IMO this is like saying "when this whole being forced into internment camps thing happened I thought, what a great opportunity to reconnect with my community!"


Well, in the current narrative:
1. Must not praise for things that need to be taken for granted.
You must take for granted that all mothers love and miss and care for their kids.
If you praise her and call too much attention to it, it implies that it is a rare event. People are "normally" praised for doing something above and beyond, somewhat rare and not expected.
Praising one mother may be seen as insulting other or most mothers.

2. Women must always be seen as strong, independent, and, whatever they choose to focus on doing (whether it be raise kids or sell insurance), like John Henry and Rosa Parks.
e.g. According to Oprah "mom's have the toughest job in the world if they're doing it right."
If women/moms aren't constantly suffering and victimized, if it's not tough, or it's not recognized as such, then they must not be doing it right. So say "at least you'll get some me time" in order to identify her hardships passively.

3. The value of praise depends on informed authority and power disparity.
Which has greater value: A teacher writing "A+ Great job!" on your paper? Or your friend giving you a random thumbs up?
An olympic judge giving you a gold medal after seeing you perform? Or a random homeless guy giving you a bottle cap because you happen to walk by him?

Praise can imply a dynamic people don't want to take responsibility for.
If they offer praise, they may be saying (or it could be taken as) "I'm in a higher authority position than you (I know more about this than you), I have the power to judge and evaluate you to determine you deserve this social reward of praise."
Sometimes people want to avoid that so choose instead empathy, sympathy, or distraction to silver linings, in an attempt to show equality.



To me this is like saying:
"Hey, I tested positive for gonorrhea. I know we had a ONS, or our relationship ended, 3 years ago, but this event happened to bring us back together, it's gonorreagreat time!"



There is (or at least can be) a huge difference between what someone "really" thinks, and how they respond on the internet, or in person.


So you're saying basically forced quarantine is a way to "return to love?"
Awesome! That means if I lock my ex (or some random woman I'm attracted to) in my basement, for her protection from the bad in the world, and she doesn't fall in love with me then she's the bad guy for not taking the opportunity!

Beats me.
I've never met you so don't know how you personally can keep a relationship.

But in general you need to communicate with your partner and work on it together, you can't do it alone.


Okay.
Are they giving you any reasons?
Are they all leaving you about the same time?
Or are we talking about one left you after a week, another left you after 16 years, another left you on read in your DM's overnight?


How do you know what they're thinking? Is that what they're telling you or just what you fear?
Based on all the information you've provided in the OP for all I know we're talking about a Lena Hyena encountering muggers situation.

For sex?
IMO until you're willing and capable of accepting and handling any consequences that come from it.


...It's "normal" to want to score before the first date.
Wanting and doing are two different things.


Yes.
They're human too. Not a separate species whom, by some magic coincidence, have completely nonsexual components that happen to have procreational consequences when encountering male genitalia.

Harder to define as it seems to have a subjective meaning.

I mean it's like being part of a tribe, sitting around a fire, and saying "Go out into the dark woods and find a 'true monster.'"

Some people are going to go off and come back with all sorts of different things.

One guy brings back a wolf. "These are the true monsters, they hunt in packs and with cunning attack us."

Another brings back a deer. "These eat all our food crops so we starve in winter."

Another brings back a rat. "These bring in all sorts of diseases that make us sick."

Another brings back ivy. "These kill off the local plant life in the ecosystem and grow berries that poison our children and pets."

And someone is going to be sitting there saying "we're the true monsters, we're just sitting around talking, then going out and murdering a bunch of things."


"True love" is hard to get because it's too vague a term.
It allows you to constantly move the goal posts for what it "really" means.

Other than that, "love" is the most natural thing for people.
It's not something you "get."
It's part of the process of building a relationship with someone/people to perpetuate a relationship. It's a tool, not a goal. It's a reaction, not a destination.
It's a feeling like any other originating inside you, there is a reason why you have that reaction. It's not an external gift bequeathed upon you for defeating the hardship and loneliness boss.

