for multiple sexual orientations to exist all at once.

Carol Thompson said:The idea that change is possible comes from, say, professors and veteran clinical psychology experts over at Zillow. I mean, sure, maybe they were all lying when they taught their students... But if I have to choose between trusting an experienced specialist or some anonymous person on an internet forum, I think my answer is pretty obvious... ☕

Science and the profession don't actually hold a unified stance saying it's impossible. The truth is there are several conflicting viewpoints out there. And most of those disagreements are really just happening between the mainstream LGBTQ+ lobby and psychoanalysts... but at that point, we're talking about politics, power dynamics, and so on.
It’s honestly sad to see how many of you here are just pushing your own personal agendas. It feels like this whole thread has devolved into a fight for political correctness and rights rather than offering any sincere, unbiased help to slyraven9.

What you're forgetting is that this disorder isn't diagnosed in just anyone who decides they don't want to be gay or wants to change. 😉

I never said this disorder was being diagnosed in just anybody. Nor does the category of "unspecified sexual disorder" apply exclusively to homosexual orientation; it can apply to any orientation whatsoever.
That's exactly why I suggested slyraven9 should go see a professional to figure out what's actually going on with him...
And finally, even if that is indeed the disorder in question, changing one's orientation might only be one potential solution. As Drew Morgan pointed out, another option could simply be changing one's mindset and emotional outlook.
That's all from me.

It's about what's being said, not who's saying it. Reason prevails.
And besides, this ties right into the whole thing below...

Carol Thompson said:Look, I never actually stated that homosexuality is a disorder. 🤷 Quite the opposite—I pointed out that such views have been abandoned for a long time now. Far be it from me to try and "cure" anyone in that sense; I’m neither trained enough nor specialized in it, it isn't my field of interest, and I certainly don't believe anyone should be treated for being gay. If you had just read my posts a bit more carefully instead of taking everything as a personal attack (as if this entire thread is about you personally), maybe you’d calm down a little... 👎

Of course they have names, but I have no intention of naming names here... if you're truly curious, we can take it to PM, but not in public. Besides, even if I did give a name, do you really have any reason to trust me (or anyone else on this forum)??

When? Fifty years ago? The last one teaching that was Gruden, but even he came to his senses after the complaints started piling up regarding those kinds of ideas...

Just a few years ago (maybe 2 or 3)... honestly, I haven't even heard of Gruden before. 🤷 Maybe I'll look uneducated or uninformed because of this... everyone keeps attacking me over this one guy, and I have absolutely no clue who he is.

The fight for homosexual rights? An interesting phenomenon...

Good grief, now we're just twisting my words out of context... if that's how this thread is going to go, fine, then tell me exactly where I went wrong. It's possible I was imprecise or phrased things poorly...

Anyway, guys, I think some people are taking this way too personally. I don't have an issue with anyone. I answered axe bobo based strictly on what I've learned, without injecting my own opinions (which, let's face it, most people here fail to do).

But that's the whole point of being here—to actually think for yourself...
What you learn + actually using your brain = thinking for yourself.
If we're strictly sticking to "what we've been taught," then I guess every reply on this board should just be a link to a textbook or a Wikipedia page.

Look, there’s no point in repeating myself since I’ve already combed through the previous posts on this thread and gotten my bearings. I was basically just throwing my two cents back at you because you keep barking orders at a bunch of random people who aren't even in a position to talk back to you. You keep lecturing everyone else about how they don't know how to use the resources right in front of them, but honestly? It sounds like you’re just describing yourself. That’s probably why you can't stop bringing it up—you know how it goes, we all tend to get most annoyed by the exact things we hate seeing in our own damn mirrors, if we're being honest enough to admit it.
We actually see eye to eye on why the education system is such a mess. We just can't seem to agree on what to actually do about it.

Zachary Turner6 said:Man, I cannot emphasize enough how much I agree with you.

Furthermore, through elementary and high school, they throw a massive pile of subjects at you in the hope that one might actually stick. But is that really the right way to do things? Ever since freshman year of high school, I knew nothing but math would ever interest me—yet I still had to maintain my GPA, wasting precious time mastering things I was never going to use. I know plenty of bright kids who wasted their potential on this "well-rounded education" nonsense, leaving them significantly less capable of pursuing the one field they actually love. It's a double-edged sword: you learn everything just in case something catches your eye.

How am I supposed to find the time to critically analyze physics experiments when I'm forced to memorize Mažuranić, the US GDP, or random facts about the Romans?

You certainly have a point there. However, how are kids supposed to choose a career if they aren't even aware of what professions exist in the first place?
That's why subject selection starts in high school (thankfully) and becomes much more focused in college.

