posted March 13, 2015 03:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by DeepFreeze:
That's precisely what you've been saying.
Also, now you say argue when other times when you're cornered you tell us that you want reason and logic.
Which is it? You've received more than plenty of both!
You're all over the place depending on what best suits you at the time.

---

posted March 13, 2015 03:51 PM            

Happy to be proven wrong, and that I put words in your mouth, but look at this first:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DeepFreeze:
I think it's wrong to lump women together like that. They are not all the same, just like I'm sure you'd like women to understand that not all men are the same.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:

Well here's my thing....
All you have to do is watch the news to see that lots of women have unusual taste in men. There's always a story of some woman who got beat up or even worse by her badboy boyfriends. I see these women and all the abuse and BS they'll take from the guys they deem sexy and I see that there is no incentive to play the game. Guys like me have to do everything right and jump through all the hoops. Think of women as gatekeepers.... I have to stand outside the gate in the cold for hours and negotiate to get inside while all a sexy guy has to do is show up and the gate is opened for him. And the women will meet him inside butt naked and have a hot meal on the table. Why should a guy like me play a game that i'm going to lose when some guys win just by showing up? I just don't see how that benefits me.

---

Here you are saying, implicitly:
1. Women who stay in abusive relationships do so because they find their abuser sexy. (?!)
2. Because some women end up in abusive relationships, or are attracted to abusive men, this invalidates feminism.
3. Women are gatekeepers, and have orchestrated a game with miscommunicated rules about how to enter a relationship with them, and you refuse to play that game.

It's all clearly connected with your personal experience. While your personal experience is valid, it has nothing to do with feminism. So a discussion about feminism ended up being a discussion about you.

posted March 13, 2015 04:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
I have a question for you, Selenite.

I am trying to use an example without stigmatizing a category, so I'll use mine.

I was a smoker. Almost 2 packs a day. I loved smoking. I wanted to smoke. I was also aware all the time I love smoking because smoking makes me love it, because I indulge in smoking, I give in. Not because smoking is cool, valuable or beautiful. Actually, if you think about it, deliberately filling your lungs with smoke, with death and enjoying it, especially surrounded by millions of people, children, and all kinds of creatures fighting for one more day of life, one more breath of air, is a ridiculous, even offensive habit.

I've always known this is self-destructive, a dead end. I have also come to believe everyone knows, in that little voice, when something is "bad" and not "good" or that something else is "better".

So my question to you is: do you believe there is one smoker who doesn't have that little voice?

---

posted March 13, 2015 05:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by aquaguy91:
No,
She put words in my mouth. Saying that modern feminism is toxic to society and partly responsible for the messed up dynamics in the dating scene in western society is not the same as saying that "feminism is all about keeping men from getting laid". Read my posts, I simply never said that. If you are going to disagree with me disagree with what I actually said.

---

I'm just going to stop you right there; everything you just said is subjective. Not everyone feels that there are "messed up dynamics in the dating scene" in western society. That is your personal experience, and it may even be shared by other people. That still doesn't make it objectively true.

One's experiences in dating and how they feel about that is ALWAYS subjective.

posted March 13, 2015 05:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Selenite:
I don't think that example is relevant, I think what you're talking about is a conscience. The smoker probably knows it's physically bad for them, and whether they care or not is a different story. But I'm talking about something more like: Person A thinks that their lifestyle choices and spiritual beliefs are conducive to their own truth, while Person B considers Person A's lifestyle choices and beliefs to be very far from Person B's truth. Person B might even think Person A is 'wrong' or 'immoral' for their beliefs.

---

I was trying to say there's always a little voice telling you what is the best thing to do, your highest potential, and it is connected to a final, universal truth. It's the same voice. The paths are different, but the destination is the same; this is what I believe and this is where our difference lies, because you believe there are different destinations.

