MAIORES. IV, CAL. IUNI. FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.

This subject follows along from the general conclusion of infantilism, i.e. if we agree that infantilism exists in a culture that therefore all aspects of (such a culture) must be examined as to how they are impacted ‘by’ that infantilism, as: infantilism constitutes an undeveloped form of a thing; here (without covering absolutely every single aspect of it, as this could be a book in and of itself) we explore ‘sexual immaturity’ and its promulgation and consequences (of which we could easily make the case of the consequences as to be the cause of ‘all social ill’).
In an anthropological view; as if like we are looking at a chimpanzee colony, both procreation and familial-tribal child-raising takes place in our contemporary Western societies in a very clumsy sort of way; with the latter (i.e. the actual raising of children) not occurring at all, with the consequence of ‘arrested development’ – and usually we would recognize and name this, if we ever thought very deeply about it:
However, the notion that all of this could be reduced to and fathomed as ‘sexual immaturity’ is an interesting (and unexplored) avenue to approach these matters from; certainly the act of actual procreation is deliberately accidental (I mean here in the contemporary West) in that a Woman does “not seek a mate” and then become pregnant, i.e. she does not even the sexual act to be procreative, rather: she accidentally becomes pregnant (“it was a miracle”), having beforehand and all throughout the duration and beyond it a culture which is far detached from the physical reality of things and thus a new human is created with no forethought for its care or provision and no security net in place to provide for it and ensure its prosperity and intelligent up-bringing, and increasingly there are fewer and fewer intelligent older persons around who are capable of providing the education and care for that child as would naturally exist in the large familial-tribal unit of an extended family where, historically, we all came from and of which is still the norm across much of the world, (i.e. village elders who would otherwise raise the children up to be intelligent even if the Mother herself is too young to be a real parent - if we imagine as the species norm would be that most Women historically had their first child at around the age of fourteen or fifteen). Without, then, that familial-tribal unit to instruct and care for the child’s intellectual development and without either land to make a living from to provide tis economic development then we find a cursed life, that is: a life far more difficult than it otherwise ought be had it been born in a more wisely chosen environment.
My point here is that ‘procreation’ is considered almost never at all by our society as being the most basic step in the creation and promulgation ‘of’ a tribal unit; with procreation itself being left down to blind chance and more often either legitimately accidentally or feigned accidently so as to attempt to cement a relationship (see: divorce and break-up rates in the West), either way this is the material circumstance into which children are born.
To say, then, that not grasping this reality ‘is’ itself a product of sexual immaturity; i.e. a Woman who does not understand what a new human is, seems to me to be far more of an accurate view of the thing than to declare it as ‘sexual immorality’ as it is usually insisted by the Abramic types, as: rather obviously it is ‘Sexual Immaturity’ rather than ‘Sexual Immorality’ that is the really cause of (the above scenario), that is: it is not Men and Women knowing too much about sex but of Men and Women knowing virtually nothing at all and therefore absent of a practice and familiarity necessary for Sexual Maturity, with Sexual Maturity itself being the very thing declared to be Immorality - an irreconcilable paradox.
It seems to me, then, that the habits we observe of ‘accidental pregnancy’ are the natural occurrence in such an unnatural society; that is: a consequence of misplaced moralism over the vital mechanical sexual functions of the human body (a thing which may well dominate and drive our unconsciousness entirely) have been rendered so alien to our expression and consideration but of which are so incessant and irrepressible; that sexual release is habitually denied, I mean here societally (i.e. “it is not polite”), and only finds ‘permission’ to appear in extreme drunkenness in fits of frenzy, and so on, so that when procreation actually occurs it is sporadic and neither at that moment nor before it was the adult rational mind involved – again, this is plainly a consequence of ‘sexual immaturity’ ‘before’ it could ever be said to be a consequence of ‘sexual immorality’.
