markern

Whatever you believe about secret government conspiracies and so forth studies done without control groups, very small samples and so forth are considered worthless for anything other than further research when it comes to ANYTHING studied scientifically in the west be that drugs, other types of treatment, psychological therapy or whatever and that is exactly the type of research the Chinese and Indians have been doing in this field. THey have produced tons of studies showing what can only be considered INTERESTING results that PROVE nothing

THis site: http://www.reuniting.info/ and Marina Robertsons books describe well a gentle uncomplicated way of doing it were it mostly just happens by itself. THe aneros will also teach you that because only by relaxing can you really make it work.

THe point about strecthing exercises etc. is valid but the same difference in numbers shows up when you look at meditation classes and also any sort of new age gathering. To repeat, despite several women on this forum dating younger men it is still the case that in western societies there are a lot more older men dating younger women than there are older women dating younger men. THe difference is huge even if it is now starting to even out. So if which sex dates most younger people is an indicator of who matures the fastest then it is the women who mature the fastest.

THat number keeps popping up even in the prices

http://www.aypsite.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7515 You might find this thread interesting.

China has produced an enormous amount of qigong research that is more or less worthless by (western) scientific standards) other then as an indiaction that one should do more reserach with rigorous enough standards.

If you look at any yoga or meditation class you will find that not only hte majority but usually arround 70-80% of the attendants are women. However, considering how few of the students are men there is a disproportional number of men who are teachers or who have a hihg level practice. I think this is because men tend to go into something with much more effort when they find something they really want to go for while women tend to favour more balance and achiving many smaler goals on a broader spectrum. THis page is a special case. A huge number of the posters have come here because they were initially interested in having multiple orgasms and nothing more. A very high number have also come here through martial arts practice which is very male dominated. THe number of young women with older male partners far outnumber the number of young men with older female partnerrs in our society. If these pairings ar an indication of who matures quickly then it is the women.

THis is utter bullshit. About the dumbest thing I ever heard. Stais, what I would do if I was you would be to start rebuilding my health with qigong and meditation. If sexual activity weakens you that much there must a weakness somewhere that you will have to work to compensate for. You can for example start by bying Bruce Frantzis` Longevity Breathing CD-rom. This will give relaxation and build energy. You can add to that something very simple like Zhan Zhuang which is very good for building energy is safe and can be learned easily. Springforest qigong is also very good for basic health and healing and is safe and always gets good reviews. The inner smile is also something you can look into. You should also see a TCM doctor and see if acupuncture and herbs might help and to get an acurate diagnosis of which organs are weak. If you start with the other stuff I can explain to you a very simple and quick exercise that builds up the kidney chi a lot. THe kidneys are responsible for sexual energy so it is your likely weak spot. But you need to start the other stuff first because working only on one aspect and not the whole will make you imbalanced. Write me a PM when you have started something and I will explain it to you. You could also consider contacting springofrest qigong for some long distance healing sessions. Ideally you should find a teacher. I came across a forum about post ejaculation fatigue syndrom or something one time. Look arround and you might find it. THey could possible have good tips. THe page reunited.info also have itnersting info for you. A practice with non ejaculatory orgasms and long term sperm rention will easily cause you problems if you do not have a regular practice of meditation and qigong or yoga. Either through damaging yourself trying to stop ejaculation too forcefully or getting unbalanced by the build up of a certain energy that is not transformed through spiritual practice. Both of these have happened to many on this forum. Also because of your young age you might more easily get in trouble with this. But if you do get an actual practice of meditation and qigong then after some time you can probably start having orgasms without ejaculation and going a week maybe two without coming. Especially if you are having sex with a girl and not only yourself. Ejaculation during partner sex is less draining.

These things are in their beginning stages. People have just recently begun. Over time they will get more seriously into it like people on this forum. Anyway no matter how many commercials you see on tv meditation and yoga still increase compassion and build a balanced personality and physically changes your body and brain in ways that make people more spiritual.