About lifestyles and this obsession with seeing them as equal, they are not: my lifestyle as a smoker was worse than my lifestyle as a non-smoker. There is a continuum, you're just getting better, and everything you did before is a lesser you. Some people are behind, doing what you did last year, some people are ahead, doing what you'll do next year, something greater you haven't discovered yet. OK, I think you know Plato's Cave from the TF thread, this is how I think it works. So the so called equality between lifestyles, philosophies etc is only equality in the face of the law, society and freedom of expression, as it should be, but no, there's no equality, such as there's no equality between different "you"s in different points in time.
What's the point in living if not to discover how wrong I was yesterday, how nasty my lifestyle was, compared to the greater things I can experience today, from a better perspective, from what I have learned?

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted March 13, 2015 07:17 PM            

To make sure it's clear - not engaging in casual sex is just one of the many ingredients in my formula. I would even throw in general self-control. I don't expect people to be born with a non-casual attitude, it can be something to strive for as Lee said (btw, be so kind and don't call her names). Even a prostitute could take this challenge. And it's not about losing sex drive or getting married and saying "well, I guess that's it", it's about an internal shift. Anyway, I don't think there should be no more than one sexual partner during a lifetime and waiting for marriage is pointless to me. I find marriage pointless too but that's another story. The kind of sex I see as compatible with my formula is sex which occurs between two individuals who love, respect and trust each other as the expression of their connection. Merging of bodies and spirits preceded by the need to be close, as close as possible. They dive into their little, private, shared universe for a while. Preferably it would happen within an established relationship, otherwise it would be rather masochistic since this act would be very emotionally impacting and would strengthen the connection. It doesn't have to be in the dark-under the s.heets (wth? why is this word censored?)-missionary, it doesn't have to be tantra either. I leave the deets to you

I think physical and emotional dangers of casual sex are well known. So why would one avoid it from my metaphysical point of view?
- I'm far from joining Buddhism but I can agree with this: chasing highs makes you more likely to remain trapped in the reincarnational cycle. You can become addicted to this world. Also being in love with love is dangerous in this respect.
- we have more bodies than this one and I'm pretty sure this practice is damaging to them in some way
- there are lots of reasons why people have casual sex apart from feeling horny and lusting for someone, some of them are: looking for validation, trying to fit in, feeding one's self-esteem by "scoring" someone and getting excitement out of it. An evolved person will be resistant to such motivations.

quote:

---

saying that anyone who DOES the acts that you specifically asked about is objectifying others (but who was mutual consent?)

---

quote:

---

Tbh I think this perspective is spiritually unevolved. Because a truly spiritually aware person would know that we are all given different astrological signatures and are not all designed to place the same importance or weight on the same experiences. So it's the equivalent of saying, "if you're different than me, or if you're more experimental, you are less evolved." Which is, ironically, the arrogant mark of a less-evolved person.

No offense. Just an observation.

---

*scratches her head* I hope it all made sense.

posted March 14, 2015 01:36 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:

Oh, please, you and other people made it about morality because it triggered a defensiveness in you, you probably feel guilty about your lifestyle and you shouldn't, or you should change it if you feel so guilty about it.

---

Nope. I'm demisexual. Had a phase but outgrew it years ago.

All I'll say on it is that my objections had little to do over sexual and romantic practices or theology regarding them but what I saw as painting an entire group of people in a negative way for being different. In the past I've defended the asexual and celibate when someone called them psychologically damaged and the like as well. I don't think it's automatically good but neither is it automatically bad and it can be spiritual, but as I'm not convinced that this thread was made in good faith I'm not going to go into it.

posted March 14, 2015 07:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by PixieJane:
Nope. I'm demisexual. Had a phase but outgrew it years ago.

All I'll say on it is that my objections had little to do over sexual and romantic practices or theology regarding them but what I saw as painting an entire group of people in a negative way for being different. In the past I've defended the asexual and celibate when someone called them psychologically damaged and the like as well. I don't think it's automatically good but neither is it automatically bad and it can be spiritual, but as I'm not convinced that this thread was made in good faith I'm not going to go into it.

I was going to say a lot more but considering I'm not coming back to this thread I'll let it drop. It's a pity some have edited out their posts as I want to check my memory on certain things but I can't and that makes me uncertain about what I was going to say.

