Sloppy Zhang

Truth be told, I always found these analogies to be quite limited. Yes, you CAN learn to ski from a book. Yes, you CAN learn to fight from a book. Yes, you CAN learn art from a book. You CAN learn computer programming from a book. Of course, you are going to have to do something. No one said you wouldn't. You can't read a book about computer programming and then declare you're a great programmer if you've made no great programs. You take what you learned in a book and you put it to practice. And then you learn from your direct experience. The book material is just the jumping off point to your direct experience. Similarly, having an "in person" teacher does not guarantee success either, because again, it comes down to whether that teacher can get you to move into the realm of your personal experience. You can have the greatest teacher in the world, but never actually "do" anything, and be outdone by someone who had no teacher, but who managed to "do" a lot more in their experiences. The jumping off point doesn't really matter. It's the quality of experiences that you have after that point. So....... If said brain surgeon can demonstrably show that they can perform- 1) better surgery with 2) less risks at a 3) cheaper cost Then hell fucking yes. That's the thing that people seem to forget about "open source"- it ain't just a collection of wiki pages. There are people out there who consistently produce demonstrable results which consistently match, if not exceed, the results from "traditional" sources. There are 16 year olds who learn open source programming who can work with or produce material that exceeds those things made by paid professionals in the same field. It's a matter of results. It's a matter of DOING. Who cares if you learned how to "do" by paying a hundred grand a year so you can go to some ivory tower, or if you learned to "do" by learning for free off the net? What matters is the consistent, demonstrable quality of the "doing". You can pay $500 an hour for an Olympic ski coach, or you can print off a page from the internet about "how to ski". None of it matters, because both people are going to have to get on the slopes and do. And it's the quality of the "doing" that matters.

You can be "normal" as far as society is concerned, and still "get" the tao. In case you have any doubt about this, all you have to do is just start talking to "normal" people. You'd be surprised how aware these people are. Of course, they won't use the terms that "taoists" use. They won't use any established philosophical rhetoric. Their views may be roundabout and unrefined. But if you let them explain themselves, you'll get that they are talking about the same things. The thing is most times this doesn't come up in "normal" conversation. So you may need to be good at carrying on a conversation in order to get them to that space where they feel comfortable opening up. Sometimes it helps to be a stranger to them- they aren't afraid of you judging them, you don't know any of their friends, so it's not like word will get around that they were philosophizing about "weird" stuff earlier in the day. I get that there are "outsiders", and I bet there are quite a few "outsiders" here. But I think it is an incredibly valuable spiritual exercise to act "normal", to become friends with people who are "normal", who have no conscious knowledge of the tao, who aren't spiritual, who are just living life to do whatever impermanent thing they want to do at the time (go to work, party, drink, fuck, watch tv, drive a nice car, etc etc etc). If you can't connect with a "normal" person, how the hell do you expect to connect with the rest of the universe?????

Hm, we may need to go back to those gender threads to see why we can't do that, or if we could, why we wouldn't get those same results For instance, to go to what (I think) vortex was alluding to here: (emphasis mine) I've heard more than enough girls/women complain about their boyfriends- how they are inconsiderate jerks, and how they just want to find a "nice guy", but then I sit there and watch them make moves on the same type of guy that they complain about, while literally ignoring every nice guy in their lives. So, you know, as a guy, if there's a type of girl I don't like to be around (an airhead, a flake, etc etc) I learn to identify those types of women pretty damn quickly, and I certainly don't complain to my best girlfriends about how I can never find a "nice girl" who can just carry out a conversation or who won't suddenly send me a text at the last minute telling me she can't meet me for breakfast because she was up too late with another one of her guy friends. So it may be hard for me to put myself into the position of a girl who just always winds up dating a guy who is a jerk, who disrespects me, who doesn't return my calls, and who flirts with other women, so that I then have to search the internet for clues to my problems. Not to say that searching the internet is bad. That's how I found TTB's. And I tried to show to the best of my ability why, despite what our best intentions may be, the outcomes would be the same as someone performing the same act with the worst intentions. So your having the most innocent intentions or the worst intentions wouldn't matter- the effect on the thread would be the same. And it's rarely a good effect Well I disagree But it's not a job or something that you or anyone needs to feel beholden to.