It’s worth considering, of our own society in contemporary times, how far removed we are from most of the world which practices arrange marriages in one form or another (i.e. whether we are speaking of large tribal units or smaller family units) and what the consequence of this is on our own communities being absent of that; that is: the most fertile years of our lives are not spent having gotten procreation out of the way by having five or six children by the age of twenty or nineteen (so that when the child is fifteen you might be thirty, which seems to be the age where the sexual drive begins to dissipate or has anyway lost its novelty), and instead (i.e. without of being match-made far earlier in life) procreation instead occurs – if it does at all – accidentally and well-past the most fertile and healthy years, with such children being often quite sickly and the strain on the body being significantly more risky to the Mother (haphazardly enabled only then by massive external resources which would not have been required at all beforehand). I do not mean to seem as if I am advocating “having five or six children by the age of twenty or nineteen” only that in our natural environment this has always been the way of the thing due to natural sexual exploration when we are at that age.
At the same time, at the beginning and at the end of this “waste of time” (as I would say) of those most fertile years in which our sexuality is forbidden to us; that culture which we examine here as being simply Sexual Immaturity, it has been the case that that “Immaturity” persists well into later life by those afflicted adults who were forbidden to practise their natural sexuality when they were at the age where they wanted to, that is that the culture and mentality of such persons subjected to such restrictions quite demonstrably can be shown to have regressed them to the point that, as then as adults, they dress as children, speak and think as children, shun adult responsibility and seem altogether to have matured intellectually no further than the age of twelve or thirteen years, despite physiologically and neurologically having surpassed far beyond that early almost larval-like stage of our development where the body and mind are both only partially formed.
Instead it has been the “dragging-out” of that childlike insensibility, again: to no useful outcome, which has by that point in time essentially mitigated most of their procreative potentiality in that 1) physically having children is then far more difficult for them, and 2) they are now twenty-five years behind where their familial-tribal unit might otherwise have been, i.e. they do not have five or six twenty year old children bringing in incomes to the Household (to purchase a Household in the first place if they did not possess one before) or working the land (or likewise to purchase land) so that their prosperity will not have developed beyond mere subsistence off of the external labour market so as to escape the poverty and dependency traps inherent in the cities – which nominally constitutes their entire existence ‘to’ escape such miseries. All in all it is a lot of hard work by that point and I could not help but notice, of my own generation and those slightly older, how this outcome would have been entirely altered and set on a more prosperous trajectory if, say, at the age of sixteen a couple had been put together and had a few children, as: by the age of twenty the best seeds would have been sewn and they would not have to even think about “having children” ever again which is itself a thing, I observe anyway, that is so daunting and bothersome later in life that it really is something better gotten out of the way as early as possible in the manner that we would have done quite naturally otherwise.
If the idea here is to build up that familial-tribal unit then this methodology serves the purpose in the most optimal manner; the adults are freed up and enjoy their liberties, the younger adults (i.e. the teenagers) are preoccupied quite happily fulfilling their single greatest biological urges to have sex as much as they like, and the population figures begin to climb up at a rate of replacement which is far superior, e.g. a thirty year old parent of a fifteen year old only has five years before that fifteen year becomes a physically matured adult ready to contribute to the unit, whereas by contrast a thirty year old parent of a five year old has a great longer time to wait for physical maturity so that the distance between the two age groups becomes fragile and thin the further it is stretched with a concurrent loss of replacement manpower by a space of ten additional years.
There is something to be said for the older more experienced Father, of course, I remember quite well that the children I grew up with whose Fathers were in their forties and fifties and whose Mothers were in their twenties or very early thirties were quite better-off in their disposition and intelligence (whilst those with older Mothers tended to be sickly in one way or another); simply put though I think it is more to do with the experience of age as the influencing factor than anything else and a functional familial-tribal unit would have this influence in far greater capacity.
If we add to this factor the notion of polygamy (something shunned as ‘pagan’ by the Abramic religions yet advocated for in their own holy books, indeed: it was the universal norm) then we find the whole circle being completed in that young teenagers do as they please with each other, becoming familiar with relationship and their sexuality, and then when they reach a more mature age they might marry each other or other people properly so as to begin families of their own; but that by that age they may well have produced several children already via multiple partners so that the actual ‘legitimate children’ (in the sense of inheriting land and titles) of a more formal marriage is superfluous to population replacement insofar as the tribe is concerned, as: they have already increased the headcount quite massively by comparison. It is worth mentioning here the legal problems of land inheritance and the seeming inability for people to ever work this all out amongst themselves as being one of the most desirable points of the introduction of some of the Abramic religions, when they first appeared, as rules were laid out of who could inherit (some rules more effective than others, some quite ruinous in fact) which provided a framework in perpetuity (but on the other hand, with all children being considered legitimate in some instances, i.e. the children of concubines, this produced the problem of “all children” being in competition for the single title or, in turn, a vast spread of land, i.e. a Kingdom, being broken apart “to make it all fair”: this did not differ in form from, say, Imperial China to the late Ottoman court whilst the European Monarchies to their credit, somewhat, temporarily solved the matter by the allocation of specific titles to be given to the first born, second born, third born, etc., and then bouncing back to the Monarch upon the death of that Duke to be allocated again – although some would say this is a feeble manner by which to govern large polities it differs not very much from the essential ‘oversight’ duties over local governments as practiced in the Roman Principate rather than direct-governorship over those provinces themselves).
