Sloppy Zhang

Slow down there, sparky. Yeah, it does. Because you see... Nowhere did I say he should change it. My point is that he made an artistic decision. Why did he make that decision? Why did he not make another? What might have happened if he had made that other decision? That's what I'm asking. Not trying to ruin your favorite comic, so rest easy.

My point stands whether you take one comic, the sample of three you posted, or the whole damn thing. The artist made a choice to depict a woman rather than a gay man, and a conventionally attractive woman rather than some other type of woman.

As Protector has pointed out, the view also extends into art which informs culture which also trickles out to the masses. There are cities which are also quite liberal, even if the rest of the state isn't. At what point does something a microcosm, and at what point is something in a mass group of people that is just... not where you live?

I'm not exclusively talking about the third comic

Duh I'm saying the artist made a choice to have Jesus appear female and gay, as opposed to having Jesus appear male and gay. Further to that, he had Jesus appear as a conventionally attractive female, in a homosexual encounter with another conventionally attractive woman. While I think that's a little oversimplified, keep in mind that "hetero is ignorant" is just as ignorant My girlfriend tells me when she hangs out with her LGBTQ group of friends that she feels guilty about being straight, because of the privilege and breaks she gets. Not sure that this is the environment we want to be creating I'm a straight guy and like the ladies. If the ladies like me, cool. If they like ladies, cool. If other guys like other guys, cool. If a guy likes me, I'm sorry, nothing I can do for that. I will say that I have met some male to female transgendered people that I'd date. But I find that an extension of my attraction to women. I was referring to the sentiment outlined by Protector. More of a sympathy for the homosexual relationship as more genuine and honest, as opposed to the ignorant, repressive, possessive heterosexual relationship. Maybe more common in liberal arts universities, or more "liberal" areas (around which I've been for the past few years).

Protector sometimes I wonder how often people (guys) "play to the crowd". You know, the slowly increasing social thought that hetero is bad, homo is good, mainly, women-women (no oppressive men!) Why didn't that artist make Jesus be a guy and do it with one of his (male) disciples? Why did it have to be two women? To get even MORE feminist critical of it, why two conventionally attractive women? How about some fat ladies? I ran into this issue a lot when I was studying creative writing in college. One thing we talked about is the predominance of male perspectives, no women. I hate to break it to people, but I'm a heterosexual male. I like women, I write characters that are sympathetic to me, and they want to get the girl I don't know what women talk about when I'm (a guy) am not around, so excuse me for not writing a scene in which two women talk to each other about not a guy My thought was if women want to see more women writers (or business people or politicians or soldiers) then women should do that. But I'm a privileged male and I have no idea how many more barriers women have.

That'd get me up!.... out of bed.... I'm a weird guy. I was raised by a very strong mother, so I suppose my view of women in relationships is a bit different (also what I view as bossiness/bitchiness....) My girlfriend right now is frustratingly passive and indecisive. As a "nice guy" born and raised, my thought would be that she's just not interested in me or being in the situation and I'd try and move on. But thanks to my exposure to PUA, I know now that (some?) women WANT the guy to take the lead, to make a decision, and maybe to even ignore their preference a little bit. So that's what I did, that made her comfortable in opening up with me, and we've got a good relationship. Am I still frustrated by her indecisiveness and lack of will to just DO something? Sure. But, you know, she's just a different type of person. And what would they screen for? A guy who is confident, outcome independent, and playfully teasing? Everything a good player will do I'm a sun scorpio

Well I guess it depends on the type of feminist you're talking to Some feminists argue that in the patriarchal society in which we live, men are the recipients of so much privilege that we aren't even on an equal footing with women. So even if women/society DO/DOES discriminate against/hate men, it's within the context of so much privilege that we aren't even REALLY at much of a loss. Courts rule in favor of women in divorce proceedings? More men killed on the job? More men homeless and in prison? More men killed in wars? They're a privileged class anyway. So in that context, misandry might not even be a thing.

Don't you know that men (warning, heteronormative assumption about gender performativity coming) have fragile egos? It's a downed economy and even guys with masters degrees and PhD's are having issues finding jobs. Some gal can put on pencil skirt, make a phone call, and get a job? Blow to the male ego right there! I'm half joking and half being serious. A sucker's game. Regardless, my point still stands: with fame and social presence (traits of alpha) you don't need to pay for sex. There may be guys that do, but I wouldn't consider it a winning strategy long term. Not everyone can be the top dog. But everyone can have the traits of a top dog. Self assurance, outcome independence, etc. As a guy who's always been bigger than everyone else, sometimes I do fantasize about living in a time/world in which might made right, and my physical skills will actually gain me some points with the ladies more that cocky confidence. But then I realize what a nasty, brutish, and short life that will be, and I count my blessings. Some stereotypes about PUA getting into the mix as well. PUA has evolved to get away from canned acts and formulas and more towards "principles." Give the ladies what they want. Cocky confident, outcome independent. Don't the ladies like non-needy type of guy? There's another thing to consider, and that is the PUA market- needy nice guys who can't get laid to save their life. So a PUA teacher will say "act distant," and for an overly needed guy, that acting distant will even out to a nice, "non-neediness." You mean you didn't hear the disclaimer? That everyone is a special snowflake, not all men want to be (or are) big and strong and not all women want to be (or are) pretty and thin? That not all guys want women and not all women want guys? Coulda sworn it was around here somewhere...

