elf

@SovereignIM Men should stay chaste until 30. Anything else is a waste

To get the best of a woman, she must build her early adult identity around a single man she is obsessed with, a man she chooses to succeed her father, and who should, in her view, match him in his strengths whilst surpassing him in the domains where he was weak. She should not hate her father, lest she reject the masculine in general, nor worship him as some kind of hero to the point she cannot revere another. She should have learned devotion through serving her father, and look to transfer that orientation to the man she would call her lover and husband, who is in reality her second father, for the simple reason that a woman's need for paternal care is lifelong. The older a woman gets, the less able she is to truly and singularly orient herself around a single man and devote herself to him, and the more fixed, rigid, inflexible, transactional, self-serving, and mannish she becomes. She loses warmth, playfulness, and endearment with age, if she did not find and remain with her true love whilst still young enough, and so the result, for a man, is an altogether less appealing, less devoted woman. To get the best of a woman, you must be central to her becoming as a young woman. You should punctuate the period when she is no longer strictly a girl, yet not fully a woman, biologically adult, but still spiritually warm, pure of heart, and not yet addled with cynicism, when she is cautiously learning about the world and asking herself, "Who am I, and who do I want to be?" and so you, as a man, must be the answer to those questions, the man through whom many of her solutions run. Anything less, and you are accepting a lower form of love and lowering your chances of a successful union. As for men, young men are simply developmentally behind women, and probably do not catch up until their late twenties or early thirties, by which point their age peers who are still available have already spiritually declined and formed an adult identity and set of coping mechanisms that exclude orientation around him. Men aged 18 to 28, and I am being generous in making it as low as 28, do not really know how to appreciate and manage the best of women. It would not be unfair to say that a woman's 18 is a man's 30. Mainly because men do not merely need to match female executive function, mental stability, and capacity, but surpass it, hold themselves, and also hold her. That something extra takes more time to develop. It is unreasonable, and unfair, to expect it from young men. This is why, if you give a young man an absolutely golden girl, it is like giving the finest ingredients and materials to someone who lacks the insight and tools to make the best finished art from them. He will waste her. She becomes a learning experience, a lesson in how he failed and what not to do, from which his future wife benefits, when, if he had to practise on anyone, it would be far better for the order to be reversed.

Awkward …

@Cobratate This is why people say women are stupid systematic stupidity

Romance has always been a beta male mating strategy. Provision and protection are the strategies of the top-tier males. Women prefer to share a man who can provide and protect rather than have the exclusivity of a man who can’t.

We are all instruments in God's hands. Some of us are pens, some of us are brushes, and some of us are hammers.