As far as I can see the trend is towards spirituality. People in the west are taking to yoga, meditation and qigong by the millions and the scientific research being done on these practices are starting to produce such amazing results that they will soon be spread much faster. An example is the that the therapies mindfulness based cognitive therapy and acceptance and commitment therapy are being found in study after study to be more effective than regular cognitive therapy and that as these are based on meditation and the psychology of meditation, mindfulness practices and meditation will soon be promoted by psychologists, psychiatrists and doctors and university professors within these fields on a large scale. I much prefer the spirituality that this leads to were people actually meditate to the spirituality of going to church once a week and a quick prayer now and then which is what most peoples spiritual life in the west has been before secularization. Also remember that meditation in the east has mostly been practiced by monks and not by people in general. Buddhists now talk about how the westerners (and modern society) has created a new phenomena they call the lay monk which is a practioner that is householder but has a hardcore meditation practice. Of course householders have meditated in the east before just not so many and so much as appears to becoming the trend now, hence the term lay monk.

Well, Catholicism is very open to a lot of eastern approaches. The current Pope was the leader of a group that looked into the church` views on these matters and what the recommended was a very liberal approach. Even doing Vipassana is OK as the holy spirit is seen to be at work when you meditate in such a way. A LOT of Catholics do Zen and Vipassana. Also Catholicism has a long history of contemplative life in its monastaries. There are a bunch of Catholic meditations and meditative prayers. There is even one that is studied by scientists now because it is believed to have the same pain reducing effect as the tibetan meditation THong Len. You also have St John of the Cross and Meister Eckardt, the cloud of unknowing, the desert fathers. Currently there is a trend towards using centering prayer which is in many ways very similar to Vipassana. Check these things out and when he is of right age you can encourage them. They will eventually get him to do the right places even if he stays within Catholicism.

I seem to remember that you said you were in college. If that is the case then take some classes in political science, international relations, international institutions, economics and international history. I have encountered many who believe in various strange political conspiracy theories and not one of them have really red up on how these things actually work. They have just read some books by guys that also claim to know Geroge Bush and Queen Elisabeth are actually aliens and basicly just present as fact what they feel like with no real sources. I saw the Zetigeist movie and got intrigued so I read around a little bit. For the most part his claims about various gods were simply untrue and his supposed sources mostly deluded authors that themselves used no real sources. I then checked the claims about the federal exchange and read various critiques of the claims and also discussed it with a friend of my father who is a professor of economics and an expert in monetary policy. He explained how the theories are just plain silly. Furthermore, most of the claims, like that the FED has never been audited and the Investment banks that supposedly owns it are simply untrue and very easy to check. For example the lists of banks that supposedly owns the Fed and which circulates the net all the time and show up in book after book about this topic includes several banks that have never existed. What credibility does an authors claims have when he says this is the list of owners and he hasen`t even checked if they exist? What credibility does any of these theorists have when they keep reproducing claims such as this without anyone actually checking the most basic facts? If you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_(conspiracy_theory) ...then you should understand why I have no faith what so ever in NWO claims. Since the different theories mutually contradict each other it follows that almost all of them must be untrue as they can not be true at the same time. The likelyhood of any of the others being true are extremely slim. You should REALLY do your research before you buy into highly controversial claims from authors that for the most part are known to get their facts from their own imagination. The other day I was reading the interantional Herlad Tribune and someone had bought an add warning people of the NWO take over of the world coming soon. But according to this guy the Fed was apparently irrelevant and it was the drug and oil industry which togheter was behind this and also behind the first and second world war. The drug industry was tiny and irrelevant around the time of the first world war so how they started it beats me. All across the world there are professors who actually study the original source material from these wars and the time leading up to it. THey study all the actual documents and other sources unlike the conspiracy theorists that either just make stuff up as is evident from the link I provided or use each other as sources in a self sustaining bullshit loop. None of these professors find anything in the actual material to back up such crazy claims. Some form of international governing bodies is a good thing. I think the EU has been a very good thing for the most part, as has the UN. THere is need for a bit more coordination and rule making at an international level. Any sort of real world government that take over the influence states have on how people lead their lives in basically unworkable. It is just a too big thing to govern. Even in China it is difficult to make all the provinces and regions do as they are told because the place is so damn big and there are so many people. If you read up on political science and international relations you will find that in very large states there is a tendency for big regional governments to become very unruly and not do as the central government wants them to because it is just too difficult to rule big states in anything resembling detail. IF you have 10-20 people as ministers in a world government it is impossible for them to process enough information to govern the US, China, Uzbekistan and paraguay at the same time in a way were they have influence on what happens there along the same lines a minister in those countries have today. THis means for the most part power will be distributed as it is today. You can still move significantly more power upwards but you just can not realistically move very much more further up. Ask some professors of political science. Many of them have really wanted some sorts of world governance in order to avoid war but virtually all of them agree it is very limited to what extent something like that is possible even if it is desired by everyone.

