Hannah White2 said:You’re taking this whole thing way too personally. It’s not my fault there are biological differences between men and women. Just look at amygdala size, or even how we process decision-making and react to threats. Since you’re flexing your "massive expertise" (compared to me), it's pretty obvious you're just spooked by my point. Why is it so humiliating to admit that, in most cases, a woman wants a man to be the provider during pregnancy and those early stages of raising a kid? I don't get why women who love to intellectualize everything refuse to admit they're still looking for the same stuff we were hunting for in caves—evolution isn't exactly moving at lightning speed, you know? It's not like I went out and designed the world the way it is today. By all means, enlighten me if you actually have real research data that proves my points wrong.
It’s precisely because of those differences that women excel in certain people-oriented careers—so you really just shot yourself in the foot there. That's just one example. I don't feel like getting into a deep dive.
The bottom line is that a person isn't defined by their body! Thank God for that! Because a woman with smaller breasts, or a "less feminine" amygdala (since that’s not how biology works), isn't any less of a woman—and she certainly isn't someone of "questionable value." She’s a whole person, plain and simple. And someone who looks a person in the eye rather than staring at their cleavage will notice that too! Again, that's just one example.
I think you need to work through some personal hang-ups (this obsession with physical attributes and their significance... I can only hope this isn't a defense mechanism for an identity crisis. Why the desperate need for control over this topic?), and I can't help you with that via an internet forum. Besides, I don't want to "help" by digging deeper, which is what would happen if I kept engaging in this back-and-forth. It's better if you just step away from it.
Probably not. And honestly, the kid won't let you, either. They aren't just some prisoner of their parents' whims. They have their own free will, and the whole point isn't to "break" them—it’s to raise them. As for what they eventually turn into? Nobody has a clue, which I suppose is the real magic of parenting. But if there is one thing you can count on, it's that they won't be perfect. Perfection doesn't exist. Neither do perfect parents. Not even the ones who are absolutely convinced they've achieved it (which, ironically, is usually their biggest flaw).
In what I’d call 'rational concern,' you aren't actually terrified—you're just worried. Fear is what freezes you up, whereas basic anxiety can actually be a motivator if you play it right. You just have to be smart enough to figure out which side of that line you're standing on. 😁
I think it’s worth pointing out that most women aren't just "scared"—they’re genuinely anxious about stepping into a completely unknown territory with motherhood what matters here is distinguishing between standard nerves and those gut feelings telling you that now simply isn't the right time (for whatever reason). If the timing is off, nature is usually sending a clear signal that a person doesn't feel secure enough, and frankly, a child shouldn't be brought into an environment that lacks stability. Whether that lack of security stems from unresolved personal baggage, or if the financial situation, social support, or even the partner just isn't "the one"—no matter how much that realization might terrify someone, it's a reality that needs addressing.
but this isn't really about the patients, right? It's more about the primary care doctors ordering unnecessary tests and the pharmacists handing out meds they shouldn't be, isn't it?
Not really. Not at all. Though maybe it happens more often because patients basically self-diagnose and then threaten their doctor if they don't get exactly what they want. They demand endless diagnostic testing, or they just don't show up, letting those referrals go to waste—and a referral is essentially taxpayer money down the drain. You have people who won't quit smoking or cut back on salt even if their life depends on it, yet they'll happily pop antihypertensives and other pills, wasting resources that shouldn't be spent. Then there are those preventive screenings organized by the government and sent via mail—less than 50% of people actually showed up for them. What do they care? They’ll just let the state pick up the tab for an expensive surgery later when it's already too late. And pharmacists just manufacture or dispense drugs; they don't prescribe them.
At its core, this is about basic personal responsibility toward oneself and society. Adults should be prepared for that reality. If you ask me, I’d be happy to provide everyone with universal healthcare. But once it becomes clear that people are repeatedly ignoring medical advice that was paid for by someone else (because nothing is truly "free," someone always picks up the check), they should have to cover a percentage of the costs themselves next time. If they continue to squander resources that others worked hard to earn, they should receive fewer benefits and end up paying an even larger share out of pocket.