---

Oh, boy...being demisexual aka as connecting emotional/personal attraction with physical attraction and not feeling attracted without the emotional connection/interest in the person as a whole is the natural state of a more awakened individual. A more differentiated, more human, more "evolved" state, since we kept using this term. I would hate to know you are feeling you lack something because you don't feel sexually aroused by the mere sight or presence of an unknown body. I hope in your country or where you are this is not seen or treated as a sexual dysfunction or anything like that. The expectation to feel pure lust for an unknown person and see them as a sexual object only or a need-provider, which is behind the still existence of prostitution, for instance, is something I see as belonging to the past, associated with a more undeveloped psychological and spiritual state. We have all experienced it or most of us, we have fought against it by not giving in to it, or indulged in it, but the truth is looking at another human being and seeing them as a sexual object only, or using them for sexual gratification, or seeing only physical characteristics is wrong, primitive, a lesser part of ourselves,an outdated part of ourselves or in need of an upgrade, or at least only a small part of ourselves. Truth is sexual objectification is tightly connected to the history of women's position in society and it has been mostly directed at women, still is. We are transitioning, but if you are a demisexual, you are a being from the future.

I couldn't find any posts that were edited out. I didn't use the term "psychological damage", I used the term psychological issues. In the context of this conversation, there are two types of psychological issues: 1. one coming from scars in need of healing 2. the other coming from a psychological state we are moving towards, not being there yet. We all have both categories and slowly recovering and evolving psychologically is a natural state, part of the reason we are here.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted March 14, 2015 07:03 AM            

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted March 14, 2015 11:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
I was trying to say there's always a little voice telling you what is the best thing to do, your highest potential, and it is connected to a final, universal truth. It's the same voice. The paths are different, but the destination is the same; this is what I believe and this is where our difference lies, because you believe there are different destinations.

About lifestyles and this obsession with seeing them as equal, they are not: my lifestyle as a smoker was worse than my lifestyle as a non-smoker. There is a continuum, you're just getting better, and everything you did before is a lesser you. Some people are behind, doing what you did last year, some people are ahead, doing what you'll do next year, something greater you haven't discovered yet. OK, I think you know Plato's Cave from the TF thread, this is how I think it works. So the so called equality between lifestyles, philosophies etc is only equality in the face of the law, society and freedom of expression, as it should be, but no, there's no equality, such as there's no equality between different "you"s in different points in time.
What's the point in living if not to discover how wrong I was yesterday, how nasty my lifestyle was, compared to the greater things I can experience today, from a better perspective, from what I have learned?

---

I don't think all lifestyles are 'equal.' I don't think there are different destinations either, because I don't really know what you mean by that. I do think that in reality there is no good or bad. It's just something we made up and it's different for all of us. I think the universe is neutral, there is no judgment, and you will just attract whatever energy you've consciously decided to attract, or unconsciously attracted.

But I don't think the universe cares what we do in the end, it's still gonna keep going. I think as humans, this is a scary thing to realize, and we have this sense of needing to come up with a reason that we're here, other than just accepting the fact that we're here and living. So we need the universe to care, to tell us we're on the 'right path,' to tell us what's good or bad, or else we feel a little pointless. But I really don't think it cares in the sense that we think it does. It just lets you be alive.

The entire concept of 'spiritual paths' is literally something we made up. Even 'concepts' are something we made up. Concepts, spiritual paths, words, feelings, these things may not even exist in other universes/dimensions. Even dimensions might not even really exist, because we just made up the concept and it seems reasonable to our human minds. So, I don't think we can say that there is an ultimate truth, because truth may not even exist in another 'dimension,' so it would not be ultimate. I might sound crazy but if you think about it, we really did invent all these terms and I see it as just a way to cope with 'being.'

posted March 17, 2015 06:55 AM            

Sexual health is very important, so if I had a daughter/son embarking on the sexual phase of their life I would just say "be careful" and explain the risks - pregnancy, STD's, HPV, HIV, etc. Ultimately it's their choice what they do with their bodies.

posted March 18, 2015 10:16 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Selenite:
I don't think all lifestyles are 'equal.' I don't think there are different destinations either, because I don't really know what you mean by that. I do think that in reality there is no good or bad. It's just something we made up and it's different for all of us. I think the universe is neutral, there is no judgment, and you will just attract whatever energy you've consciously decided to attract, or unconsciously attracted.