My personal experience with older women is only an age difference 6 or 7 years older than me and only casual stuff and not proper relationships. I actually haven`t seen realtionships were the woman is 10+ years older than the man in my, rather huge, circle of friends and aquaintances. My parents know some such couples. I guess what is considered a large age gap decreases as one gets older. When I was in my twenties, especially early twenties, most girls that were two, three, four years older would initially write me off because I was younger than them and most would say they looked for a man their own age or older and ruled out anyone younger, even just a couple of years. With not too much effort a lot of those women could be swayed to consider me but it took more work and I think that had a serious relationship come into question they would have had way more doubts. Even with just a couple of years in age difference. Women that were 6-7 years older than me or above would be really hard to get anything other than an innocent flirt going with. Those women who actively picked me up or at least were no more difficult to sway than those my own age or younger, almost always had a few things in common. THey were much more confident than average woman, they were much more independent and self sufficient, they had much more initiative, they were more assertive, they were more direct and they were more masculine. Those factors I have mentioned were present in close to all of the older women I encountered. In addition many but far from all of them were more thrill seekers than most girls. I think a common theme was that these women gave me a feel of not seeking as much from me as other women. Many women give me a sense that they want my confidence to make them confident and they seem to need my initiative to lead them in some ways and they seem to require a lot of emotional assurance that stuff is OK and acpeted. THese confident older woman gave me very little sense of seeking these things from me, actually they seemed to provide these things for themselves. Most of the older woman I have had a thing with actively picked me up but that has only been the case for a few of the younger ones. I think because these older woman provided so well a lot of what a younger women seeks from older men, confidence, direction, security etc. they look more for the qualities of younger men like energy, excitement, enthusiasm, optimism, playfulness, higher sex drive, being adventurous and having a hoter body. In the last 5++ years a lot has changed I think. Today almost all girls I know have at lest had sex with a man a few years younger and a very large portion have seriously dated a man 2-6 years or so younger than them. So now all sorts of girls suddenly date younger men and you can`t generalize as much as one could before. But I think a lot of what I said about my experience still holds true for those women who in general prefers young men. Also even those who usually date men their own age or older will probably apreciate the qualites that are particular to the young man when they date him even if that is not what they mainly look for. However, the girls that do not have a genreal preference for younger men probably often require the man to be more confident and leading than those who do have such a general preferance. What the girls I know who only sometimes date younger men tell me they like about them are that they look good and have hot bodies and their energy and that they seem to bring more fun and excitement. When woman aproach 40 my guess is a lot of them will have encountered men with diminished sex drives and lot stamina because of lack of exercise and will really apreaciate the sexual powers of a young man.

I saw a documentary about how popular extremely fat woman are with some men. If you are of the size were you can still walk around OK then your attractiveness is a lot less than if you were slim. But if you reach the level were you can hardly move and a guy can lie on top of your fat and sort of float on it then your attractiveness skyrockets within a very small but significant group of men. These guys would rather have this girl then be in a relationship with Eva Longorina. Obviously this woman did not start to eat to become attractive but at a certain level this could have increased her motivation to eat. People often feel it is better to be something, so matter what that is, then to be nothing. If you hate yourself seeing yourself as the one in the world that hates himself the most will make you into something special. If you are miserable being the most miserable person in the world makes you a special and unique case and entitles you to extraordinary amounts of sympathy and excuses for your behavior. Being the biggest person on the planet is also something very unique, and that can be twisted into being unique and special in a good way. At least it can feel that way even though you do not think it intellectually. Obviously this also gets her attention. Any attention will feel better then no attention to most people. By the way I saw a program on TV the other day about a guy that lost 200 KG through changing his diet and exercising. He now weighs only about 100 KG. Just going from no food for breakfeast and 2-3 enormous meals in the afternoon and evening to five meals a day made the pounds just fall of.

And little in this context means :39,66% of food insecure people cut size of meal or skipped meal because they did not have enough money for food and 37,2% ate less than they felt they should. Which is rather A LOT in my opinion. Anyway have a look at those with VERY LITTLE FOOD SECURITY and try to imagine how it is to live like that.