The tribal influence in real terms upon children cannot be understated in its superior effects upon the character and long-term capacity of the children themselves (when compared to others); I have some experience in my own up-bringing with this and really the outcome (again: compared to the infantilism, i.e. arrested development, you will almost always find in the nuclear family type, which we might easily compare to factory farmed within four walls and a hen-pecking parental authority vs. free range) is a quite more matured and capable disposition (call it “street smarts” if you like; they follow what actually works rather than what is ‘pretended to them’ to work, which is typically nothing more than the parents own whimsical desires of the moment) amongst all the children when they are simply freed up from the poor influence of an unfit parent even without the good influence of a more fit parent of which, then, the fit parent itself could be determined to be largely superfluous, as: of their own accord they learn amongst themselves and become naturally fortified against being instructed into error by a witless or ill-inclined adult, whereas a child stuck under the thumb of a witless ‘parent’ has no means to disobey that witless parent without facing severe punishments and so there the child is sculpted into a helpless fool, later embittered in life and at the tender mercy of their peers, as: even as they might innately know-better (than to do the foolish thing their parent demands they do) they are forced nevertheless, either physically punished or emotionally coerced, into adopting the ‘silly walk’ and ‘dress’ of the witless parent, which is to say: they are forced into conforming toward the cultural idealism determined by the parent with no thought whatsoever for the practicalities of life, e.g. the matter of “how will my child earn a living” is addressed neither by parenting nor by schools thus begrudgingly selling themselves auction block of the labour market turns out to be the only method, whether they were deluded into thinking that their aspirations to be a professional athlete or an astronaut were entertained and encouraged for them at the expense of informing them about any other means of paying the rent or not.
I should say here that when I say “familial-tribal unit” I am broadly referring to any number of groupings, in whatsoever local forms they may take shape, but that the decisive factor, most chiefly, will be a large extended family network of which, if it ever needed to pool its resource together, would constitute a decent size force in land, resource production and manpower – but chiefly it is the possession of land which enables everything else:
More ideally, to my mind, it would resemble (or be very close in composition to) that Roman ‘Familia’ (the origin of the word ‘Family’ in our English) where a fairly large blood family of at least five generations inhabited in and around the same House or group of Houses (see: Palace, Villa and Manor Economy), with servants and adoptees and associates (business partners) likewise being considered as extended kin; altogether forming, as it were, a little nationality. In the sense of ‘Nationality’ it is, it ought be said, more a return to how we actually were prior to the ‘naming conventions’ of the 1700’s or so where the stupid surnames made up on the spot of many Europeans were forced into Law over what would have originally been clan and tribal identities and from which there came that fake sense of disparate ‘Nationality’ (i.e. cut off from tribe and forced into atomization; identity through a very small family unit alone) from which the misnomer of ‘Race’ would be made-up to lend credibility to. In many ways a great deal of the urbane ‘neurosis’, let’s call it, stems really from this absence of ‘true tribe’ with it having been eradicated either by the fecklessness of urban societies; societies of strangers and thieves, and also more directly via those religions which pretend to fill the void of ‘true tribe’ with their witless rituals and effete pretences – things which are a wet-blanket over true fellowship wrought in such a manner as comes in all reality perfectly naturally the moment the screws holding foolishness in place are undone and cast away – and really here, when we stack these observations together one upon the other, we are really speaking of a sound and strong society certainly immune to the shallow perversity created by denialism toward the basic mechanics of the human body – in addition to any other considerations which follow from that.