Masturbation and real women are not mutually exclusive Real women can make masturbation that much better Also, masturbation and a drive to accomplish things are not mutually exclusive either Masturbation is just one subsection of human sexuality, which is just one subsection of a human being. It ain't an all or nothing thing. Masturbating, enjoying porn, and the like does not mean you have no drive to accomplish things in life and that you aren't around real women/don't go after them.

People have used symbols to channel/evoke/summon "subtle" energies for ages. Sports mascots, national flags, a family coat of arms- they provide a means of gathering, storing, transmitting, summoning, or implanting subtle energies. Get fired up when you see your symbol/flag/family crest. Feeling scared? Put a picture of a fierce animal on your clothing, channel than animal, lose your fear, become the hunter, rather than the hunted, etc etc etc. Pretty damn instinctive, if you ask me.

My own couple of cents.... I don't think "seal" is the right direction you should be going for. I think it's more productive, safer, more healthy, and more holistic to learn how to "settle" the dantien. If you have had an intense chi experience/practice, then naturally your chi is going to want to keep jumping all over the place. You need to stop, stand/sit, focus on the dantien, and just have the chi pool there and settle. Keep in mind, in some cases I have had practice sessions in which the settling phase took LONGER than the practice. Seriously. Don't stop until you are settled. If you get up and get going and blah blah, you're going to scatter what you've just spent working on. And I mean, I guess you could build it up at a later practice. But that's beside the point... Let the chi settle in the dantien. Some things that help with this are- 1) Being able to calm the body, and listen to it 2) Being able to calm the mind IMO/IME, it all ties together. The more you can calm your mind, the easier you'll be able to calm your chi after practice, because you won't feel antsy and won't feel the need to jump around again. So think "settling" rather than "sealing". If you have hurricane force chi, you're going to be hard pressed to find a container that can seal that up. But if you wait 'till the winds and rain calm down, you're going to be much better off. Also keep in mind that the dantien is the center where all of the channels that nourish the physical body pass through. So to some extent, the point of nourishing the chi in the dantien is so that it can spread to other parts of the body and nourish them. If you have unsettled, explosive, hurricane chi, it's going to shoot out every which way and it might disperse and be no good. If you've got gentle, flowing chi that's pooled in the dantien, then it will flow where it is needed. As your practice builds and your health gets better, you may feel it leave less, because it will have less places to tend to. So some chi "leakage" is okay. But again, "leakage" isn't the way you should be thinking about it. "Nourishing", kind of like how you water plants with a garden hose. Water ain't "leaking" out the garden hose faucet

......... ok? Because the people in possession of that knowledge do not allow it to be released........ Because the people in possession of that knowledge do not allow it to be released......... I know. If people realized that they can become liberated, they might quit their jobs. Then we won't have food, electricity, or running water that we can use to support our cushy lifestyles as we sit on a comfy couch, breathing through our testicles, and pontificating on an internet forum! People who aren't ready for that knowledge should just keep doing what they are doing, so I can liberate myself.

Sorry, not seeing it Your strawman was your suggesting that you use bibliographies or some other sort of reference- that was not what anyone was suggesting in the least- The inconsiderate behavior was getting people all involved with the conversation with the promises of certain revealing links..... which you then never provided! Regardless of your intent, the effect on the other parties remains the same. And since you're a quality poster, I figured that that behavior was kind of below you. No slippery slope there just a summation of what actually happened. Ain't that more like google "fate"? Google fu would be the ability to find something really easily A google fu master would be able to link to references for topics I haven't even made yet it seems like magic, but that's just because their skill is on a whole other level.

Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer It's a tricky subject. "Friend" and "enemy" are such broad terms with many different connotations. There are people who I have met who were "adversarial" towards me, they were in "opposition" to me, but we could each look each other in the eye and respect the accomplishments that we each had. Then there are "enemies" who want to see you suffering and in pain. They need to be removed before they hurt you or someone close to you. Then there are people who just won't like you for whatever reason, and they'll avoid you like the plague and you'll never know why Likewise, "friend" is a very broad subject. I've been told I'm very "popular", that I have lots of "friends". I can count the number of people who I can trust with my life, my loved ones, and my secrets on one hand. Then I have many "allies", people who I am "brothers in arms" with. "Comrades". We can rely on each other as far as our goals are concerned. Beyond that? We have no use for that. We don't know friends or family of the other, we don't know the hometown. We just know that we are both very good at what we do, and we get down to business. Then you got those "friends in low places" as the song goes. "Reliable" in that "shady" kind of sense. Honor amongst thieves? I dunno, because you never trust them farther than you can throw them But it's always nice to have someone who won't mind getting their hands a little dirty. Go do crazy things that your "clean" friends won't do. And then you got the lovers 'nuff said. I wouldn't say that I have a "hierarchy", but I will say that I am pretty damn compartmental in my friends. Some of my "friends in low places" know things about me that my "friends in high (?) places" will never know. Lovers know things about me that allies don't. They're all friends just... different Is this a Taoist view of friendship? Eh, I dunno. Each friend has their own season. Each friend is perfect for their situation, but they would be terribly imperfect if they were thrust into a different scenario. I like to think that the sage would be friends with everyone, but would be/have the right friend for the right job. I don't lie to myself and think that I'm the central friend to anybody's existence I'm just a layer in someone else's hierarchy of friends- go to guy, confidant, rabble rouser, etc etc. Some of my best friends and I have some of the most bitter disagreements you'll ever hear (about things large and small). We've had some pretty epic, knockdown, drag out debates/arguments. We cleared out a restaurant when we got into a debate/argument about something. We finally stopped, and the manager told us to leave. Then we looked at each other and lol'd. The manager was like "wtf?" We tipped huge and left, and to this day we make joking references about it Aaaaaaaaand we also never bring up that topic in conversation

Hey now, don't be pulling out that strawman argument on me No one is asking for a bibliography or list of cited sources. It's just like if person A says "hey, there are lots of women out there with the same issues, I see it all the time!" and person B comes in and says "really? I haven't seen that, what kind of stuff are you talking about", and person A goes "well just find it yourself, because I don't care".... well, it kind of kills the conversation It leaves the other party guessing as to what you meant, they can search and search and STILL never find what they are looking for. Hell, sometimes I remember the exact post that someone made on this forum, but can't find it in the search function because I'm not using the right combination of keywords, or something like that. Same with google- I'll know everything about the website except its url, but I STILL can't find it! I think providing resources as often as you can, or as close as you can to what you meant is, at the very least, considerate of others, because it acknowledges that you recognize the commitment they have made to the conversation. If you mention all this wonderful stuff, but never show anything and then leave the conversation, you have wasted their time! I dunno. Call me crazy, but I don't think that's very considerate- whether it is a deliberate argumentative tactic used to avoid the burden of proof, or it is genuine lack of caring. When I find cool things, I bookmark them and, if it's REALLY good and I don't want to lose it, save a copy on my computer with an easy to remember title. That way, if someone needs it, I have it. But that's just me. When did I ever say my opinion of you diminished? I said the behavior was below you, not that I'd bump you down on my list of respected bums

Intentional or not, the effect is still the same, and I have found it to be rather weak. Conversation fizzle out as people start saying it (whether as a tactic to exit the conversation, or as a genuine lack of caring, the outcome is the same). People go "okay.... well.... okay." When they search, they aren't guaranteed to find the same link, they aren't guaranteed to follow the same route of links that you did, they may find different things, they may focus on different things. Providing a link ensures that everyone at least has the same material in front of them, whether they see the same thing in it or not. Boyfriend trouble Bad boys Those are what I got.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kate, not you too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Agh, this response is one of the most intellectually lazy, un-supportive statements I have ever heard in my time on the internet!!!! "I have a bunch of resources that would change your mind." "Okay, what are they?" "Google them, I can't be bothered to provide them." sahfa;lwihfa;lshdf;akjewhlfhw Drives me crazy! ;askj;aoh;aksndv;iuwe;oih;lwhflsllaslkalushflkwekj You can't go anywhere from there! It's just some random internet point dangling in the wind. No one's going to learn, discover, or anything else with that! I for one was following the conversation, hoping to find some new resources that do some confirming here, some challenging here, etc etc..... and now there's nothing! Please reconsider, this tactic is below you