Mind you, in my case, it's a single major. Computer science students end up taking sociology, intro to philosophy, physics, and all sorts of similar nonsense—mostly because there aren't enough specialized courses, so they try to "fill the gaps."🙄 It's ridiculous. I'm not saying that knowledge isn't beautiful, but if someone enrolled to study CS, it's unlikely they'll care about those topics, and they certainly won't ever need them in their professional life.😁
(Personally, I find all of it interesting, so I educate myself outside of class—for instance, right here on this forum, haha. I'll likely end up being more broadly educated, even if it makes me a slightly less efficient computer scientist.😁)

It feels like😉, looking through your posts in this thread, there's this underlying misunderstanding that you keep trying to pin on everyone else.
You could really use a little logic to see the contradiction in what you're saying and realize how much you actually need to weed out the idiots.
I mean, don't you see you're just walking in circles here?

Furthermore, I totally agree that we're lagging behind when it comes to implementing new educational methods based on what we actually know about cognitive science. Why? Probably because people prioritize political correctness, profit, or just nepotism over actual psycho-physical needs. (And obviously, I'm talking about the vibe prevalent in America and other non-liberal countries)
But honestly, things aren't as bleak as half these posts make it seem (some people are just going off-topic, so I'm ignoring them).
I think it'll be obvious enough to anyone who actually bothers to pick up the books listed below regarding the direction needed for real improvement, so I don't feel the need to keep typing out my opinions.

If anyone is still interested in this topic, I'd recommend two books:
Carla Hannaford - Smart movement (from a psychological perspective on childhood education);
Konrad Paul Liessmann - Konrad Paul Liessmann - theory - delusion society knowledge (it's a current, controversial, and brilliantly articulated critique of the whole "knowledge society" concept—that's basically what's on the cover; this book is at a university level).
That should give you a solid look into what "complete" formal education looks like, both through the first book and via your own self-education.

hiddenhound3 said:I certainly grasp the essence of your point, though I find myself unable to agree entirely. It seems to me that people err when they attempt to identify themselves with their possessions, the works of art they have produced, or most frequently, their own physical bodies; consequently, they perceive any detachment from these things as a loss of self, which is fundamentally an illusion.

It feels like we're actually on the same page here; we're just using different ways to describe the exact same thing.

hiddenhound3 said:You say that simply because you don't know me very well enough. 😬 It isn't just that I lose or forget things; I have this uncanny knack for breaking them or dropping them into water, and they seem to have a particular penchant for doing so right when they are brand new. 🙂
An anecdote: I once rode my bicycle to the corner store and ended up walking home, though I didn't realize what had happened until a few days later when I needed the bike again to run an errand; naturally, it was gone for good. 😢

Now, regarding the second point. Since I write a bit myself and am terribly sensitive to all manner of criticism, I have come to the conclusion that this is fundamentally a matter of ego. In principle, for the sake of our own mental well-being, we ought to release our creations into the world in such a way that they might live on their own, develop their own identity, and tell their own stories entirely independent of our influence. I am well aware that this is a difficult task, as it feels much like severing a part of oneself.

The thing is, creations can only ever have an assigned identity, because they aren't independent thinking entities capable of interacting with some other similar entity on their own.

It’s all ego, really—this idea that the ego is just a projection of the past and the future, which means it doesn't actually exist in the present. More specifically, the ego is just a collection of thoughts where we project our "ideal" versus our "real" selves, and you can only truly think about the past or the future; in the actual present moment, there is only action.

And another thing: ownership isn't some inherent right a person just possesses. It's more like a privilege where you can use an object, a plot of land, or a car for your own purposes as long as you remain in harmony with your environment.
So, you can't actually lose anything because you don't truly possess it in the first place—things just change. Ownership is just a temporary state, not some permanent thing.

My morning energy boost

- some yogurt (I usually stick to the plain LGG stuff since I’m trying to dodge all that added sugar)
- a spoonful of honey
- fruit (bananas, apples, whatever is sitting on the counter)
- honestly, you can just toss all that into some oatmeal too, just skip the chocolate kind if you want to stay healthy

It totally wakes me up and hits those daily vitamin needs without feeling heavy.

Kimberly Stewart47 said:Peter Phillips32, I eat something pretty similar, but instead of using heavy cream, I go with chocolate milk.
Basically, I just mash up about four bananas into some milk and stir in some Nesquik. Honestly, the only reason I even touch this stuff is because it tastes freaking amazing.

I definitely need to give those oats in hot milk with apples a shot though, it never even crossed my mind.

Right now, my go-to snack is just a cup of yogurt with a spoonful of buckwheat bran and some flaxseeds.

It sounds pretty tasty and interesting, but if I were you, I'd ditch the Nesquik as soon as possible. It might taste great, but let's be real—it’s definitely not healthy.
The rest of 👍

p.s. for quietpilot87 - fine, alright, I promise I won't turn into anything other than a recipe bot on this thread anymore.

