Sloppy Zhang

On B.K. Frantzis' site (before the huge overhaul) there was an interesting article in how being flexible does not always equate to being relaxed and/or open. He cited a guy he knew who was really into Hatha Yoga, and even performed as a contortionist- but he sucked at being able to flow in the martial art of Aikido. The problem? Well everything was stretched- including the tensions! Well I can't. Different systems have different ways of preventing a release of energy. To start, I would watch this and this. I don't remember what part of the video it is, but she talks somewhere about letting the pleasure move through your WHOLE body, not just your genitals. I think energy releases in the same way- it you keep it packed into your genitals, then when you orgasm you ejaculate, and it goes out the only opening it's got. When you let it travel through your whole body, then orgasm doesn't always mean ejaculation, and ejaculation doesn't always equal energy loss. As with anything, practice makes perfect. But you should have fun with it, and not think of it as a job (emphasis mine) Question- how much foreplay do you do? I know each encounter is different, but what is the usual progression of an encounter? You get together, make out for a bit, she rubs you a bit, you rub her a bit, then you stick it in for five minutes? An hour of oral stimulation from both, following a hot bath and a scented oil massage, preceding hours of pumping from your ever hard, non ejaculating member? I'm not asking this to judge your performance as a lover, but to see what the level of energy is in the relationship. You don't have to answer, but at least consider, how much energy is actually going into it? Because even if you don't cum, but instead are generating hours of energy filled love making that is moving powerfully between you two, well, it wouldn't matter if you physically ejaculate, because she (and you) will be feeling the ENERGETIC effects, not the physical. And if the relationship is lacking in a powerful energetic "explosion", then she may be looking for a physical "explosion" to make up for that. And to that extent, maybe a little kinky play could up the energy but don't do anything unless both of you are comfortable with it. Neither you, nor anybody else, can change her perspective or needs. That's something she's going to have to work with and work out on her own, consciously or subconsciously. If you flinch up and end up cumming, just relax and go with it. Check out Seth Ananda's posts about body armoring- that when peoples' hearts are opened, even if the ejaculate during orgasm, the orgasm is not physically draining. You being worried about energy loss is shutting down your heart, your body, and your mind, and it is sending all of your focus, and energy, and your entire being, into your genitals- which means you really are losing your "essence" during ejaculation. As for her- be loving, be fun, be spontaneous, be open. Shutting down your energy may very well be shutting her out of your life, which she can pick up on, and it might bother her. Generate as much energy as you can during lovemaking. And don't be a selfish lover- worry less about what's coming out of your own dick, and more about what she's going through. If it doesn't start to turn around, try to mention to her, lightly and gently, about what you're trying to do. And, of course, there's always what I said originally- challenge her to make you cum. If you don't, you don't. But if she can get you to, then do it. Tell her about your desire to increase your physical and sexual energy, to circulate it through your whole body during sex. If she beats you (no pun intended )fair and square, cum, enjoy it, and try again next time. Don't hold back in love making just because you want to hold back your energy. You'll lose both.

Well some relationships that look good "on paper" just don't work out. Sometimes two people just don't click. Sometimes you just don't love the person you want to love, or maybe even think you should love. But that's not to say you should go marry the person you're having some wild and passionate, volatile and maybe even irresponsible affair- because those can fall apart just as easy as they can come together. But it's not like there are only two kinds of people in the world. It also doesn't mean that healthy relationships don't involve compromise- because they do, and compromising isn't a sign that you don't get along. But it also doesn't mean that if you feel passionate about the other, that it's a relationship that isn't built on anything solid. I think that many times, people can't differentiate between what they REALLY want, and what they've been told they want by marketing, movies, parents, etc etc. Though in that particular person's story, she seems young anyway- college undergrad. First boyfriend dropped out of college? Other boyfriend is pre-med? I dunno, a lot of things still have yet to be worked out. First guy might land a stable job and be happy, second guy could wash out of med school (if he even gets in), then get a stressed out unhappy job and not be the ever-so-nice guy he is now. So, I dunno, I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that story.

Dr. Baolin Wu mentions the "five centers" meditation/qigong a couple times in his book "Qigong for Total Wellness". It's also talked about a bit here: here. Anybody know it/what it entails?

I too have heard about some pretty rough, near death initiations that shamans in some cultures MUST go through for them to be recognized as such. It either means conquering death, having your old self die, becoming friends with death, getting closer to the other side, glimpsing the other side, etc etc etc etc. Not all love and light, a shaman has got to look at the side of life that people don't always want to see or even really know about.