You want "true" love? Commit to a purpose for a relationship, find someone with the same purpose, pursue that together, love will develop.
The more you see the purpose of the relationship is about stroking selfish short term emotional needs? The shorter the relationship, no need for "love" to really develop, or grow.


But again, depends on what you're "really" asking or mean.

I mean a lot of people that bemoan the difficulties of "love" are "really" asking/wanting: "I don't ever want to feel anything negative. Why can't I just be handed a consistent source of validation and emotional gratification when I want it? Why doesn't Amazon have a free product I can click on that allows me to just wallow in a constant state of accomplishment, acceptance, of being desired and valued?"

It's just one of many different means of enticing attention.

What's the difference between a "nudge" on a dating site/app, and a "meaningful" glance or smile from across the room.

Do with it what you will.

If you want to start a conversation with them, go for it.
If you want to ignore it, more power to you.

As an adult human being you have the ability to put what meaning you want into vague social cues while not forcing yourself to adopt any chains of unknown expectations.

What point do you want a nudge to have? Did you look at their profile? Do you want to talk to them? Do you need for them to chase you?

I can tell you one thing. If someone "nudges" you, or gives you a great big smile from across the room, or buys you a drink, the point is never run off to an internet forum and ask other strangers what something means.


Same thing could be said for all internet/app dating.

Yeah, I mean look at all the "bad" things people do chasing that validation.


This was entertaining.
When I was scrolling my eye didn't catch the "f" in "shift."
Reminded me of Kids In The Hall.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ql15qVktoXo

Maybe.
Generally speaking, yes.
But depends on a lot of factors that aren't provided.

Other than that, does it matter if it makes you (your friend, whomever) weak?
Does it matter if it shows a weakness in one area since it might not be representative of all areas?
Is it inherently "bad" to be weak?
Is being weak a desired goal? In totality or absolutely? I mean some people like to play weak in order to stroke their ego in overcoming it to prove they're strong. "Yay! I'm strong! I accomplished something!"
Some people like to be proven to be weak absolutely in order to validate their fears about themselves. "Yay! I'm right!"

But, generally speaking, if you are willfully seeking out controlled situations of power dynamics, it does mean there is some kind of "weakness" you're trying to fix, understand/accept, or exploit.

I think this is kind of a bad question.

I mean it really hinges on a lot more than what's in the OP.

I think "Some people are just naturally loving caring individuals. They would make a good caregiver. Would you say you are that kind of person? Or are you more selfish...?"
is no different than asking "some people are just naturally nice. They make nice people. Would you say you're a nice person? Or are you a bad person?"


Not necessarily.
For one thing you don't differentiate between loving/caring behavior and loving/caring feelings, nor consider situational factors, or even if "loving caring" is actually something all that positive.

Ask any teenager about a parent saying to them "I did (x) because I love and care about you!"
All of that parents friends may say "oh, you're so loving and caring, you're a loving and caring person," whereas the teenager may be being stifled and smothered.


I would not say that is a "kind of person," especially not as an absolute definition of someone, unless I was in a conversation I wanted to get out of but had to give some kind of meaningless answer that stroked the other persons ego.


You don't really give a situation.
But the way this question is worded seems like it could easily be interpreted like: "Hey, this guy just got shot. Oh, you want to call an ambulance? You can't treat it yourself? Well you're just selfish since you can't handle a situation like that."

At best you mention "caregiver."
But that is a huge range. I mean loving and caring for a parent after knee surgery until they can walk again? Becoming the personal 24/7 nurse for a spouse that's in a persistent vegetative state? Dedicating my life to raising my autistic kids, or adopt them? Being a nurse and getting paid? A kindergarten teacher? Volunteering at a nursing home? An animal shelter? Just picking up and moving to a third world country to dig wells and build homes? Routinely baking cakes for my local church and donating clothes and some food for the food bank?

As anything less than martyring myself for the health/wellbeing/comfort/whatever of another considered selfish?