I recall reading/hearing somewhere that there are two types of laughter. There is laughter from the heart, which is a true expression of self and joy and all that good stuff. And then there is laughter from the mind, sorta like you hear something that is sarcastic or ironic, and you "laugh", but it's not the same kind of laugh that comes from the heart. Laughter from the heart heals you and others, it spreads around, you don't lose energy when you do it, in fact, it vitalizes you. Laughter from the mind at some witticism or sarcasm actually cuts away at you. Upon hearing that distinction, I realized just how much stuff in the modern world relies on that "intellectual laughter"- jokes based on sarcasm and irony, witty stuff that people feel like they "should" laugh at it, but really, there's no impetus to make them laugh. Their cart is before the horse. For what it's worth (oh boy, here I go!) I think the issue surrounding ejaculation is the same type of thing. Seth Ananda has posted a couple of times about traditions in which orgasm and ejaculation are vitalizing and without loss of energy/jing- I think it's similar to that laughing from the heart. The problem is people get that confused with stuff that goes on from the mind, the "intellectual" sex that "oh, I am having sex now, I guess it's time to ejaculate... oh, I am watching porn now, I guess it's time to ejaculate". It's not a genuine expression of the current moment, so it actually eats away at you. Maybe. As far as laughing at yourself goes, people who can't laugh at themselves tend to be rather rigid people/institutions. Very un-Tao. People who can laugh at themselves don't take themselves seriously, like, say, comedians. Interesting, comedians are unafraid to get the closest to the truth, to put it right out there in a way that everyone can understand, to make no apology, and to not tout any party line. Hmm... comedians are taoists.....

Sometimes going to war/fighting/being the aggressor is the path of least resistance, the path of the least destruction, and the path to the most stable peace. We cut out cancers and we remove limbs which can damage the rest of the system. Sometimes you meet people or groups of people who, if you stick to your rule of "non-violence", will cause more suffering in the long run. Of course, being able to carry out the proper behavior in a tangible, practical manner is a far cry from the theory of it. Few of us have the true perspective to know what is best, and fewer still have the ability to separate themselves from their own cause to accurately assess if their action is truly the most just, or if they are acting selfishly out of ego but justifying it with the old "we must fight to maintain peace" phrase.