@SovereignIM I agree

It's not that the agreeable can't know truths or possess them or come across them, more the case they simply do not respect them, obey them, stand up for them or even integrate them, and will willingly deny them (despite knowing better) if it serves their social reality to do so. The problem with the agreeable is they prioritise survival, where the disagreeable prioritise truth - and truth is beauty in purity and integrity, where survival is ugliness in self-betrayal to continue existing "by any means" Disagreeableness, and therefore integrity, is structurally incompatible with the need to be liked, to fit in, to be included, to "conform" and to whatever central authority/popular consensus states is valid, preferred and acceptable. Integrity and agreeableness are mutually exclusive states in a way that is not resolvable, unless the popular/group view of a thing is true, but even then the adoption of that truth is not for the sake of the truth in itself, but for that of acceptance and inclusion, which just so happens, in this particular instance, to prioritise and align with truth. A case of the broken clock being right twice a day, as it were. The agreeable are weaker/thinner souls who are inherently less self-generating, and more relationally defined by nature, which is why their sense of self is thinner, more fragile and more derivative, their identity is thus flexible/adaptable to the point of amorphous nothingness which stands for nothing and is loyal to nothing but the very act of surviving, which is why they are weak and lack integrity. They are not disloyal or fickle because they are inherently malicious, potency and sadism are not required to be treacherous or pathetic, they are these things quite simply because they are weak and unwilling to stand up for themselves and bind themselves to anything that reduces their optionality, which they would call "freedom" (despite betraying themselves for said "freedom"), because to reduce their options is to undermine what they perceive to be survival, and survival itself is actually their true "God" - not truth or beauty, which is why they are inherently cowardly. The agreeable cease to exist without validation, affirmation and recognition, not that these things are inherently bad, but it means they are more social animals because they place greater emphasis on these things, are are more dependent on the herd to define for them who they are. This is why they are poorly adapted to solitude, which for them would always be loneliness rather than peace or reprieve. The agreeable cannot generally experience being alone as positive, because to be alone is to lack a feedback mechanism that gives them structure by telling them what to be, how to behave and how to think. There has been a meme floating around the past few years that touches upon this notion: "women cease to exist when they are alone" - which is directionally true, given women are on average a standard deviation higher in agreeableness than men. Are the dots starting to connect for you now? This is also why being agreeable makes you seem more feminine as a man, and why disagreeable women seem more masculine, even though to be disagreeable in a healthy rather than dysfunctional way is to simply possess the force of will which allows you to be courageous, and therefore act with integrity (honour). The agreeable likewise tend to be ill-discerning because they are in the habit of delegating judgement to the herd. When you simply wish to fit in and be accepted, you don't have to form your own judgement, because your default inner rule is "whatever my family/society/friend group thinks is correct is correct" without actually questioning that and evaluating it for its own validity and coherency based on its own merits or lack thereof. And you think this way because they don't want to be ostracised, outcast, exiled or disowned, which inspires a kind of existential terror within you (the sense you will die if you go against the grain/familiar structure) - when the cost of that is self-betrayal at every level that forever disempowers you, for it will never allow you to truly respect yourself in aligning with your own highest potential, because deep down even you know you've been pathetic and despicable. The small bit of integrity the lowly have is that not even the lowly like the lowly - not that they'll always openly admit this, they can and will hide behind pride and pretence for the sake of protecting their outer image and false social reality, but deep down this is the case. The agreeable person never truly likes themselves. And how can they? They are the end sequence of a series of self-betrayals and little more. Self-loathing is the natural moral consequence of any such sustained orientation or mode of being. So to answer your question in simple terms, basically: no. But two things: 1: Just because someone is disagreeable in general, doesn't mean they can't care very much for the praise or recognition of specific individuals. It's not so much about being uncaring or being indifferent/nonchalant, or even rebellious for the sake of being rebellious, but more so being largely non-derivative and autonomous in a way that allows you to pick who matters to you, rather than have group consensus dictate to you. 2: If you are said agreeable person, and you wish to be a truth seeker, as in, you feel the spark of truth call to you even though you consistently betray yourself, agreeableness in and of itself is not a fixed condition. You can become less agreeable. You can train your courage. Integrity is not forever out of reach, just because you currently lack it. You are not condemned. Even if you currently do not uphold truth or fight for it, even if you are a traitor even to yourself, if you think the truth is something worth aligning with, you can align with it and make it your north star and slowly but surely change your own programming. You can recreate yourself. You can be born anew, better and more beautiful.

@andreas_nigbur That last one Momma bear activated

Das im Hintergrund verlaufende Gespräch handelt von Lügen, tief sitzenden Emotionen und dem Schmerz der Trennung, doch erst der visuelle Kontext gibt den Ton für dieses soziale Experiment wirklich vor. Der Bystander-Effekt wird auf die Probe gestellt, während ein Mann die Straße entlangrennt und Kinder entführt. Es bleibt die Frage: Wird jemand einschreiten? Der Text auf dem Bildschirm blendet wiederholt ein: ‚Der Bystander-Effekt ist ein reales soziales Experiment‘, was die Dringlichkeit dieser intensiven Szene unterstreicht. Während der Gesang in der Nacht leiser wird — ‚wir wissen nicht, wie wir weiterspielen sollen‘ — ist der Kontrast zwischen den romantischen Worten und der Gefahr auf der Straße erschreckend. Die Szene ist bereitet, der Einsatz ist hoch und die Frage bleibt: Was würde passieren, wenn dies Realität wäre? Würden die Passanten eingreifen oder einfach nur tatenlos zusehen? Die Worte ‚Jedes Mal, wenn wir uns verabschieden, Baby, tut es weh‘, gewinnen in diesem Kontext eine völlig neue Bedeutung, da die Möglichkeit eines endgültigen Abschieds nur allzu real wird.

Why did Tolkien call death a gift? In The Silmarillion, he writes death is an exclusive gift given to mankind by God. All other creatures envy this gift, including the immortal elves: Mankind alone, through death, is granted union with the divine. Tolkien's point is that immortality in a fallen world is not a blessing, nor man's actual purpose. To live forever in a world marred by corruption, vice, and decay is to be trapped with no escape. Death, then, is not a tragic ending, but a release — a return of creation to its creator. The humility of mortal man leads to a glory far greater than immortality. In other words, man was made for something greater than earthly pleasure. Death is the preparation for eternity. Today we tend to see this backwards. We treat death as the ultimate evil, and endless life as the ultimate good, no matter the cost. We try to preserve life indefinitely, and in doing so, lose sight of what life is actually for. Tolkien's final insight is simple: A man who refuses to die for anything will one day find he has nothing worth living for. A world that fears death above all else will never reach the highest good, for life truly begins when you discover a love greater than life itself.