I've recently been skipping showers too I have a desk job. So I don't really do much vigorous physical activity. If I get home at night, and too burnt out to exercise, sometimes I'll just lay in bed... and pass out. Then wake up the next morning, not enough time to shower, put some deodorant on, maybe a hint of cologne, put some fresh clothes on.... and voila, new day at work. I'll take a shower the next day though. Or if I run or do anything crazy. Or can smell myself Do shower, don't shower. Not a big deal. Always brush your teeth though.

Actually, the PUA "racket" teaches guys to get hotties WITHOUT throwing money around They're trying to SAVE guys the money. Tiger and Charlie might have lots of money. But their money is secondary to the other alpha qualities. Charisma, social dominance, decisiveness, a certain aloofness and detachment from the women they are dating. Women dating superstars and athletes might catch some cash and perks as a result of being around these guys. But I don't think these guys' pickup strategy is to throw money at women. That will DEFINITELY leave you a victim to the gold diggers. But what are they hoping to get out of it? Money? Be a model. But I don't think women who do themselves up and put themselves out there are looking for money. Plenty of these girls start young (13-14) and keep it up for years (into their 30's) without any direct monetary compensation. So they must be doing it for something else.... What then? That's what PUA is getting at. They're not in it for money. They're in it for an alpha guy (who may or may not be rich). So to get a hottie, don't throw money. Throw alpha. Or be a guy a woman doesn't want to lose by sleeping around. I think there are a lot of different intertwined issues here too. What's the difference between a sexual enthusiast and a floozie? Who do women look up to and want to emulate? Million dollar question: how?

Maybe, but on the flip side stereotypes come from somewhere. We notice trends in our own life and society at large. Pretty girls date the bad boys, right? Nice guys are either friend zoned with no chance of sex, or at least they are friends with/date girls who aren't as conventionally attractive. So for the nice guys who decide they want to date a conventionally attractive girl, maybe they'll decide to play the numbers. Sure, maybe not EVERY hottie out there dates bad boys. But enough do to make the life change worth it. So I ask: where do you draw the line? Where does a guy becoming more decisive and assertive (rather than always deferring to the woman) become him being bossy? What IS bossy vs assertive? What is bossy and assertive in the context of a woman who wants her man to pull the trigger, and not always stop and ask "well what would you like to do?" I was referring to pop culture, but not limiting it to pop culture in my comments. Think "common knowledge," assumptions that everyone makes. "Street smarts" and "conventional wisdom." Stereotyped and cliche? Sure. Completely off the mark? Not so sure about that. It's coming from somewhere. So stuff like "nice guys finish last" and "girls like the bad boy." There IS a cultural idea about the "homewrecker" (tells us what society really thinks about the sanctity of marriage and the other woman). She's usually the younger, attractive woman who gives the man the sex that his older, overweight, uninterested woman is not interested in giving him (for whatever reasons). So while she might be "stringing him along" or "using him" (for his money, status, etc) from HIS perspective, he's getting exactly what he wants: sex. And not just the "okay, now's your chance if you want it, go ahead" kind of sex. But the "give it to me I want you inside of me right now" kind of sex. Nah, it's still a good term to use. I don't avidly follow enough stuff to get all of the references. But I do hang out with people enough to get what they're referencing and why they're referencing it.