How you are kinda defining it here? Beats me.
What if I am constantly working on and thinking about how I can improve myself so that I can help others?
What happens if I spend all my time on myself so that I can at some point "care give" to others to the best of my ability, to give the best "care giving" possible, but I end up dying before I actually do any care giving?"

Yes.
That is the tragic lesson of the great Von Sheepstreupper family.
Wrought low by Mary when that soon to be famous lamb song brought her shame to light.

I ask them out and they say no.

Other than that I find it a little more difficult to discern when someone is not interested in me in the way I want them to be but are interested in me for something I don't care about or want them to be interested in me for.
Sometimes it's obvious, other times it's subtle.

Then the signs are usually a disparity or lack of reciprocal effort.

By force do you mean rounding people up and forcing them at gunpoint to allow someone to stick them with a needle?

Federal? Yes.
State? Yep.

Especially since (but not only because) a lot of administrative laws are vaguely worded so they can be interpreted to allow anything.

Government "can."

"Government" (in the U.S. at least) can pretty much abridge any right you have as long as they show they followed some form of "due process of law," and it serves the public/national interest, basically abridging private rights for the sake of public rights. "National interest," or, "legitimate state interest."

IMO it's more relevant to determine if they will, rather than if they can.
States "could" use "force" to vaccinate kids before going to school, but it's easier to just withhold things from people if they don't.
Instead of sending a national guardsman to kick down your door and stick your kid with a needle, it's easier to just say "no welfare, no benefits, no school, no tax exemption, no x,y,z for you...unless you do it. What? We aren't 'forcing' you to do it! It's voluntary!"
They'll allow some exemptions (e.g. vaccine leading to death in a particular person, religion) but very few and they can rescind those.

You think Federal government will send the military out to kick down your door and stick you with a needle?
Or say "no relief money, or tax refund, or school, or medicare money, unless you show you got a vaccine or mandated vaccination in your state."


Why would you believe a dating site would be a safe haven for discussing possible fomenting of potentially illegal activity?

For hypotheticals it depends on the situation.
I mean:
- Have you ever actually talked to them?
- Have you told them you loved them and they said they don't and never will? Were they a stranger at the time? A friend? A classmate? A coworker?
- Are they a friend and you're harboring feelings you're too scared to voice?
- Are they a friend and you all of a sudden love them because they started dating someone else?
- Have you ever actually dated them?
- Are you in a marriage where they loved you but now they don't?
- Are you in a relationship with them and they say they love you but you perceive their behavior as not loving you?


Depending on the situation I might try harder, I might go away, I might reign myself in and get over it for the sake of the relationship.
Or something else entirely depending on the level of my feelings and their behavior or even the situation.

It would be more accurate to say "5g operating normally does not cause harm via systemic warming of the human body..."

Other than that, you can't know it does not harm the human body.
There isn't enough research.
What research there is can be contradictory and even indicative of harmful effects, just not from "systemic warming of the human body."

Not to mention how it effects the environment/ecosystems isn't really known either.

That's sitting on the NCBI databases. Calling for more research because it's not really known.


I can empathize.

I remember growing up in a town and walmart wanted to open a store there.
For six years thousands of people spent so much of their time, focus, and money protesting, sending letters and calling representatives, wanting walmart to stay out. Highlighting all of the problems and corruption while walmart and politicians talked about all the jobs and convenience and community service and future benefits.

Walmart ultimately won. Lawsuits, defamation, wearing protestors down, midnight backroom deals. All the bad things happened. Town is a crap hole now except where bigger government money comes in (schools, prison).

No doesn't mean no.
Stay out of our community means just keep trying until people get sick of protesting or enough loopholes can be exploited outside of the public eye and only discovered (maybe) in hindsight

If time after time all you learn is "protesting accomplishes absolutely nothing, your voice doesn't matter, you don't matter, we're going to do to you what we want and you'd better accept it and pay for it, along with all of the negative consequences you saw coming and were trying to avoid," what are you ultimately going to do? Better "inform" yourself so you can accept something you don't want? Or be triggered and hold on to whatever justifies you trying to get what you want?