It’s not about saying some people deserve more than others; I’ve just seen enough to have a bit of a more realistic perspective on the situation. Most ER calls end up being nothing more than unnecessary nuisance calls. About 60% of X-rays don't even result in a diagnosis—so I guess those are just wasted money at that point. Then you have the massive overprescription of antibiotics that patients ignore, or worse, they don't even finish the full course like they're supposed to. All of this creates these massive systemic costs, which means there isn't enough funding left for actual life-saving surgeries and critical procedures. Personally, I’d look at reducing Medicare coverage for those types of avoidable cases. That money could be redirected toward people dealing with things like eating disorders, where current treatment options aren't nearly sufficient to meet the actual need. At least then we wouldn't be draining funds for oral surgeries for alcoholics who refuse to follow medical advice in the first place.
There’s a massive amount of data you can pull from this. Take someone struggling with obesity who’s been told to watch their diet but just isn't seeing the scale move—you could bet they're dealing with high cholesterol and all the fallout that comes with it. And so on.
Anxiety is clearly clouding your judgment. Take a closer look and you'll see the logic behind my response to post #30. I'm quoting here:
This is incredibly interesting stuff. I’ve tried it three times over the last decade, and honestly, words can't really do it justice. I truly believe anyone with enough mental stability to handle a trip should experience it at least once in their lifetime.
And now, I'll quote your misguided rebuttal:
Not everyone uses drugs just for fun, and not everyone started doing it for that reason either.
The point is, I'm talking about recreational use—and someone here certainly seems to be doing exactly that!
slypuma17 said:The root of the issue lies in semantics—a linguistic trap we’ve discussed before. People say, "I want a baby." Well, obviously, nobody wakes up wanting a moody teenager who mumbles through their dinner while wearing headphones and messing with their greasy hair to some indie rock track. 😂
The standard "commercial" version of parenthood always features a radiant, glowing mother and a perfectly composed infant. It never shows the exhausted, drained woman or the toddler throwing a tantrum in the middle of a Target aisle. 😁
Kids aren't an afterthought.
They certainly shouldn't be treated as an afterthought, yet for far too many, that is exactly how it happens. 😁
Sorry, this might be off-topic, but I actually find teenagers and adolescents pretty endearing! Honestly, I wouldn't mind one of those types at all. It doesn't seem that bad to me. But that leads directly into my next point—people are different. And that’s perfectly fine.
Nicholas Sullivan63 said:You know, since we’ve already touched on those primal, caveman instincts and that whole "woman's body is built for reproduction" argument, it makes me wonder... is that really all there is to us? Are the guys over in Afghanistan or Iran actually right? You know, places where a woman's entire existence is just to bear children and stay quiet? And what if I want to do more than just motherhood? What if I want to dive into physics or philosophy—fields where people act like I don't belong? Is it better to stick with Western culture, where women are supposedly equal to men and refuse to give up their careers (even if, let's be honest, the kids take a bit of a hit)? Or is there some kind of middle ground? Where do we even draw the line?...
On a totally different note, sometimes when I see parents—maybe without even realizing they're doing it—stifling their kids' growth because they got sucked in by some flashy commercial that Matthew Castillo5 was talking about, I just want to tell them: look, your kids belong to you in terms of responsibility and duty, but they aren't your property...
First off, I think we need to clarify something: there aren't "male" and "female" people; there are just people. In other words, there are only individuals per se! Regardless of whether they are men or women. Every single person has a need for self-actualization; everyone is unique. There isn't just one path to virtue or one way to be happy. There are as many paths as there are people!Happy people realize this, and they're happy because they have agency over their own lives. Unhappy people feel an excessive need to control the lives of others because they can't seem to get a handle on their own! That's why you see things in Afghanistan, Iraq... the intimidation of women based on the visibility of their breasts... in other words—reducing a person to the level of an object. Objects are easy to move around and dictate where they should go! It works like this: if I am unhappy, BUT I DON'T WANT TO FACE IT (because I'm afraid of conflict or trying to change things), then I justify my fear by relentlessly imposing those same restrictions on everyone else to ensure nothing changes. If I intimidate others and make them feel just as stifled as I am, then maybe I don't feel so miserable about my own lack of freedom—it becomes something visible and "normal," so I don't have to deal with the fact that I'm actually incredibly dissatisfied, frustrated, and lost! That is what sits behind those rigid, blunt, orthodox statements.