Well bisexuality is a different category than homosexuality. Previously I was talking about a straight girl and a homosexual man. She might find the homosexual man "attractive" in the sense that he may take care of his body, have an eye for fashion, engages in conversation of a more stereotypically "gossippy" nature (damn, look at all them stereotypes!) And all the while, she won't be having sex with him! My point was in response to your question for why women might find homosexual men attractive. I don't think it's necessarily in the straight man's best interest to emulate all aspects of a homosexual man's relationship with a straight woman, because at some point in time, a straight man is going to want sex with the straight woman. For a homosexual man and a heterosexual woman where sex isn't really a priority in the relationship... well, you see True, but how often do we hear about a guy who always dates the "bad girl" who just leads him along? We don't have much of a social dialogue concerning men who find "bad girls" like your description desirable, and we don't really see anything about how to identify bad girls and how to find the nice ones. Not saying they're not out there and it's not an issue. But in some sense, popular media might be a good barometer for social issues. Hate to beat a dead horse (yeah, I went there...) but Rihanna keeps going back to Chris Brown, and men's dating/sex advice typically centers around making him less of a "all cards on the table nice guy" and more of a "try to be a little aloof and unpredictable" to at least provide the illusion of "bad boys." Don't see much female dating advice that circles aroud enticing him by putting on the persona of a "bad girl" that strings him along. If anything, the bad girl is the one who'll get low and blow his... mind. Basically, give him more of what he wants that he'll expect Here I would ask, who is doing the ignoring, and who is she going out with and coming home to? Is it the unattached guy who's missing drastic changes, or is it the otherwise loving partner who goes out of his way to help and is available to discuss problems? Why is she becoming the center of the universe? The first reason that pops out in my head is the guy is worried she may have cheated on him or been flirting with other guys. Did she hang out with friends who frequently have casual sex outside of a steady relationship? Has she been acting distant recently, talking about other guys, not really been engaged sexually in the relationship? Well what standards are you using? Leadership position of a business organization, people answer to you, you make lots of money, nice car, nice clothes, and you have sex with lots of women in your free time? Sex with lots of men? Sounds like a traditional alpha male. And I only speak for myself here, but I don't want to be in a relationship with a girl who is an alpha male I don't think many other guys do either. We maybe we could explore what parts of that apply, what don't. What exactly appeals and what doesn't appeal (for me personally, I like a woman who is decisive and knows what she wants, but I don't want to be in a relationship with someone who sleeps around casually if they're in a relationship with me. So I wouldn't mind dating a corporate CEO, but I would mind dating a female player).

Appealing in what way though? Appealing in the "let's hang out together a lot even when I'm hardly dressed as I tell you my deepest secrets" kind of way? Or appealing in the "let's have sex" kind of way? Because a straight man who wants to get with a woman (whether just for a fling or a long term relationship that involves physical intimacy) is only going to really be satisfied if it includes the latter. Otherwise you fall into the "friend zone" state. Where the girl feels comfortable around you in every way but just doesn't want to have sex with you. And I know very few straight men who are genuinely okay with being in the friend zone of a woman they find attractive and want to be with.

It's BECAUSE they're dangerous. Or at the very least, unpredictable. A woman comes home, knows the man is going to be there, greet her with a kiss, help her make dinner, give her a nice massage, talk about feelings, and make sweet love. How nice... every day.... Vs, A woman comes home. Will he be there or won't he? Will he notice what I did with my hair, or won't he? Will he help me make dinner, or will he be out? Will he get a call from Stacey? Who is Stacey? He says she isn't anybody, but why did Stacey make it seem like they had a history? Is he going to make love to me tonight, ignore me, or are we going to go at it like horny monkeys? Is he going to have a bag of weed in his jacket? Ecstasy? Are we going to fight or fuck? In my experience, women want a little unpredictability, even if they don't want the danger. Unfortunately, most "nice guys" are predictable. He's always going to be there. He's always going to notice you. He's always going to help you out. He's always going to give you what you want (in bed or otherwise). Snore! It may not be that the woman wants a straight up abusive guy. But they don't necessarily want a guy who is going to do the same thing all the time, even if it's exactly what she wants every time. So maybe they don't go for the "bad" guy. They just go for the "unpredictable guy." And more often than not, it's the bad boy. But it's not the "bad" qualities she likes. As a "nice" guy myself (empathetic, courteous, conscientious, etc) I know I'm always going to be there for my woman, always give her what she wants (in bed or otherwise). But I leave some mystery in how and when I'm going to do it. Throw a little unpredictability in there.

When I was young I studied martials arts with the only teacher in town. I thought "something is better than nothing." Eh, not so much. Not only did I practice an ineffective martial art, I got some pretty bad habits! Sure, I got some "good" things out of it. Like I learned more about my own personal anatomy so I could fix what was messed up with my body. And I also learned to pay attention to the lineage! Who's teaching? Where did they learn from? Are they who they said they are? Going into a bookstore and buying books off the shelf that strike your fancy is probably going to be the same as driving around town and signing up with a school that strikes your fancy. Some people are going to wind up signing up with masters, but a significant portion are going to get fluff at best, and bad practices at worst. Research on the teacher and lineage is important. And a book/DVD from a legit master is going to be worth the non-legit master's weight in gold.