THE OVERALL INFLUENCE (OR LACK THEREOF) OF A TRIBAL-FAMILIAL UNIT

It must be considered quite seriously by the reader as to the overall influence, or lack thereof, of a tribal-familial unit as to what fills its place in the education of people otherwise and, as I began this text by considering for myself, how much of the ‘dysfunctionality’ can be attributed to the “lack thereof”.
Along with the cultural instance on sexual immaturity as to produce the consequence of delaying and drawing out for decades a fetish of normal sexuality which ought naturally be done with by a person after reaching the age, say, of maybe seventeen, there is the greater point which I am trying to relay here in this text of how many other aspects of ‘bad culture’ are singularly anchored to and thusly totally dependent upon that sexual immaturity – that is: we would be hard-pressed to imagine how really many of the pernicious scenarios in our contemporary society would even arise if that foundation stone of ‘sexual immaturity’ were removed from the equation:
For instance, how much of a ‘relationship’ is spent and sculpted (either by the Man or the Woman or both) on jealously and worry of the other ending the relationship for having found another person or another means to fulfil their sexual gratification? If a ‘relationship’ is based upon, let’s call this, “mutual masturbation” then at the heart of that is sexual immaturity of the mental age of maybe fourteen years whereupon a person has been sort of coaxed into dependency for orgasm on a third party; they are fraught and fearful that this should be taken away from them – it being so vital as like a mechanical necessity for either sex – that the entire content of their ‘relationship’ revolves around it; seeking it, coaxing it, demanding it, guarding it from be lost, and so on, of which I think it is not exaggeration to say that such concerns constitute 100% of the verbal interaction in such a ‘couple’; either outright or in the back of the mind so as to reinterpret all scenarios and verbal expressions as being related to that end-goal of maintaining the “mutual masturbation”.
Simply put this ‘relationship’, then, revolves around twenty minutes of sexual activity in a day – if that much (or even if every day), yet dominates the entirety of the mind; that is: the entirety of the ‘relationship’, when this action itself is something that a servant or a slave or a prostitute would be used for in many societies, with the ‘content’ of the marriage, say, being concerned more with running the business of a Household or concerned with procreation to produce legitimate children to inherit the business, the title, the land, whatever. My point here is that neither Man nor Woman are elevated or their dignity improved, somehow, by this absence of sexual maturity but rather that both are reduced; i.e. greatly lowered, to the cognitive and social standing of the “servant, slave, prostitute,” in that as far as they think of and conceptualize themselves as part of a Household at all it is singularly the concern with simple sexual acts which dominate their interpersonal interactions and their ideas about their own self; it is their ‘social currency’.
If this seems alien – I mean my observation on this – consider how much neurosis goes on in the daily grooming rituals of Women or those sad excuses for Men who “lift weights but cannot fight” (not to mention the ease at which a thin muscular physique bleeds out at the slightest of puncture wounds, see: Roman Gladiator training), i.e. whose only concern is that of admiring their own bodies in a mirror, this being intellectually identical to young Women. Is this not the mentally of a slave? If so, even if we shy away from saying it plainly, then we must ask “what forms the mentality of a slave (i.e. where does it come from)” – in the above equation a slave in a Household is more like an object fulfilling a function than He or She is a person with any autonomy (well, obviously there is no autonomy for a slave) so it is almost to be expected that in such an environment that the intellectual trajectory of an object-person goes away from externalities and becomes entirely absorbed with self-presentation and equates their social status from that, and if groups of such persons will set this to be the common culture; deriving status in that manner among themselves – although still these are slaves possessing no ‘status’ to speak of, as being object-people. This is evidenced also in victims of sexual abuse or those, in general, suffering at the hands of third parties whose autonomy is in some way or another restricted; that their singular focus becomes that of sexuality as like depression is “rage turned inward”, thus too it seems for sexual infantilism.