Every decision is a potential intervention that might force you into various conflicts—whether it's within your social circle or within yourself and your own desires. For one person, that means deciding to have a child; for another, it's deciding not to. That’s why being empathetic toward one another actually matters. It’s much better than just using each other as punching bags to vent our own repressed frustrations.
Exactly. My only suggestion would be to make them do it at their own risk. In other words, if they end up getting sick, they should foot the entire medical bill themselves. We shouldn't be draining the taxpayers—people who actually work for a living and rightfully avoid this stuff—just to subsidize someone else's choices. It comes down to a simple choice: do you find meaning in being responsible and keeping your feet on the ground, or is the "meaning of life" found in "receptor confusion" and mystical trips? (If that isn't an oxymoron, I don't know what is.) If anyone still thinks this sounds like a great idea, go for it!
Right, because you either have kids or you don't—and apparently, that alone defines whether you've achieved anything meaningful in life. Blah, blah. Well, to have or not to have—isn't that just a form of materialism? It’s a known psychological fact that we tend to blame everyone else for our own internal issues.
"Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of life's longing for itself.
They come through you, but they are not from you, And even though they are with you, they do not belong to you."
...
After all, what is your wealth if not the things you hoard and guard simply because you're afraid you might need them tomorrow?
And isn't the fear of scarcity actually just scarcity itself? Isn't the thirst you fear while standing next to an overflowing spring actually unquenchable?
Is there really anything you can actually hold onto? Everything you possess will one day be distributed;
In truth, whoever is worthy of receiving their days and nights is worthy of everything you own.
And he who has earned the right to drink from the ocean of life also deserves to fill his glass from your little stream.
First, make sure you are worthy of being a giver, and a tool for giving.
Because, honestly, life gives to life—while you, those who consider yourselves givers, are merely witnesses.
...
But let no scale attempt to measure your unknown treasure;
And do not try to gauge the depths of your own knowledge with a stick or a sounding line.
For the self is an abyss, an immeasurable sea.
Don't say, 'I have found the truth'; instead, say: 'I have found a truth.' Don't say, 'I have found the path of the soul.' Say rather: 'I have met the soul as it goes its own way.' For the soul walks all paths. The soul does not follow a finish line, nor does it grow like a stalk of cane. The soul unfolds like a lotus with infinite petals."
And finally...
"But let not him who yearns much say to him who yearns little: 'Why are you slow, and why do you hesitate?'
For the truly good man does not ask the naked, 'Where is your clothing?' nor the homeless, 'Where is your home?'
...
And whoever determines their direction based on whims and moods is essentially locking their soul-bird in a cage.
The freest song does not come through bars and wires."
I’m not going to waste my breath quoting your entire thread of posts. I'll just say this—for the benefit of everyone else lurking here—regarding brain research, well, let's just say I know a bit more than you do. The same goes for personality theories and their actual intrinsic motivations (which are anything but one-dimensional). Everything you’ve listed just highlights how much gaps exist in your knowledge and how biased your view is.
That isn't even the main issue. The issue is when you charge in with these opinions without any critical thinking, acting as if they're established facts. Honestly, none of this seems relevant to the topic at hand. This whole exclusionary vibe in your emails reeks of insecurity. It feels like you're projecting some personal issues from your real life onto this discussion. You seem to have this desperate need to pick a fight with someone because you can't find an outlet for it in reality. Maybe it touches a nerve regarding the subject matter, too. Anyway, we aren't going to solve your psyche here, so that's that. And yes, being "triggered" is clearly not the ideal headspace for an objective debate—that much was obvious.