But I don't think the universe cares what we do in the end, it's still gonna keep going. I think as humans, this is a scary thing to realize, and we have this sense of needing to come up with a reason that we're here, other than just accepting the fact that we're here and living. So we need the universe to care, to tell us we're on the 'right path,' to tell us what's good or bad, or else we feel a little pointless. But I really don't think it cares in the sense that we think it does. It just lets you be alive.

The entire concept of 'spiritual paths' is literally something we made up. Even 'concepts' are something we made up. Concepts, spiritual paths, words, feelings, these things may not even exist in other universes/dimensions. Even dimensions might not even really exist, because we just made up the concept and it seems reasonable to our human minds. So, I don't think we can say that there is an ultimate truth, because truth may not even exist in another 'dimension,' so it would not be ultimate. I might sound crazy but if you think about it, we really did invent all these terms and I see it as just a way to cope with 'being.'

That's why we are so much happier and at peace when we don't judge, when we let go, when we 'just be.' and meditate, etc. For whatever reason, the human mind was formed with an obsession to judge, worry, criticize, etc. And this is hard when the rest of the universe doesn't seem to comply.

---

Thank you for this, Selenite I love this post, although it makes me think you haven't discovered the...how shall I put it? lol "otherworldly" yet. It sounds like an atheist speech, not in the religious sense, but when it comes to believe (or not) that there is something beyond visible matter. Not that there is anything wrong with that, you need your own timing for this discovery.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted March 18, 2015 11:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeeLoo2014:
Thank you for this, Selenite I love this post, although it makes me think you haven't discovered the...how shall I put it? lol "otherworldly" yet. It sounds like an atheist speech, not in the religious sense, but when it comes to believe (or not) that there is something beyond visible matter. Not that there is anything wrong with that, you need your own timing for this discovery.

---

posted March 19, 2015 10:30 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Selenite:
I think no matter what you believe, you gave it power with your mind, so it exists on some level.

---

You're onto something here
It is indeed a creation of the mind, initially, taking form. But not just any mind
And there is a story and meaning to the existence of life as we know it, and a parallel reality so to speak, it's not just the human brain.
You don't have to see it, it's enough for now to look at the tangible proofs, some facts. One scientific proof you have is the ability to predict the future. If one can predict the future (and we have on our website here people practicing and researching several ways to do that), there is only one logical explanation (at least the one I see at this point):
- the future already exists, at any given moment in time, at least as an alternative. This future however was and is initially created by the human mind,it's a result of concepts. For example, people imagined at some point and they may alter these concepts (thus creating a different future, with time), actually what they did was "assigning meaning", that planet Uranus embodies the archetype described by a Greek myth, let's call it revolution. Once they attributed this, they imagined (logically implied) an Uranus square will actually trigger a revolution. And so it did and it will, as long as Uranus means this to people. The process of the initial attribution is a complex description, I won't write it now.

But let gets back to the idea we can actually predict the future and to its implications. So your future exists, your tomorrow already exists, and there are major events in your future you will live no matter what you do. Some you can change, for some you have alternative paths. Some crucial ones, no, they define your destiny in this life, your destiny has a precise direction and meaning, there is a plan behind it (actually, this plan is your own creation, but that's another story)

A few other implications of the discovery we can predict the future:
- there is a parallel invisible "hall of records" about it that one can access in altered states (compared to the brain chemistry as you call it related to other everyday activities)
-physically speaking, time is not linear, Einstein already figured this out, if you can "look" into an event happening let's say 365 days from now.
-visible, tangible reality is not the only reality at any given time, if a reality 365 days from now coexists with now.
- the most important implication however, as an answer to the questions you raised: if the future already exists, then there is a plan, a certain direction, a story that needs to be told, to happen as it does, you are moving toward that event. If existence was a continuous, random flow, obviously future would be totally random, constantly being created at any moment in time, actually there would be no future and the impossibility to read it.

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...

posted March 22, 2015 02:42 PM            

------------------
I seem to have loved you in numberless forms...