Well I guess it'd depend on what your goals are, and what you'd consider to be "true" or not. What I mean is that, okay, a religious person might not actually BE tolerant. Behind closed doors they may bad mouth Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc. But out in public carry on amicably enough. So in that sense, it us useful as a social constructs. And as a social construct, which I think is how most religions come to be about (despite all good intentions), that is useful and fairly effective. The only problems with this are when REALLY radical people get a hold of something, and use it to justify their hate- the Christian Crusades, the Jihad of many fundamentalist, extremist, militaristic Islamic groups. But if you look at the psychology profile on these guys, most of them are either sociopaths to begin with, or are using it as a front to work another angle (gaining political or economic power, for instance). But since these guys are similar regardless of religious or political background, it's safe to say that these people are their own group, and they just exploit a religious doctrine to serve their goals- they aren't necessarily the product of religious doctrines. Now, in what I personally to consider to be the true cultivation/self development sense, I don't think the things you've outlined helped much. It just gets people into a mode of denial. It gives them a curtain with a pretty picture painted on it that they use to cover their eyes, but firmly believe they are seeing what is really outside. It's sort of like apologies. There are a thousand reasons to apologize WITHOUT actually apologizing. Apologize to save face. To appeal to the target's emotions. As a political move. As a social formality, etc. Perhaps more apt, forgiveness. It's very easy for people to say "I forgive you", but with a not so subtle undertone of "after all, you are lesser than me, of course you would to this, I'm still better than you and I am getting better by forgiving you, ha ha ha ha ha, my God will reward me and punish you in the end, so it's not like you apologizing and me forgiving you is in any way going to get you off the hook. So I might as well look good in the process." That's not very conducive to what I would consider honest personal, emotional, or otherwise spiritual growth. But it doesn't go over so well when you start thinking of how a society runs and sticks together. It's not easy to sell real betterment to people, because real betterment involves a look under the hood, at all the nasty stuff that is really you. It's much easier to tell people to have a certain exterior and they will be set, than to really get them to dig deep, and even harder to actually verify that such a change has happened.

A scene from Futurama, from the episode "Godfellas" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbinE6bx8xM

It's a known fact that ShaktiMama has had issues with working the quotes But more importantly, Non- What are your goals? You only remember posts that validate your own opinion, and have ignored the advice given and questions posed to you in almost all of your threads, saying things like "that's not how it works" or "that won't work for me". You say that you don't want to be a part of the stupid shit that goes on in society, but every couple of weeks you make a new thread bemoaning the fact that most people are doing stupid shit, and that they won't judge you favorable because you aren't doing the same stupid shit that they are doing. So what do you want to do? What are your short, medium, and long term goals? What are you doing now that you LIKE? What are you doing now that you DON'T like? What do you want to change (that it is possible to change)?

That's awesome, you just made my day!

I throw in a vote for B.K. Frantzis. He's got a ton of personal experience with a lot of things from some very direct sources. That said, by his own admission the stuff out in print is low intensity stuff physically and energetically. It's still incredibly good, though. Just low impact on all levels. I do think that he knows a lot about a lot of things, can do them practically, and can teach them practically. John Chang type stuff? I've only seen it alluded to in some of his books, but all he usually ever writes is "classically such things came after years of high level training", which to me sounds like when the military says "we can neither confirm nor deny the accuracy of this report". So take from that what you will, but if you believe that Frantzis has done all that he's said he has done, then he'd know. But he also makes it very clear that that isn't what his tradition is about. I seem to recall SFJane made a post (possibly in her siddhis thread?) about a conversation she had with him, back when she was "chasing abilities", in which he asked her why she wanted stuff and what she would do if she got it, which prompted her to look more seriously at her internal issues and to resolve them, which IS what Frantzis' stuff is about. (Apologies if that report is not accurate)

Well it all depends on what the forms do. Some forms are actually designed to target specific energy pathways in the body, and to do different things with them. There are lots of energy pathways in the body, so you can imagine the number of forms there. Some are designed to move the physical body in a certain way. Others may target specific parts of the body (energy centers, organs, etc) to bring out certain emotions to work on them. Now the externally simple ones may work on things energetically which might not be impacted too much by physical movement. So things like the microcosmic orbit, which can be done sitting still with intent alone. I'm not going to sit here and say what I think of each and every form. Because I don't know them all, nor have I done them all. I WILL say, however, that some forms can get pretty damn specific, and some of these things are thought out in minute detail to target incredible specific parts of the body. So for things like that, you either know it or you don't. And I don't think every form or every teacher teaching every form out there necessarily know those things.