As for what I personally think about men, I'm pretty qualified to judge, given I have an entire lifetime of experience to draw from. (Did a woman reject you recently? Is that why you think it's because you feel unfulfilled? ...Just a guess.)
Hannah White2 said:Honestly, there’s nothing more impactful for this world than one healthy, happy human being raised right. We brag about all these massive breakthroughs in science and medicine every single day—it’s all great, really—but does the world actually get any better? Not really. Look at the workforce; women are fighting for equal footing in these cutthroat corporate environments, sure, but what’s left for the individual once you strip everything else away? Just some fancy title? Some empty status? No amount of career success can justify treating your kids like an afterthought or failing the people who actually make up the fabric of our society today. In my book, if someone is dealing with a serious mental health diagnosis and isn't actively working through it with a professional, they should probably steer clear of parenthood altogether.
Why complicate things with these false dilemmas? Success belongs to anyone who lives with dignity and integrity, and fosters those same values in the people around them (including here on this forum). The truly wise realize there are no pre-set rules, only the ones we discover through our own freedom and sense of responsibility. As for how one expresses that (or multiple versions of it), that's entirely individual.
Hannah White2 said:You’re definitely romanticizing the whole thing a bit too much... though, from what I can tell, that’s just how women think. If you look at it from a primal, biological standpoint—as a potential mother—you instinctively realize that during pregnancy and for a long time after, you physically can't hunt for food and protect your offspring at the same time...
That's why a woman looks for stability and a man's ability to provide as much as anything else.
I think you should probably ask the women. For instance, I am one—and I disagree.
redharbor9 said:We really need to dig deeper into the neuro side of this. We should be tracking how brain function shifts under the influence of specific substances, hypnosis, or even just altered states of consciousness.
I haven’t stumbled across much research doing exactly that. Honestly, the answers are probably out there if you just start connecting the dots between studies that look at these ideas individually...
For instance, I can't find many studies actually comparing meditation to hypnotic trance from a neurological standpoint. But since both topics get plenty of individual attention, you could easily find the overlaps...
The gold standard would be an experiment where you track the same subject through all of it.
Ethically speaking, it’s a gray area, especially considering the "substance" involved.
Then there's the fact that the effects of various hallucinogens are completely heterogeneous. Basically, the topic itself is way too broad and generalized for a single study. Hallucinations alone are the result of a whole web of neurotransmitter systems being stimulated in the brain. It isn't as simple as saying, "Oh, dopamine is up, so that's it." I'm exaggerating slightly, but still—what about the other effects besides just hallucinations? It's too varied. You’d need to select much more precise parameters to get anything remotely useful. Otherwise, if you narrow those three things down to specific parameters and look closer, they aren't actually that comparable. They only seem that way on the surface. For example, based on how the default mode network functions, psychotic states and meditative states should be fundamentally different—almost opposites. Maybe that’s exactly why this kind of research is lacking.
... it’s just wrong to tie one's self-worth to whether or not they become a parent—that's exactly where all this anxiety stems from. A person's value doesn't change based on whether they have kids or not. At the end of the day, some people simply can't have children, and they are just as valuable and successful as anyone else.
It’s pretty standard for someone dealing with depression to spiral even deeper once they actually realize what’s happening. You get caught in this loop of fearing the stigma, worrying you'll be taken less seriously if you speak up, or just being terrified of how people will judge you—not to mention the weight of being responsible for calling it out. For you, that feels like 'normal.' That said, professionals are trained specifically to navigate these nuances. They deal with this stuff every day, so they aren't supposed to be tripping over the same hurdles. Honestly, your best bet is to just reach out to your primary care physician. Tons of people walk into their offices with these exact same symptoms, so in reality, there’s really nothing to lose sleep over. To a doctor, these symptoms are just another clinical matter, much like a nagging backache or a sore throat. They look at it objectively. Don't sweat it too much.