@Zoya_ki_batein Vampire

"I robbed some women of their baby-making years...they built me up. Look at me now and look at them" - Jidenna

Never listen to music from musicians that committed suicide. If you know, You know.

@BonesawMD Is it normal that we have access to so many unwed women? My theory is that women are defective in their “instincts” currently Kink for who then is it If women are designed to please…

People are shocked and appalled by this bc they can never face the darker parts of female sexuality for what it is. Even in this video they can't confront what they like directly and had to do mental gymnastics about some form of feminism to justify why they like it. It's so common amongst women that it's much closer to being normal than being any degenerate fetish. Learned men know once a woman respects & is sexually attracted to you, one of the first things she'll do is a light hearted teasing about how you're entertaining other women or how promiscuous you've been outside of her. You'll notice a slight smile as she starts to get worked up because it's a satisfying and pleasurable experience for her to imagine. Very normal part of the human condition

@SovereignIM I do envy the ease of men’s friendships I must learn accept my program and stay humbled Exhausting neurotic commiserating is a cheap imitation for true camaraderie Its far better to be lonely

@aslandish To the one man she is dedicated to, she can be extremely wonderful, helpful, supportive and healing. She just doesn't have the bandwidth beyond that to give to others. Her man gets everything when her devotion is totalising. The trade-off is... she has no real friendships.

The most predictable and least mysterious thing about women is this: She disappears when she gets a new man, then reappears when it falls apart (or they have significant problems). Every disappearance and reappearance will map to precisely this pattern. Without her explicitly telling you (although she probably will), you can map the entire trajectory of upsets within her relationship by merely noting the dates and durations of all her appearances and disappearances. Men don't talk for months because they've been busy grinding, then say hi. Women don't talk for months because they have little reason to talk to anyone who isn't their man, unless they, for whatever reason, lose live access to the core interior emotional depths of that man. This is also why women are naturally clingy, even if they are scared of romance or fancy themselves cold, rational and aloof. They are aloof - until they are not. Even the supposedly "cold" girls - zero exception. Because a woman is only cold as a defensive mechanism that she has likely normalised and come to see as her part of her personality - but that's not who she really is in her feminine core. Women see this with their own friends: She will obsess over whatever man has become her core organising principle in life to the exclusion of almost everybody else. She will have a meltdown when he mistreats her, or she lets him down in some way that causes him to withdraw (access loss). She will then scurry around looking for emotional support, containment and advice from all her "friends" she has been otherwise neglecting and seemingly unconcerned about, then disappear again the moment relations normalise/improve with her man. Like clockwork. The only way a woman doesn't do this, is if she doesn't really like (isn't truly in love with) the man she's seeing. Then she still remains available to her friends, because he's more akin to an experiment they all evaluate and comment on, as opposed to a true bond she wants to protect from everybody else and thus does not invite scrutiny into. Women actually hate this about women, having been on the receiving end of it from other women, even though most of them do this themselves. And what they hate is this: it seems like women only use people for emotional support, and then when then they have no need for it, they make little to no effort with you. They only come to you when they need something, and if they don't, they're absent. It makes the friendships feel very transactional and cheap. This is another reason women envy men's friendships: it's not so transactional and based on affirmation and emotional vampirism/containment seeking, but shared mission and genuine appreciation of personality. Just as men don't like being emotionally used by women who won't sleep with them (the friendzone) Women don't like being emotionally used by other women, who have no interest in them when their lives are going well.

@Uzabiosan @SovereignIM Some kind of butterfly effect occurs when trying to fight design flaws It is what it is

@aslandish @SovereignIM Double damn. But I’m sure being self aware helps to keep these tendencies in check.

I’ve stopped listening to music Cold turkey

@Lovandfear I bought CDs Tons and tons of them

What'd you do with your First Salary?

@Uzabiosan @SovereignIM As one of them Its a hard pill to swallow for sure Its like being 2 dimensional

@aslandish @SovereignIM Damn, that’s the conclusion you came to? Not that I disagree though.

If you're ever feeling suicidal, just remember: there are people who want you dead and who will celebrate the day you die, and the most spiteful thing you can do to those people is keep living.

I am exhibiting stress behaviors because my enclosure does not have enough enrichment and I am not engaging in species characteristic mutual grooming rituals with the other primates

@Lovandfear 5-2

You can only pick two 1. A new car 2. ⁠2 million per month 3. ⁠Unlimited free food 4. ⁠Job of choice 5. ⁠100 million right now

does this dude know he accidentally made the most triggering situationspo ever 😭 the girls on proana forums back in 2014 could never hope to achieve this emotional damage