Ss you got any pics?

no one ITT is trying to get laid besides spade and hes doing a bad job.

Just get botox bro you'll look like a 30 year old thats been through some chit.

He's being PUA, he's peacocking.

i dont care what he's doing its making me cringe. But then again he's seen her face before so maybe she's worth it to him.But...do you think youre boring?

There's a man in here still writing essays LMAO. Just came in to say

Google would help ya with that

Some hot 40+ years old pornstar i would stay with 100%!


Long story short : Your 20 / 40+ theory failed

I don't think you have the money to test drive a maserati.

Have people never met or been with a low-maintenance person? Some people prefer a more "simple" life to avoid stress, pressure and drama. You come home after a long day and just hang out with them, pipe them down and cuddle them. It's nice and stress-free. Add in some restaurant tasting and travelling.. easy and fun. And most of all, you can still be your own person and do things on your own, as opposed to always having to be glued to a high-maintenance person.

Watch The Wire then go back to watching no TV.ill answer when you explain why you prefer condom sex over raw. You realize that doesn't count as having sex right..

lol at having a condom on and doing only missionary. Would fake an orgasm and turn on the wire

bro her title says she is a registered stacy so therefore we should just take her word that she is really pretty




......

Let's be clear dude (and you too Silencespeaks)...

I've never had intellectual discussions with any of my partners, except one, however all my relationships have involved shared joking (or at the least a love of watching comedies together). However, SS has said that she doesn't like banter (ie. 'an exchange of wits'), watching comedies (ie. TV), interesting/intellectual discussion, etc.

I'm not being cruel, but I don't know a single man who would want to have a relationship devoid of mutual joking and/or discussion. Unless the woman is so good looking, and the sex is so good, that they are willing to overlook that (ie. Trophy wives).

Every single happy couple I know either enjoys discussing things with each (or share intellectual pursuits), and/or joking/laughing with each other.

No discussion. No mutual joking with your partner. No affectionate time spent together by watching TV series or Films.

What are you going to talk about when out eating? When sitting in a room with them? When spending the rest of your life with them?

The weather? Furniture placement in a room? The price of milk?

We are talking about the rest of your life (someone who you'll spend most of your free time with, someone who you'll take to family and friends functions/gatherings, etc), not simply a FWB that you see once a fortnight or so.

Have you ever been in a relationship without inside jokes/banter, or discussion about interesting topics?

If SS was a 40+ dude, talking about looking for an explicitly low IQ 20 something, above averagely attractive GF - whilst saying that they aren't interested in mutual joking, intellectual discussion, cuddling whilst watching a movie or TV series, etc - would you be defending them, or calling them out for being delusional and vapid?

I'm going to be blunt, but what I think is annoying people is that SS comes across as a self absorbed and vapid woman, who only cares about looks, sex, and youth when it comes to a partner.

silence wants go monk mode and forego all her worldly possessions which is why she likes eckhart tolle so much

edit: im just pointing the irony of this whole pursuit (relationship --> attachment) and that meditation stuff which is the exact opposite. their theory is that this relationship will actually cause you pain (when they go away -- break up, dying, etc.); tis the opposite of that whole belief system

To be fair, she hasn't claimed to be a Buddhist nun. So she isn't contradicting herself by wanting a relationship.

Conceptually at least - as far as I can tell... Non attachment = the recognition of the impermanence of all phenomena. So there's nothing wrong with emotionally attaching to someone, as long as you don't attach to them beyond that, and 'forget' that they can leave, will die, may change, etc.

Also, allowing the realization of impermenance to stop you from loving someone fully or opening your heart to a loving relationship, to avoid the pain of loss, or change, probably means that you still are struggling to deeply accept impermanence. Because you aren't willing to accept the consequences of impermanence... Loss and change.... And the grief that arises from loss and change (due to being a human being).

Have you ever tossed a prostitute off a bridge?

true, but isn't the concept of a monk (the apex of buddhism) one's who sacrifice all worldly possessions, swear off sex, etc. and go live in the mountains with nothign the epitome of buddhism?

ehh i think anybody who follows that chit is doing so, as that's the idea around the entire thing

although i do know there are many sects of buddhism. but again, NIRVANA is achieved by literally being stripped from everything. even your identity, thats what "nirvana" is. that would be the highest form of not being attached to anything

im just saying it doesnt vibe with the west

even the concept of a business, which im sure you'll agree is central to america, is the opposite of that. as a good business has a strong identity that is built around it. certainly not anything to do with impermanence. the goal in america would be strong, big, proud, fluid; everything built around these central core tenants

and if we think about "impermanence" seems like identity-less (at least comparatively), weak, uncertain and incapable of getting off the ground

this is why i think that stuff is interpreted differently, because as concepts everything i said makes sense. but a lot of people seem to think buddhism is some super helpful thing

identity (permanence) vs. no identity (impermanence)

anyways, we have vastly gone away from the thread. i just felt like countering supposed proponents of buddhism

You're really somewhere between 18-21 years old, aren't you.