You've got a lot more option that just bars or clubs mate. Unless you're job environment has a thing about workplace romances that are pretty strictly enforced, if you see a girl, hey, go for it. You should find out pretty quick if she's all right talking to you or not. But see that area is very specific- people hanging out in bars or clubs aren't necessarily out looking for a romance partner, it's more about enjoying a night on the town. Guys and girls you meet generally help the party atmosphere, and if they don't, move on. That's much different than if you start chatting up a girl in a grocery store, at the beach, at work, at the coffee shop, a crowded bus, the airport terminal, etc etc etc. There are some hot hot hot, fun fun fun 30+ women out there. Baggage or no. Just sayin' Well I mentioned in another thread that it's easier to get along with these types as well because you haven't psyched yourself out of the game before it has even started. You aren't afraid of making mistakes, you aren't stammering out questions. You are easygoing and you are being yourself. So people you aren't necessarily attracted to get attracted to you, while you can't figure out why you can never manage to say the right thing to the women you are attracted to. Something about the US must be seriously messed up, because every attractive foreign chick I've met has been so nice and chill, and totally okay with things that their equivalently hot US counterparts would never be okay with in a million years In high school, there was this super hot exchange student from Sweden, and she was friends with EVERYBODY. Like, she'd walk up to the nerds playing their gameboy and start talking to them about it And then she was like, "wow, all the American guys are so nice!" I was like "it's because you're hot and non-judgmental!" And she was like "you're crazy!"

Your link cuts off and just goes to "lies", for me anyway. Here's the link again for the people too lazy to get it themselves (not meant as a criticism- it happens to the best of us) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

Hmm, will have to try this.

They tried to make me go to rehab.....

This tends to happen to me a lot. The result- all the good practice spots are taken And I don't want to meet new people, I wanna practice!

No social construct, but it accepts a lower position? A lower position IS a social construct! Hmmmmm.... Clouds are part of the Tao, but they're pretty fuckin' high in the sky! But this perspective is very very very very VERY limited to a MODERN context. And even then, ONLY in a VERY limited modern context. Where, say, a woman can come on to a man, but then accuse him of sexual assault. There's a funny family guy episode title "Peterassment", where Peter is subjected to the sexual advances of his female boss. He's bothered by it, but nobody seems to see the problem- he's a guy, so he should like it. Even when he TRIES to take action against her, nobody buys it. Now if he were a woman and the boss were a man, the boss would get fired even before the facts came out. Which also reminds me of the case with the Duke lacrosse team a couple of years back, accused of sexually assaulting some woman at a party. Man oh man were those boys crucified pretty damn fast. Hey, I'm all up for hating on upper class douchebags who think they own the world. But this was..... it was brutal. And in the end, they were found innocent (and got some pretty hefty compensation). But the point is- all a woman has to do is accuse the guy, and she's "right". So, Non, in these cases I can see where you are coming from. But you have to realize that cases like this ONLY exist because of recent trends, and even then, they are very FEW in number. Not nearly enough to rationally validate any of your conclusions on the scale you want to draw them. I think Vortex posted something like this in a past thread. It's funny that you remember stuff like this, but never anything else people tell you. Cognitive bias at its finest- see what you want to see, what validates you. Non, you know I've been holding out on you after a LOT of other people have given up, but do you even WANT to do anything about this? Or will you continue to post until you get enough material to regurgitate that supports your position, and everybody else has given up on posting to the contrary because you never read anything that doesn't already agree with you? What will you do once the only voices you hear say "Non, you're right." Then what?