If people trying to enforce their will and what they want through force because talking and protesting does nothing are "fools," what are the people that are calling them fools and telling them to inform themselves where there isn't really any information, or the information is inconsistent, and some perfectly credible information actually validates some of the "fools" beliefs?

More of a risk manager?
Figure out what I want/have to do, or what's going to happen to me, then look for the risks, and try to mitigate them where I can?


I don't really understand this.

I mean some people have no problem jumping out of airplanes, but the thought of approaching someone they like and asking them out absolutely terrifies them.
Skydiving is not seen as a risk, but asking someone out is.

Some people can hit on and ask out complete strangers that are in groups, but can't climb a ladder.

Perceptions of risk are highly subjective.
Not everyone is going to agree on what constitutes a "risk."


If I say I'm a 2.8754...what could that possibly mean to you, what value would that have?


I don't know what this means.

How much of this is hyperbole? Or is this just a cry for help and/or attention?

You reside in a bubble located in an earthquake, tornado, tsunami, etc. proof hospital eating perfectly nutritionally balanced meals while speaking through some kind of intermediary that accesses the internet for you?

If the scale is 1 to 5, then statistically the average is going to be about 3.
And that's accounting for average daily risks like leaving the house, opening the window, having a pet, bathing, driving, going to work. Things people do every day and no one really sees any risk.

So as a 1 are you being honest? You see pretty much everything as a risk? Possibly constantly terrified of even moving? It takes you a day to work up the courage to turn on your computer for fear of causing a short in the wiring and starting your house on fire or being electrocuted or being prey to identity theft?

Or are you saying you are superwoman being able to overcome such tremendous risk perception that you can even sign onto the internet?

It might be meaningful if you asked something like "what do you see are the greatest risks you face everyday? How easy is it to cope with them, or what do you do to mitigate or cope with them? What are you doing to get away from them?" Or things like that.


TLDR: Without defining what risk is, what you get out of the answer, or comparing subjective approaches in a standard way my answer would have to be "approximately 3, +/- up to 2 for interpretive error."

Yes. And I've said it too.
It always makes me laugh.
Do you understand it?

People have an implicit bias where they see a direct relationship between price and quality (fulfillment).

It's rarely true.
Although it would be more accurate to say "people don't really understand exactly what it is they are really paying for."

Which makes this: "insurance company's , you often don't get what you have paid for" pretty funny. Especially because a lot to maybe most people don't really understand insurance.
Insurance is one of the few things where you are pretty much getting exactly what you've paid for. "Insurance" is a heavily regulated and enforced industry based on legally defined terms and contracts.
I mean there were court cases to determine at what exact time contracts actually ended.
11:59:59? 12 midnight? 12:01 of the day following the end of the policy? 12:10? End of business of the insurer? Whose time zone? Insured or insurer?
What happens if your policy "runs out" while you're sitting in the waiting room of a hospital or at the scene of a car accident, your insurance company received your renewal check 3 days ago, but the check won't actually clear for 2 days? People have sued trying to figure these things out.

Insurance is the closest you will ever get to getting exactly what you paid for (outside of other regulated industries like garbage collection, sewage treatment, public water, electricity), no more, no less, as it's stipulated in the contract and there have been innumerable court cases figuring out exactly what things mean, when, and why.



The saying "you get what you pay for" how it's generally used is perpetuating a bias, socialized training, for people to assume and keep behaving like there is an organic relationship between price and quality. An attempt to control reality.

People don't really want to "get what they pay for."
People want to get more than they paid for.

The arbitrage determining emotional "satisfaction."

Look at "black friday sales."
Look at the box stores in malls having "memorial day sales," or, "white sales," or "bogo!"
Look at discount stores like wally world where they may lower the prices on some goods, meanwhile adding a couple of pennies to other items that are "essential," which most people are going to buy anyway, especially if they buy the "sale" product.
Look at dollar stores that sell their dollar goods, along with "normal" (actually higher) priced goods like laundry soap, toilet paper, and makeup.
Transference of assumption "I'm paying less for (x), that must mean (y) is a deal too!"
Look at electronics stores that sell older models and their store "5 year extended warranties" where you only really get 3 years of coverage because the thing you bought is two years old.