I cannot pass up this subject without mentioning a series of interviews describing, a thing quite novel to me, the notion of American Christian ‘Purity Culture’ from the point of view of those heavily indoctrinated into that; instilled with Catholic levels of guilt over the normal function of the body, who have then left their small churches or megachurches, or whatever, and spoken plainly about the mentality of those inside of it as relating to sexuality. It is a thing I think long suspected but seldom expressed that, as it was described, the mentality of such persons is that they are “horny all the time” due to the relentless guilt inculcated into them; that due to denialism of sexuality their ordinary sexual impulses are magnified to an incredible degree and that, consequentially, their entire being is animated by repressed sexuality so that their thoughts are ‘impure’ all the time whilst verbally they express strong denialism and shame over the thing. I think this is no real difference to any such religious malinstruction; be it Muslim, Jewish or Christian, in that the perpetual infantilism of their surrounding society stems first of all from their own bedrock religious culture (i.e. whatever religion which is at odds with the human body, etc.) were due to such ‘culture’ they never really get over, say, an early adolescent view of sexuality where they are driven entirely by it and never learn to overcome it, no pun intended, but utterly unrealized – which would take them leaving their religion – is that this process demonstrably brings out the absolute worst in their character and disposition with the process itself being the promulgation ‘of’ those very “Viceful thoughts ” that they claim to be “at War with in the world”, in other words: it is just they themselves who, for example, look at a young teenage girl (or god help us, a small boy) and thinks all manner of sexual rapacity – and that this animates them politically to campaign for restrictive legislation to be put into Law to police “all society” as if “all society” existed at their low level is an incredible thing to consider. But I do not think their broader societies are any exception to this, rather point here is that their broader societies are comprised of persons exactly like them; that the Christian or the Jew driven by a lifetimes shaming over their normal sexuality adopt, in turn, the most depraved expressions ‘of’ sexuality as a self-affirmation; that is: the extreme self-identification with a simple sexual action, for example, came to literally define a persons personality in such places to the point that (Americans anyway) seriously put out the notion during the late 1990’s and 2000’s that a fleeting sexual act 1) defines a persons entire character, and 2) it is also inborn, e.g. as like to say that whether you prefer this or that on the menu at a restaurant is something determined genetically; this is utterly stupid and utterly, in my opinion, a consequence of society which has not wanted to evolve beyond the ‘sexual immaturity’ of which physiologically seems to occupy a very small window of the middle to late teens and of which repression during those ages quite demonstrably creates madness and retardation – I mean that if their culture did not peripherally do this to them then the manner by which swathes of their cultural-historical institutions do this to them ‘outright’ by inculcation into this process in particular certainly does it to them, and merely it is the unwillingness to fully condemn these Religions and relegate these influences to the dustbin which keeps the entire thing ticking along with “just enough” of the population bent out of shape by it to present those same persons, seemingly confused as to where they came from, lumbering through the broader society and serving as examples of lunacy and degeneracy.
In short - and I may as well add this here also, the aim to abstain for a while from sexuality was a custom introduced by the Ancient Romans and was designed to heighten sexual pleasure; in effect, then, foreign barbarians coming to this culture much later on with nobody to really explain it to them ended up unwittingly engaging in what they would probably have recognized as ‘sex magic’ whereupon the denial of their own mechanical sexual function was ‘abstained’ by them; i.e. they saw the value in holding off on doing drugs or having sex for a while, – but they did not understand what the effect or the outcome of that was ‘intended’ to be in that one would abstain specifically ‘to’ heighten the senses toward that pleasure; and this is evidenced chiefly in the Lunar Orgies and the Fast/s of Ceres. Interestingly, Jesus himself in (i think the Gospel of Thomas?) mentions to his followers that “they will hate him for what he says now,” and that he says that “fasting brings out all the worst in them” – in other words, engaging in periodic abstinence will turn them all horny. Knowing this from a relatively early age it was no surprise to me at all why celibate priests ended up diddling children or member of their own congregation or why the most outwardly pious zealots proved to be the most morally weak people to be found as even with the most ‘clean’ example, let’s say, of a person who has never drank wine, for example, they have not ‘overcome’ that thing but have rather avoided ever experiencing that thing so that it will always be a novel temptation to them of which they will have no understanding of and which they can be leveraged by in various ways primarily due to their ignorance of which ‘experience itself’ would otherwise render them far more fortified against:
A good example here is the ‘pot scare’ of the early 1930’s in America when it was seriously believed by a wholly ignorant chunk of the urbane voting public that smoking cannabis (and drinking alcohol, for that matter) would turn a person into a serial killer, this is totally bizarre to us now, but notice that this was the same society whose moral standard was that “a table leg” should not be uncovered because it reminded them of a Womans bare leg – although here we might better understand why they were so preoccupied by thoughts like that (I think very seriously in their heightened state of perpetual arousal any little thing would send them to buggery of a farmyard creature)! Hilarious. But – notice also that this was the same society which was engaging in some of the most casually egregious inhumane criminality that history had ever seen, as if they ‘were’ high on narcotics and their rational senses dulled; I do not mean here to bring American notions of ‘Race’ into this as to be seen to ‘condemn Black Slavery’ in the fashion of my own day (although we mentioned family-tribe as a better form of so-called nationality earlier) but the ghastly images of actual Country Fairs where smiling families with children by their knees would pose for crude photographs with the charcoaled or bloated rotting carcass of a burned or lynched Man is beyond my ability to play-down or normalize. I mean here to say, that: far from the pretense of ‘clean mindedness’ of such persons about themselves that we find these same persons are the filthiest and most depraved characters around, being those few persons who walk amongst us who are actually capable of doing those inhumane things (again, see: Banality of Evil) as would be unthinkable to a person of normal rational healthy conscience. We might connect this, also, to the historical BDSM extravaganzas which took place in the Christian monasteries and public squares for many centuries where young Women were sexually tortured by celibate clergymen as to recognize how deep and quick a plunge it is from a person or their culture going from the denial of normal healthy sexuality into the kettled and sadistic gore fetish of outright murder.
It is always worth reminding the reader who wishes to minimize these more egregious aspects of the subject (as rape is still rampant among the clergy); which are consequential of sexual immaturity, that it was not ‘reason and rationality’ per se that stamped this out from European society but soldiers kicking in the doors of such Churches, Town Halls and Houses with muskets, rifles, long knives and grape-shot and physically eradicating the perpetrators and their willing congregations from America and France for the practice itself of sexually torturing a Woman and then burning the evidence on the fake pretexts of obviously made-up accusations of “she turned me into a frog” to actually be ended. That is to say that the ‘mentality’ and ‘culture’ which provided the framework for such inhumane activities was never formally realized or educated-out of a people, so to find it lingers along into contemporary times; animating the otherwise dormant farmyard animal-like character of such persons “like powers of evil”, is not surprising to me in the least. What was more surprising to me is that as so much of these religions are so obviously outright ‘evil’ that more persons do not speak of the intricacies of the things in such necessary detail these more ‘egregious’ cases would qualify, and then to spool back to discover the cause of every evil action in the mentality of every perpetrator – generally speaking, for instance, it will be a character with a disposition of infantilism and perhaps this is more easy to understand without needing to connect it to sexual immaturity though, to my mind, these are not distinct enough to warrant any separation; as: infantilism is always going to be immaturity and immaturity is always going to run concurrent with a lack of adult intellectual development where a mature and experienced view of a thing, sexuality in this case, has likely been within the powers of a person to have gleaned naturally through experiences – in which case there would be no argument with anything I say here, or of which such experiences have been prevented by external powers from being gleaned by the person in question; in which case they remain ‘as if’ they were fourteen years old with the allure of mysterious unknown sex acts utterly dominating their consciousness at all times and yet physically being thirty, forty, fifty years old – well past the age (certainly physiologically) where they should have gotten it all out of their system but of which they have not, chiefly because their experiences have been rather dull and monotone and so much social currency has been valued by it ‘being’ dull and monotone, e.g. monogamy, legal repercussions binding two people in place, the atomized kettling nature of the disconnected nuclear family unit, living amongst strangers in large cities where it not so simple as just going topless to change the local culture, control through the selective denial of the sex act itself (as William Reich and Esther Vilar both write on), the sexualisation of young people by adults, the accidental ‘perversity’ (in the real meaning of the word) of unfulfilled (or poorly fulfilled, or repressed altogether) sexuality and its effects on the brain and society, and so on and so on.