Non, I said this in this thread and in other threads- As people grow up in society, they learn to read social cues. They learn how to tell when people are interested and when they aren't. Now some people legitimately cannot read these cues. Their brain is just not wired to do it. Sometime it's a mild form of Asperger's syndrome, or things like that. But if you don't KNOW that you have it, then you are frustrated by a problem you will NEVER be able to solve. Once you know about it, you can find ways to work with it. Otherwise you are undercutting yourself each and every time. Which is why I have always suggested you try to get some kind of professional help. They can tell you if you are like this. How about "developed" or "undeveloped"? "Capable" or "incapable"? Capable in conversation, career, the bed, capable around other men, capable around other women, etc. "Bad boys" are usually seen as being tough, independent, unfazed, and all of those traits which tend towards capability. You can also be a legitimately nice guy and be all of those things. Now your stereotypical "doormat" is NONE of those things- unathletic, uncomfortable in social situations, can't even establish his own boundaries, so how can anyone expect him to protect theirs? Doesn't deal well with change, so isn't spontaneous, etc? See where I'm going? I'm not professing this to be a hard and fast thing. Just throwing ideas out there. Have you been judged to be any of these things? Have people actually accused you of being any of these things? They seem to be recurring themes in your posts. This is where reading social cues comes in handy. You gotta be able to tell if a woman would be comfortable if you, say, start looking at the plunge in her neckline, or if she's going to find it creepy that you can't keep your eyes from falling. And if you can't read social cues, then you are never going to know this, and it will be painful for both parties. And often times they do. But you MUST be able to see in and know what it is. It's why I personally encourage women to take the initiative and talk to guys, because TONS of "nice guys" are like this. They would like nothing more than to talk to a woman, but. just. can't. get. the. ball. rolling. And I've seen tons of women, even if the WANT a guy, will literally bend over backwards to give the guy a not-so-subtle hint that she wants him to initiate. So she's over there making a scene, all because "he has to come and talk to me". It's ridiculous! But as it stands, the majority of the guys who have the balls (arrogance?) to approach women right from the start are usually the guys who aren't in it for the long haul- which might explain why they are not afraid to try, because it's no big deal if they fail, they'll just try to pick up another girl. But with "nice guys", you know, everything is riding on getting it just right, because, you know, that's the girl of their dreams.

Don't give yourself that much credit. People being taken aback at skewed way of thinking and writing (which often reflects thought, even if some things just don't come across well on the internet) should not be mistaken for you striking a nerve. (emphasis mine) Well see in society and in communication, what we think we are saying or doing doesn't much matter, it's how other people are going to perceive it. (emphasis mine) You claim to not be a misogynist, but you write from an extremely male-centric point of view. Though I would not use this as evidence to claim misogyny, it does lead me to wonder about the scope of your thought. But I digress.... The problem is, those basal forces are ALWAYS shaped by society. Internal drives mixing with the external. In less "civil" days, you lust after someone, so you conquer their homeland and take what you want. In more "civil" days, you go through various stages of courtship. In any case, be it buying someone lavish gowns or clunking them over the head, behavior with regards to how men channel their natural passions are ALWAYS shaped by society. Not to mention what they very often find to be attractive is also shaped by society. Now I just so happen to be a man, so I'm just writing from the male POV. I'd be interested to hear female perspectives on the topics of how natural passions are expressed in society. Neither of which screen out misogyny, but that's neither here nor there... Wut? The issue that pops out at me is your seeming interest in coming down one way or another- men do this, so they are in control. Women do this, so they are submissive. There are so many give and takes on so many levels, that you can argue it either way! But society has created categories which are valued, so you may tend to focus on them, for instance, the football player and the prom queen example. On what basis do you make this statement? When you are looking at things like this (you mentioned that this is psychology), it is ALL relative. You MUST designate what and where your frame of reference is. Define your terms. Narrow the search field. Well you can't do much about cleverness or teaching wordplay. But part of what happens when you "grow up" is that you became "socialized"- you learn what behaviors are acceptable or unacceptable. You start to learn what cues mean. You learn and practice social scripts, etc etc etc. You learn the etiquette, and you learn what peoples' nonverbal responses are. It's not like everyone "has it" or "not"- you learn as you go. If you are inexperienced, then the only way to overcome that is to *get* experience. And the only way to do that is by doing. It will be awkward. It will be emotionally (and maybe even physically) painful. But most people go through all of this in middle and high school. By then, assuming they don't move to a new culture, they've learned all of the cues and are good to go. And look- most people can tell if someone is socially awkward right from the start. If you think you are hiding anything by holding back, you aren't. But the thing is, most people who aren't total jerks are going to cut you some slack. And if they don't, forget about them, they are jerks.

Past experiences play a part. An attractive person realizes they can game the system because they are hot. They become cynical in the process. An unattractive person sees this, and becomes bitter and jealous because they cant' do the same. Conversely, attractive people realize that all of their relationships have been shallow and without meaning, so they look at other traits. Unattractive people realize that people who judge them aren't worth their time, and move on with their lives. And every other possible scenario in between. Of course, these terms like "attractive" and "unattractive" are INCREDIBLY relevant. About as hard as it is to verbally produce sounds and string them together into some coherent language. Or past experience. Or any number of things. If someone like, say, Non, would actually open up and give specifics about past actions, either people here, or a therapist, could help them get to the root of the issues. Possibly. Can't talk to people you never meet. Don't worry about shit you have no power over. You'll go mad. I dunno. Depends on each person's hangups. Talk it out with us or a therapist to figure out what your particular situation is. I think you need to find some of Non's past threads, and read very carefully the advice that was given. Particularly with regards to learning how to form healthy relationships IN GENERAL (not just specifically romantic ones), and betting YOURSELF and working out your own issues before you throw another person into the mix.