There's a quote from Bruce Lee that I've always liked- "Before I started practicing martial arts, a punch was just a punch, and a kick was just a kick. When I was studying martial arts, a punch wasn't just a punch, and a kick wasn't just a kick. After I had mastered martial arts, a punch was just a punch, and a kick was just a kick." I think, when it comes to conversation (or any skill, really) there are going to be those who are good at it and successful at it (sometimes wildly so) based on pure natural talent, and their experiences of trial and error. They know what works, but they don't know why. They know what to do, but if you ask them for advice they will be unable to put it into words. To them, talking is just talking. And then there are going to be people who break it down, and find out all the steps. They learn why it works, how it works, and how to build different approaches. Maybe they are naturally good, and just want to get better, and find out why things work. Maybe they aren't naturally talented, and it helps them to break it down, as opposed to the naturals who say "just do it". I think if you look at ANY top person in ANY skill, they do this. Athletes do this, dietitians do this, musicians do this, chemists do this, and the PUA and NLP people have done this with conversation. Break it down, find out why, and build it up so it is the most efficient at what it is doing. Maybe naturals find doing this uncomfortable. Maybe they don't like looking under the hood. Maybe they'd honestly rather not know. Maybe they feel that it can't be broken down. Maybe they feel by putting names to everything, they are somehow perverting what they feel to be an "indescribable" facet of human nature (after all, they're really good at it, but even they can't put words to it!) I don't know. But the fact is- systems that have been broken down like this can be learned, and even practiced to a high degree of skill, by naturals and by those who aren't natural alike. Those who aren't naturals may have to work harder. Maybe naturals don't have to work hard at this phase at all. But, again, look at ANY field- and you'll see this being done. In this phase, talking isn't just talking, it's moving through different phases. And then, finally, when you have internalized the structure and you know it like the back of your hand, you come full circle back to the first step. You just play it by ear. You don't have a routine. You do what you know will work because it's so "natural" for you. You can tailor it for any situation. You aren't limited to bar skanks, or even quality women- you learn how to converse with EVERYONE. At this phase, talking is just talking. Again, I don't think there is any shame in learning this stuff. I don't find it inherently "manipulative" or "exploitative"- people do this ALL THE TIME. When I was in high school I sort of "found myself" and became a lot more outgoing and popular. I just did stuff. My friends saw me and they didn't really know what had changed between middle school and high school. And I couldn't really tell them. After looking through some PUA and some NLP material, I started to gain the vocabulary for why things started to work for me. I saw how I did some things right, I saw how I did some things wrong but naturally threw them away, and I saw how I did some things wrong but kept doing them. I saw how people, in one shape or another, were doing this all the time. We have this funny idea in our society that if you know you are doing it, then it is manipulation. But if you don't know you're doing it, and you're just doing what is "natural" for you, then you're just a really good speaker. I find this distinction odd, and a bit petty. Our civilization and interpersonal relationships are developed through conversation. Not being able to do that because you somehow think is "unnatural" is unnecessarily handicapping yourself. You are going to miss LOTS of very awesome experiences because you think that. So if you AREN'T good at conversation (non), there are ways to get good at it, and I think you should learn what those are.

Yes, this, a thousand times, this. Especially this: It's easy to look at stuff like "insight" schools and tell yourself the fairy tale that one day a single thought will happen and lead to enlightenment. I don't know anything about enlightenment, but I do know about negative, self reproducing thought patterns. One bad thought feeds bad thought #2, which feeds bad thought #1, which feeds bad thought #2. You can never escape, because #1 always leads to #2, and #2 always leads to #1. Sometimes you can see the problem on your own... and sometimes you are so stuck in the middle that you don't have the proper perspective, and you need a third party to say "um.... look at this". A third party, in person helper will be able to stay with you and keep you accountable. It seems like it's too easy for you to gloss over posts in these threads. That doesn't help at all. Furthermore, with regards to general gender stuff, one of the thing those gender threads got me into reading a lot of was some pretty radical feminist stuff. I found it disturbing the number of women who had been sexually assaulted or raped by people close to them, even as children, and that was shaping their view of men and how men run the world (basically, if you can't fuck it, kill it, then kill whatever you're through fucking). It was as 100% in their eyes as your thoughts about women are 100% true from your perspective and experience. I dunno. I'd rather leave it at that than attempt to turn it into some Buddhist-esque take on the nature of suffering and blah blah blah. Someone else can take it from here