For the gains - milk shake, cottage cheese, banana:
- volume: about 40-50 oz
- timing: right when you walk through the door after hitting the gym
- enjoy

Grab maybe 2 to 4 bananas, depending on how big they are; toss in about a quarter or a fifth of a tub of cottage cheese; then just pour in enough milk to hit whatever consistency you're feeling or until your blender is full.

Honestly, it’s a delicious liquid protein meal.

Kosmodisk is a total scam. It’s basically just riding the wave of the placebo effect. You hear some supposedly "good news" (which makes you feel happy and relaxed), and then suddenly your body starts boosting its own immune system and mental state because—let's be real—your body actually functions way better when you aren't stressed out of your mind.

Anyway, most of the junk being pushed on Walmart is bottom-of-the-barrel quality, and honestly, we need to change how we watch TV or, better yet, just turn the damn thing off altogether. Grab a fitness book or go find some actually useful info online instead. And look, this forum isn't some kind of search engine for facts; it's a place for us to swap opinions, for crying out loud.

I’d like to jump in here and add something to what Michael Moore3 was saying.

See, it isn't just about managing how you react to things happening out in the world; you can also manage the decisions happening deep inside your own head. The problem is, most people don't even realize that you can't just look inward with your eyes like you're checking the weather—they don't even know how to start. That's why you have to constantly educate yourself and keep practicing until those new, healthy habits actually stick. Eventually, that subconscious stuff becomes conscious.

@mistygull16
Look, this whole world isn't inherently beautiful, or ugly, or heavy, or depressing, or even sinful... none of that exists until you decide it does and let it become your reality (which really just comes down to whether you've got the tools to steer your own ship or if you're just being submissive to whatever happens). It's all just cause and effect, plain and simple.

Since you mentioned that the absolute worst thing for you is when someone tries to convince you of something, I highly doubt you'll be the one calling the shots on your next reincarnation.

Honestly, maybe you should just start hitting the gym or something on your own. Look into some yoga routines. And swimming? That’s killer. I really think getting in the pool would do wonders for strengthening up those shoulders of yours.

I’m totally with that.
The body basically needs daily movement if you want to actually tap into what it's capable of. It's the same deal with food and hydration—you've gotta eat high-quality stuff.
Plus, swimming is great for keeping your spine in check.

And as far as I'm concerned, yoga is hands down the best fitness system I've ever come across. It hits the whole body. It forces you to look at yourself holistically. Most people think if they have a headache, it's some brain issue, when really it could be because they're eating junk, dehydrated, or dealing with shoulder pain or whatever. Plus, there are specific moves for breathing, focus, and visualization.
Seriously, if you’re looking to actually understand yourself better, yoga is one way to go.

Just a heads-up: I don't mean power yoga or any of those other versions that feel more like Pilates or some other mambo jumbo.
"Yoga poses (asanas), unlike gymnastics, are performed slowly, with total concentration and mindful execution of movements. The number of exercises isn't nearly as important as the quality of how you perform them. Before, during, and after the practice, you should focus on physical and mental relaxation," according to the Everyday Yoga system.

And yeah, if you stay consistent, your body's capability improves—meaning "over time," you'll get better at the moves and see actual results.

p.s.
It's definitely worth it for you to learn a bit more about how exercise affects both your mind and your body.

- part two -
You mentioned you spend a lot of time sitting. For your spine, if you're using a chair with a backrest, make sure you're supporting your lumbar region (just above the tailbone). If you sit wrong for too long, that area can start to deform. I actually recommend sitting upright without a backrest at all—keep your spine straight, shoulders back, and tuck your chin down slightly to fix your neck posture. You'll get used to it eventually. 🙂

Recommendations: - for yoga - Everyday Yoga
- for reading up - Treating the Person, Not the Disease

Just jumping on the back of what abattoir was saying here.

Look, if you hit the gym in the morning, you’re basically priming the engine for the day ahead, but hitting it at night? That’s all about decompressing and letting your body finally chill out after dealing with all the daily grind.

@Sarah Fisher67/">@@Sarah Fisher67
Honestly, you’ve been doing this wrong for a while now. It’s just finally hitting the surface because you’ve reached a breaking point where you can't ignore it anymore.
It’s kind of like when you realize you're thirsty—by then, your body is already dehydrated, you know? You're already playing catch-up.

You really need to work on your focus. Just like any other skill, concentration isn't some magic gift; it's something you have to train.
Go find some actual, solid material on the subject. And once you stumble upon a method that actually clicks for you, stick with it. Don't jump around. If you keep repeating the same way of focusing, you'll eventually get better at it.

Personally, I’d suggest focusing on your breathing. (Do some digging on that, you'll find plenty of info)