In some cases, a book or a DVD is better quality instruction than you would get from a live teacher! If you have a teacher who knows the movements but not the internal principles, aren't you pretty much just following along anyway? Even if he corrects you here and there, wouldn't he just be correcting your external form to make it look like his? He would not be able to see the internal processes, or be able to make adjustments that are necessary for your current development. There is this assumption out there that "any in person training is better than anything else," and that's just not true. Not all teachers are created (made?) equal. Now compare that to learning from a book or DVD of a master. Yes, for the most part you are following along (same as you would a live teacher who does not have the full authentic tradition). But on top of that, you also get the details of how each part of the form/set/routine is supposed to work. Even if that's all you ever did, you'd learn more from one book than from a year of an in person teacher who didn't know what they were doing. Now let's say that you travel and visit teachers in the meantime, getting corrections and learning big principles as you go. Then you return, practice, go back to teacher, etc. Now let's go a step even further, and say that you have some experience of moving your body, being able to feel internally. Suddenly you might be able to correct yourself on the basics! You pick up steam, your practice gets better. You pull finances together, can see teacher more and more, can travel more, maybe even move to teacher! I'd rather work hard scraping by with scraps from a real tradition, than getting every day personal instruction from someone who never learned a real tradition. But that's just me. Source: Personal experience with live teachers who didn't know jack.

I haven't tried with them personally. Bardon recommends not working with them until you have attained a sufficient level of energetic/spiritual awareness from the practices outlined in his book, or development done through some other comparable spiritual system. I have heard rumors from here or there that some of the formulas outlined by Bardon are missing pieces, or skewed in some fashion or another. The idea being that if you had certain faculties of awareness (which you would have gained if you had gone through his method or a comparable method of another school) you would obviously see where the skew was, and you could simply skew it back in the right direction. Not sure if this is legit, or just another excuse for why the magic formulas fail to produce any results I've heard the "missing piece" argument made with many systems/teachers to keep the uninitiated out. William Mistele does have quite a few articles on the magical letters as they are fundamental energetic building blocks which, when you are familiar with them, can actually be focused on to help your practice (even if you're still making it through the Initiation Into Hermetics section).

"Opening the Energy Gates of Your Body" by B.K. Frantzis.

One thing that has crossed my mind is that spiritual people throughout history and throughout all cultures have been medicine men/women, counselors/advisers (be it for a village or for the wealthy), wise men/women who advised on when/where to plant crops, bury the dead, go to war/not go to war, advised on marriages, helped delivered babies (circling back to medicine men/women), etc. The study of spirituality has always been linked to the study of humanity and the world at large. Some Western developments in the Renaissance were tied to spirituality (look at certain Hermetic traditions), where alchemy (hoping to refine the soul spiritually by studying the physical counterparts) lead into chemistry, the study of the heavens led to developments in the fields astronomy, mathematics, and physics. Spirituality teaches patience and observation without ego, leading to right action at the right moment. Sounds like a great mindset for a psychologist, biologist, chemist, mathematician, engineer, farmer, artist, or anyone to have, really. So I definitely think the drive to learn more spiritually is very closely tied to the ability to learn and discover period. Any field can help, and be helped by, the study of spirituality (and vice versa).

It's a more well rounded story if the guy gets the girl. It's a more realistic story that the chemistry nerd didn't get the girl. Both were pretty funny though.

Damn. You got me.

I've been having lots of dreams about being naked recently. No nervousness or sexuality associated with them. I'm just naked, doing what I'm doing. I've gotten the impulse to walk barefoot a lot more, lighter shoes/sandals. Lighter clothes. Then again, it's also getting hotter around these parts. I've also been working out and running a lot more, so I'm not averse to someone taking a look at my body I'm not trying to cover up my fat with nice® clothes. Hygiene issues aside, most of the objections listed above to being naked have to do with the logistics of how our society operates around clothes. But yeah, let's do it. Get naked, I mean.

Well then the answer must be that we help other people develop this ability to triangulate Sounds like a pretty, wait for it, critical, series of questions

Where did you learn to fly? .... Joking! I'm trying to avoid saying that it was one thing or the other. Rather, what I'm saying is that we should look at the evidence, and if we can form a hypothesis to explain that situation, then that hypothesis should be testable and repeatable across similar circumstances. I think experiences like yours are important. Everyone has experiences that make them look more closely at things. Some people immediately label them as coincidence. Some people immediately label them as providence. Sometimes this occurs at such a split second interval that people think "oh, a coincidence happened, and moved on." What I am advocating is to not make a judgment and instead go, "okay, something happened. What happened? What were the mechanisms behind it? Can we reproduce this event? Can we develop these mechanisms?" I think this type of investigation is as crucial to a spiritual practice/existence as anything else.