And I am going to have to disagree with this Keeping in mind I haven't seen the videos, in my experience women like cocky comedy. It signals a number of things that a quality girl would look for in a quality guy- 1) Intelligence- you have to use the right words 2) Confidence- it's all in the delivery, a shaky delivery will betray your lack of self confidence, a smooth delivery will signal you are confident in other situations 3) the ability to relate, not only to another person, but to the context- You have to know just what to say at the right time and in the right place, which shows you pay attention to what others say, and can accurately predict what is going to work. Intelligent, aware women like this, because it signals that the man is also intelligent and aware. Intelligent, aware women will respond and engage, because they know you are worth the time. That's not to say that you can't use this on "bar sluts", or that you won't be successful in getting lots of easy hook ups. But that doesn't mean you aren't also going to be successful with women who are worthwhile. As with many other things, my philosophy is to look at the underlying structure, the internal substance, rather than the external form. If you understand the internal substance, you can change the form. But the reverse is not necessarily true. You can try one liners and tried and true pickups to pick up some low quality (though not necessarily unattractive, or un-fun) women. You can't use that same strategy to get quality women. However, if you understand the internal substance of why those approaches work, what messages you send via verbal and non-verbal communication, you can then begin to adjust your communicative skills based on your audience. And, with practice, you can adjust them on the fly. THEN you will have internalized it, and only then will you be "natural". Often, people learn these communication skills without even knowing through trial and error in society. But some people have problems picking up on social cues without training and practice. Maybe their brains are wired differently, maybe they didn't get the practice when the time was ripe and their brains were imprinting lessons. Regardless, I don't think there's any shame in learning how to communicate- it's a crucial skill in all aspects of life, and unless you are already in a situation in which you are fairly intimate (which usually requires some level of communication to get to anyway!!!) you aren't going to have any other way of relating BESIDES communication.

No, I think most people DO pick up that there is a difference. And there's a reason why they just say "fucking"- because that's what they are doing. There's a reason why it sometimes sounds awkward to say "having sex" or "making love"- it's because, if you feel awkward, that's probably not what you're doing! So that most people just say "fucking" is indicative of the kind of sex they are having, not that they don't comprehend that there are other types.

Formula for Jersey Shore: Hit the club Drink Come back home Fuck or fight (depending on if ppl brought someone home) Sleep late Wake up Go to work or fight or skip right to.... Hit the club (They replayed a bunch of episodes before the new season aired, so I watched a few to see what it was all about......)

It's too much, especially if the love is not reciprocated. It puts a burden on her to fulfill or not fulfill. That's too much for someone who you don't even know (and if you need to make a video to tell someone something like that, you don't know them well enough to use that line). Very few people, men or women, are going to be willing to take on that kind of a responsibility to fulfill you emotionally, especially if they have no real reason to. They are going to be put off by an uncalled for display of emotion, and subsequently avoid you. Which will of course guarantee that you're going to be left unfulfilled, and, over time, if it happens enough, resentful. You're going to assume failure before you even start. People don't like commitment unless they're ready for it, or they've felt like they've worked up to that point. Love is a commitment. It's a very heavy, loaded word. It has many meanings, and many facets. People aren't just going to "walk into it". So even if you DO love somebody, but you aren't BOTH at that level, then keep your trap shut about it. Get to know them, work your way too that, let them express interest, and, after some time has passed, start to let them know how you feel emotionally. Then, after you've been in a committed relationship for about 5 to 7 years, THEN tell them that "you've always loved them" from, say, "the first moment I saw you leaving the 7-11 where I worked that one summer when you were wearing that hot bikini and I thought of my face buried in your...."

Immature, emotionally weak, creepy method of doing it: - I love you, I've always loved you - But we'll never both be in love (telling her what she's going to do - Think about all the sex we're going to have (breaching the subject of sex before you get to know someone- creepy) - And think of the children (how do you know she wants to do that with her body?) - Every day you would be thankful for having me in your life (again, telling her what she's going to do) - I'm too old for you (calling attention to age which isn't always a no-go) - I get gray in my beard and blah blah (calling out negatives beforehand is a sure way to get rejected) - Everything else Jim Carrey did Basically, you are using her for your emotional fix, but rather than actually getting her opinion, you project onto her what you think she is going to say. Really, you have turned her into a fantasy object that you get off to, but in your mind, she will always deny you in real life. Her thoughts and opinions are removed from the equation. She has no will of her own, and she can do nothing in the situation (short of send a creepy video of her own). Mature, emotionally healthy, non-creepy method of doing it: - I have noticed your developing career - You are quite a beautiful actress - You seem to be intelligent and well spoken - You seem to be getting good roles recently - I'd like to hear some of you thoughts on *whatever* - How about we meet sometime, as we don't seem to be in the same social circles - I think it'd be great if we got to know each other Friendly, inviting, no expectations on her part, no signs of a creepy obsession, no sexual thoughts, etc etc etc. If you get together and there is real chemistry and you detect things heating up, THEN you start talkin' more seriously romantic. Making that move beforehand? Creepy. Basically, in the mature way, you express interest without telling her what she's thinking or what she's going to do. You point out stuff that anyone with eyes and ears can tell, so it doesn't seem like you've been following her in an obsessed way. At the same time, you leave plenty of avenues open for her to act, for her to display herself in the way that she chooses to, without burdening her to fulfill you emotionally.