I don't know what Nirvana is (experimentally), so I can't comment if it's compatible with having romantic relationships or not.

I do know that many members of the non-duality community (including leaders) have romantic relationships. (I'm not a fan of the non-duality community, but I followed it for a while, and noticed that.)

I have a lot of love for this brah, and that's his GF in the background, whilst he talks about meditation and non-duality (he's deep into the kind of stuff you are talking about, in case you don't know about Fronk)...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0tRPoj95M8I do agree that Eastern philosophy is not compatible with western culture. (2 of my favourite non-fictions books are on the differences between Eastern and Western thought).

IME many Westerners tend to only take components of Eastern philosophy, so that probably tends to overcome the incompatibility.I don't understand why you believe the identity = permanence.

Something can have a structure/form/qualities, without being permanent (eg. A cloud, a water droplet, etc).T'was interesting to me.

I never said I wasn't attracted to her. I said she wasn't "my type".I already addressed this on the previous page. If you saw my date tomorrow night and SS you'd understand.

To give everyone more context Silence and I go back a few years. She was the only regular female poster on the tinder thread. That's how I know what she looks like because she asked me to critique her profile a year or two ago.

Around the same time I reviewed her profile she was having trouble dating. Either guys wouldn't initiate, or wouldn't call her back for a second date (and they didn't have sex on date 1). Plus she was getting flaked/ghosted on a bit.

She was literally depressed and low confidence because she was essentially getting rejected date after date.

Now, since I saw her profile, and thought she was above average looking, her dating results didn't make any sense to me. I was thinking how on earth would a guy not initiate or txt her to meet again? So I boiled it down to 3 possibilities:

1. She smelled like toxic waste
2. She frauded her pics
3. She's weird/crazy/awkward AF

She assured me she has good hygiene and wears perfume. She assured me her pics are of her/recent/and not heavily photoshopped. She assured me she doesn't have any mental disorders, is normal, and doesn't think she is awkward?

Her answer to 3 is obviously subjective, and where I thought the problem is, so I offered to meet her to critique her irl dating game to see if that's the issue.

I wanted to help her and made it clear that was my intention. Plus she knows I do good on dating apps, and don't have to go to such lengths to get a date. So it was going to be a "quasi" type date. Maybe she has an annoying screetchy laugh? Maybe she belches uncontrollably? Maybe she seems so disinterested, that the guy doesn't even bother to go for a kiss or ask her out on another date?

Anyways I was determined to find out, and SS agreed as she thought it was a good idea. Then she got scared and backed out.

Fast forward to 2019, and SS hasn't had much more luck then maintaining a FWB, in another state....

So I brought up the idea of critiquing her irl dating game again, since she's still FA. Except now she said she can't even get a date with a guy in his 40's/50's that she's attracted too!!!

So my offer was simply to help boost her confidence. As a guy in his 40's, that can literally take his pick of single 40+yo females (no brag, just putting things into perspective) and who also finds her attractive, (or at least did two years ago...don't know how she looks now) this will give her a nice break from dating 50yo's who can't see their diks when they pee, and 20yo's that don't know the difference between a urethra and a clitoris if they had a pussy in their face.

This is a practical concept of associating/giving your time to the right people to attract what you want in life. If I talk to 20yo tinder sloots all day, I'll never find a serious relationship. If my social circle consists of walmart and fast food cashiers, I'll never start my own business...

Anyways. It came from a good place. To help another miscer, from the tinder thread, as Ive helped probably 100+ miscers in that thread over the years.

I never said you didn't like to laugh, I said you don't want mutual joking/laughter.

You are happy to have the guy make you laugh, but you don't try to create mutual laughter/jokes. A completely passive role.

Im probably going more extreme than most, but thats because i believe its getting to the core. I could go on forever about this

But i feel as though anytime youre trying to make a name for yourself; basically, whenever youre trying to create something intact or individualized or distinct or its own thing youre striving for permanence. To be recognized, would be more permanence than impermanence, yea? Why would someone want to be recognized only to disappear. The very act of wanting to appear would be different. Hey im here (more permanence) vs. Hey im not here (impermanence)

How did impermanence ever achieve a goal other than disappearing or death?

Thoughts create nuerons so the SECOND you switch to impermanence youre actually not doing anything constructive at all. And thats why i bring up the west, it doesnt mesh with it. I guess you could argue you could never have those goals

Basically, i believe people who actually think its good are using their ego to throw their own twist and spin on it. And that the ego is still required and the second you access impermanence youre not doing anything constructive at all