You haven`t pointed out any errors. Apparently YOU were not able to read the word LITTLE which you conciously omitted to make it look like less of a problem and evidently you have problems reading this as well: 39,66% of food insecure people cut size of meal or skipped meal because they did not have enough money for food and 37,2% ate less than they felt they should.

What it does say is LITTLE or no indication of reduced food intake not as you quoted it no indication. You are conciously trying to make it look as if there is less of a problem than it is just to score points in a debate instead of taking the issue seriously. That says stuff about you as a person that if put in print probably would be moderated away but still is true. 98 percent reported having worried that their food would run out before they got money to buy more. 96 percent reported that the food they bought just did not last and they did not have money to get more. 94 percent reported that they could not afford to eat balanced meals. 97 percent reported that an adult had cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there was not enough money for food. 88 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months. 93 percent of respondents reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food. 66 percent of respondents reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food. 47 percent of respondents reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food. 27 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food. 19 percent reported that this had occurred in 3 or more months. All households without children that were classified as having very low food security reported at least six of these conditions, and 67 percent reported seven or more. FOOD-INSECURE conditions in households with children followed a similar pattern. Furthermore, if you look at the statistic you will see that 39,66% of food insecure people cut size of meal or skipped meal because they did not have enough money for food and 37,2% ate less than they felt they should.

Yes I did: 93 percent of respondents reported that they had eaten less than they felt they should because there was not enough money for food. 66 percent of respondents reported that they had been hungry but did not eat because they could not afford enough food. 47 percent of respondents reported having lost weight because they did not have enough money for food. 27 percent reported that an adult did not eat for a whole day because there was not enough money for food.

Reducing QUANTITY MEANS they have to eat less than they actually need. You really lack the most basic empathy.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is biased? WHat it means is that periodically many of these people do not have as much food to eat as they need. They are HUNGRY BUT HAVE NO FOOD. This happens on and of but does not tip over into hunger that will kill them either because they get more money for some time or because there are government and voluntary programs to feed those on the border of starvation. Besides to feeling of being hungry and weak because of lack of food and the horrific psychological consequences of that this leads to health problems that stem from under and malnutrition. In stead of responding to this knowledge with a desire to help these people all you try to do is deny their plight to not loose a debate on the internet. WOW!

Well obviously not when this is the case: Of the 49.1 million people living in food insecure households (up from 36.2 million in 2007), 32.4 million are adults (14.4 percent of all adults) and 16.7 million are children (22.5 percent of all children). 17.3 million people lived in households that were considered to have "very low food security," a USDA term (previously denominated "food insecure with hunger") that means one or more people in the household were hungry over the course of the year because of the inability to afford enough food These are very large parts of your population. Before you edited your post it said "I don`t know about that". Well now you do so take it into account in what policies you consider would be good for your population.

Despite the majority living such lives this is also the case: One of the most disturbing and extraordinary aspects of life in this very wealthy country is the persistence of hunger. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reported that in 2008: Of the 49.1 million people living in food insecure households (up from 36.2 million in 2007), 32.4 million are adults (14.4 percent of all adults) and 16.7 million are children (22.5 percent of all children). 17.3 million people lived in households that were considered to have "very low food security," a USDA term (previously denominated "food insecure with hunger") that means one or more people in the household were hungry over the course of the year because of the inability to afford enough food. This was up from 11.9 million in 2007 and 8.5 million in 2000. Very low food security had been getting worse even before the recession. The number of people in this category in 2008 is more than double the number in 2000. Black (25.7 percent) and Hispanic (26.9 percent) households experienced food insecurity at far higher rates than the national average. http://www.frac.org/html/hunger_in_the_us/hunger_index.html Do you not see the desperate need to improve the lives of these people? US capitalism has done little to nothing over the last 30 years to mitigate this problem. An increase in minimum wage and state welfare measures could eradicate this problem easily but you choose not to and let them suffer and wonder were their next meal is coming from.

http://www.kundaliniproblems.com/kundalini_energy_therapy.htm I think this site looks interesting and relevant to the topic so might as well put it in the thread.

http://www.kundalini...rgy_therapy.htm I thought this site would be of interest to some people here.