Likewise

Except that he's not an unattractive person, has most of his hair, and really doesn't look that old. If he would pull that camera out of his face, we wouldn't see the lines as clearly, and we wouldn't be overwhelmed by his presence in the first place. Yes, "personal space" applies to the camera. With him so close it feels like he is violating our personal space. And NOBODY likes that. Especially from a stranger. Who is creepily telling us things about the sex and the children he'd like to have with us. So, um, yeah, he could still get a lot of women based on what he has now He could probably get Emma Stone too if he wasn't being such a creeper about it Maybe he's just gotten used to his handicap of fame and money when it comes to women, and now that he's got his sights set on a gal who also has fame and money, he's suddenly out of options

There is a mature, "grown up" way to express emotions, and there is an immature way. The mature way of expressing emotions is knowing how your emotional expression will affect others. Sometimes, the "mature" thing to do is to act. Sometimes, the "mature" thing to do is to not act. Perhaps it is a social construct which defines "maturity" and whatever. But honestly, does it even matter? Emotionally dumping on someone is going to want to make them get away from you in 99% of the cases. That is a fact. You can either acknowledge that and act accordingly, or you can not acknowledge/act, or you can remove yourself as much as you can from the system. Lamenting about the system gets you nowhere. Fast. I didn't take it as a joke, because it seemed to be too real. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who are going to go into comedy/acting rhetoric mode, saying "but the best comedy/acting hits close to home, and feeds off genuine human emotions of the comedian/actor". He already tweeted something along the lines of "was it real or was it an act? yes". Which basically means that was what he was feeling. Which means that saying "oh, it was a joke/act" doesn't mean that he doesn't feel that way. Which means that it doesn't change the fact that he just emotionally dumped on someone who had absolutely no power to do anything in the situation. He made her responsible for the feelings, but she can't do anything about it. That is an immature, irresponsible, and downright creepy way to go about what he did.

You can be honest without sounding creepy or needy. I'm a guy, and I could hardly stand watching that video. It gave me an uneasy feeling. Imagine being a female recipient to that- instant restraining order. Like I've said in your other threads, people, man or woman, romantic relationship or other relationship, don't like it when someone else relies on them to bear up their emotions. It puts too much of a burden on them. People have enough responsibility in their lives, people have enough worries in their lives, they don't need to bear your problems in their shoulders. Which is why, when you have this heartfelt crush on some girl, and you just come out with this declaration of love, what is she supposed to do about that? Unless she secretly feels that way for you too, you've just emotionally dumped all over her. NOBODY LIKES THAT! So Jim Carrey thinks that Emma Stone is beautiful and hot, what is she supposed to do with that? So he thinks about her and the kids they could haves what is she supposed to do with that? He gets gray hairs in his beard- is there anything that she can do about that? He thinks about sex with her- aside from that obsessive thought being kid of creepy, and aside from her actually hooking up with him, what is she supposed to do about that? And to top it all off, he draws attention to the creepiness of him being an older guy thinking about sex and babies with a younger girl. And our culture is kind of funny about that. In practice, (much?) older guys get with (much?) younger girls get together all the time. But we don't acknowledge that rhetorically. Rhetorically, we're all about that "equality" with men and women getting together on "equal" terms, and that if there's some imbalance of more than a few years, we're outwardly uncomfortable with it. So, all around, Jim Carrey just came off looking like a creep. And this is a guy saying that. Maybe if you're significantly rich enough you could pull it off. But any other guy (as in, normal, everyday guy) tries to pull that shit? Expect girls to stay at least 50 feet away from you for a good couple of years.