It's in the eye of the beholder. They don't. It's the people who don't work well in relationships that finish last. In all areas. Period. It has nothing to do with being "nice" or not. I do wonder about myself quite often. But I guess that's part of the self exploration gig, huh? It isn't. You either are an alternate account of Non, or have been latching on to far too many of his posts. And apparently all men like dumb blond chicks. Wait, you mean each person is different? Zomg no way!!!! Yeah, the above two lines were sarcasm. And duly noted it is! If you know, then why are you asking? Ever met a strikingly beautiful man/woman who was a horrible person? Who was a great person? Ever met a strikingly unattractive man/woman who was a horrible person? A great person? No direct correlation that I can tell.

I'd be careful about how much stock you put into that site. As in, don't start toting it as proof of your own skewed worldview. That site tends to be applicable to a certain group of people, certain age ranges of people, and things like that, but quickly falls to the wayside at a couple of points. For instance, if a guy realizes that meaningless sex is meaningless after a certain point, it stops becoming his sole criterion. But I digress.... Yes, I recall this topic being mentioned in more than a few of your past threads. It doesn't just apply to actors, but can apply to everyone. (remember the article I showed you about beta males pretending to be alphas, but everyone can tell when they aren't?) No, it isn't, and it's what so many people have tried to tell you for a LONG time- eventually the curtain falls on the false yang person, and the gig is up. Everyone can see the false for what it truly is. It's why the "biker guy" is never the long term relationship type. It's why, if someone tries to make them that, the relationship goes bad very, very quickly. They aren't REALLY the masculine that people (male or female) want. If you push on it, it falls. If you ask it to follow through on its boasts, it can't. 1) Great job. You now know ONE PERSON'S opinion. 2) Other factors can be involved, she might be into the same guy if she sees him in a different light. 3)Did I mention it's just one person's opinion? The majority of ANYONE'S self confidence comes from past success! Everyone starts out with NOTHING. Some people try and fail, then they stop behaviors that lead to failure. When they succeed, they repeat behaviors that lead to success. But they never know until they try (or they may follow the advice of a more experienced person). You have this idea in your head that everybody else automatically has more experience than you, and that you can't do anything because you don't have this crucial bit of experience. Well guess what? When they started they had the same amount of experience as you- NONE. But then they went out there and got it. And you haven't. As I said in another thread, compare these two people: Person A- has tried 10 times, and been rejected or ignored 10 times. Wonders what is wrong with women for always telling him the same things. Each time he fails, he gets sent into this pit of self despair, and it takes him six months to work himself up again to where he can try. Person A- has tried 100 times, and has been rejected or ignored the first 90 times. Each time he has looked at what happened, and why it failed, and has changed his behavior accordingly. When he fails, he wastes no time in trying again. His last 10 tries were amazingly successful. You can take this patter to ANY subject. It's not a matter of how much you fail, it's a matter of how often you succeed. Successful people aren't inherently better than you- they try more, try better, and are not afraid of failure, because they know they can make up for it with success. So again I must ask: how EXACTLY would your death fix your problems?

You know it's stuff like this which makes me second guess your whole spiritual commitment- because if you really were all gung ho about a practice, you wouldn't care. You seem to be using spirituality as an out, and that's just not good. So two things- 1) Start doing something to improve your self confidence. Do things that you think would make you more attractive. Start working out, start eating healthy. Start learning how to talk to people. This does NOT mean you have to give up anything, or change, or start acting fake. Just learn how to interact with people and find some common ground- and don't say "we have no common ground", because it's that attitude which stunts your growth. 2) You've mentioned suicide far too often. Please make a list, or an outline, which details EXACTLY how you think that suicide is going to help at all. How exactly do you think it will improve your situation? How do you think that it's going to change anything? Because I've got a bunch of different religions and philosophies popping up in my head right now, and I can't think of many scenarios in which suicide can benefit you. For instance, to my knowledge, the Judeo-Christian ones say suicides go to hell. For a reincarnation slant, suicide just lands you in a different life with another (sometimes the SAME) problems. And if you're a utilitarian, the only way your death would help is if it helps others. So I'm tired of guessing: How exactly would suicide help at all?

From the other thread:

That advice seems like it'd fall into the latter category Spiritual practice combined with "stop looking"