Look at furniture stores, especially the "going out of business!" ones, where they put the MSRP next to their "sale" price which in most cases is higher than you'd pay somewhere else (or that store 1 week earlier) that conformed more to fulfilling the bias equation.
Read about what happened with JCPenney when they hired that guy from Apple to change their stores, stopped having "sales," normalized prices, carrying more "brands," basically attempting to shift the equation from lower price for same quality to higher price for increased quality, all while competing with those that offered the same thing.
Look at all the "as seen on t.v." products, or watch the home shopping channels (200 knifes for only $20! It can cut a can and a tomato!).

Almost everything is based on manipulating perceptions of the false equation or perceived desired direct relationship "price = quality."

If they can make you believe you're paying "less" for the same quality, you "feel" you are getting a deal.
If they can make you believe you're getting higher "quality," then you may be willing to pay a higher price.

It's never really about "getting what you pay for."
At best that's a minimum metric justifying the amount of pleasure button pushing.

Communication and learning to communicate in a relationship generally facilitates the growth of trust and caring. Communication is ultimately information sharing and understanding.

A lack of communication doesn't inherently mean there is a lack of trust or caring, especially in an absolute sense, it may mean there just isn't enough there to support the relationship or relationship roles/expectations.

Kinda depends on why there is a lack of communication.
Are they actively working against communicating? Are there just "natural" or more organic reasons related to personality or compatibility which either inhibit or get in the way of communication, like personal communication abilities, e.g. one person relies on verbal, the other more dependent on non verbal? Are there external things/situations getting in the way?

I mean there's a huge difference between:
"They refuse to talk to me."
"Every time I confront them with conflict, they run away, or it escalates out of control!"
"Our cultures are totally different, they do (x) but to me that means (y) and they/I can't understand that mindset."

Does the couple lack communication and it's a recent thing?
Like communication was great in the beginning but it's changed?
Just the expectations of communication, like desired growth to something that isn't being experienced?
Or was there always a lack of communication? Why is the lack important now but wasn't then?

Other than that, or maybe tldr is a lack of communication does not inherently mean there is a lack of trust or caring.

Sure.
Sometimes that's fulfilling to the people in them.

Like one person acts "distrustful" and on some level knows the other person won't trust them, then chase them, snoop on them, question them, demand answers, force conflict. That's how they know they're cared about, if the other person didn't care, they wouldn't flip out, or go snooping, or whatever.
And the person that's distrusting, or responding to the others behavior may love "drama," they're ultimately being given something to focus on, complain about, feel victimized over but gives them value and purpose.

Sometimes lies are preferred. They figure out the lie, leads to confrontation, then the person confronting the other can feel they now have a "truth" they can trust, they're "smart" for figuring it out, they're "strong" for willing to stick around through it, and all those good things for their image.

And it could all be done on a more unconscious level.

There isn't just one universal "right" type of relationship where you have to constantly fix yourself or the other person(s) trying to reach some static ideal relationship goal.

Relationships aren't static external objects.

It only really matters if your relationship with a specific person can survive an environment with toxic trust issues.


Sure.
Especially if people are receiving validation from distrust and checking up on another.

Otherwise ask any parent of a teenager if they "really" love their kid.

Me too.
...Makes the onset of horror that much sweeter.

Sure!
You going to pay me for my time and efforts?

Turned out she was really just a shaved monkey from the zoo that used a special voice box that read sign language (I thought she was just really expressive with her hands). She saved up all her bananas, escaped the zoo, sold the bananas on the black market, then hired actors to play her parents for her facebook page.

She convinced me to take her on a romantic cruise along the coast of Africa where she set me up to take the fall for pushing her overboard (she actually jumped).
Her parents collected the life insurance, split it with her, and she disappeared into the jungle saying to me "It's not you, it's me, I'm actually a boy gorilla, no homo, just had to get away from those f'n penguins."