I am always inclined to think when considering this subject, and I may as well end this text in conclusion with this recurrent thought of mine, that ‘sexual perversion’ really begins in the mind of ourselves as young teenagers when the normal human body is leeringly presented to us as being something ‘illicit’, e.g. the breasts of Women are concealed in our society and so due to ‘hiding them away’ they become objects of mystery and fetish which they otherwise are not. I do not think this is deliberate reverse psychology (as god help us few enough people even understand the concept to understand what they do inadvertently) but it produces the same consequence of reverse psychology, whereupon quite arbitrarily a certain piece of the body, say, an ankle, is all of a sudden declared by a mad Adult to be “evil, sinful, lustful, of the devil,” when no such notion existed in the minds of people otherwise, as then: their natural curiosity is piqued by this imposition and so they develop a perversion dervied in chief part – as a sense of lewd pleasure – from bucking the arbitrary nonsensical imposition forced upon them by that dictate of which such a scenario never would have had cause to occur if not for that imposition having created it. I feel that this ‘perversion’ (again, in the real meaning of that word) stands in the way of a fully realized and fully pursued sense of actual sexuality and, from it, of a more resonant concordance between Men and Women whose interactions are otherwise thrown off balance by such impositions as they are dragged back down to sexual immaturity all the time; or into fear and jealously etc., as like a dozen avenues are presented in any conversation and virtually of them are strewn with piss, vomit and polyfoam which had no reason to be put there in the first place, or more accurately: it was put there through the carelessness of an atomized and witless peoples who knew no better than to do this to themselves but of which a familial-tribal unit would have drummed out of them quick sharp if for the actuality of nothing else than “we are all in this together” being something that is tangibly true and not merely shallow political rhetoric when it is said of a tribe vs. when it is said of a state polity comprised of countless strangers.

MAIORES. IV, CAL. IUNI. FORTUNA PRIMIGENIA.

Why is it easy for guys to risk and invest in a venture than ladies. In society you see guys in groups flourishing together only to hear from rumors that they pulled some capital to start the venture. But rarely do you hear that from ladies. Men will go and bbq some goat meat in the middle of nowhere and come up with insane projects and willing to risk it all.
I put a business idea on the table then tell my friends let's pull capital of 600k each over a span of 2 years so that we can invest. Atleast there you might be like if it goes it goes. Only one of them agrees and the rest are like no, I plan to do this and that on my own. Apart from hanging out, doing baby showers and eating, why not just sit down and think of investing as a group?

The Horus Heresy Book 21: Fear to Tread by James Swallow
Good gods, we finally meet the Blood Angels. Was it worth the wait? Well, it's a resounding yes from us. This is a portrait of a legion struggling with secrets and having it used against them. The noble Sanguinius is heartbroken by the Red Thirst and having to deal with his poor mad sons, and this is used against him to pull him into a trap. The discussions with Horus before the Heresy are a good look at who both of them were before all the bitter infighting. This set up heightens the betrayal, as before Horus fell he and Sanguinius were close. Horus realises his pure brother cannot fall to chaos, so sends him away to perish.
“With the whip still coiled about its neck, the Angel dragged the spitting, wounded fiend to the lip of the pit in the middle of the chamber, then lifted it up so he could look it in the face. The daemon cackled through its pain, convulsing as it tried to shake free. ‘I will take your skull yet.’ The primarch’s eyes flashed with a powerful hatred. ‘If you truly do hail from the realm that men once called hell,’ he intoned, ‘when you return there, tell your kindred it was Sanguinius who threw you back.’ With a grunt of effort, the Angel took hold of the beast and shoved it over the spiked edge.
Ka’Bandha’s curses echoed all the way down, before it finally vanished, shrieking, into the warp-flames.”
The Blood Angels are shown here in a completely different light to the other legions we have met so far. They fall to the Red Thirst for quite an extended part of this story so we get berserkers from the Blood Angels before we truly get them from the World Eaters. They slaughter everyone they can get their teeth on and are truly repentant for it at the end of the book, with the Flesh Tearer feeling distraught over what he did to their allies (doesnt stop them from doing it in the future though). Erebus’ plan could have easily worked to bring the Blood Angels to Khorne and you can see why Angron is second choice over the beautiful Hawk Boy.
Synopsis
Before the Heresy, Sanguinius and the Blood Angels have a slight issue. Sometimes, they go crazy and get turned into blood fueled mindless killers. During a campaign against xenos known as the Nephelim, who feed off religious adoration, Horus learns of this Red Thirst and talks with Sanguinius. He is scared, fearing the Emperor will destroy the Blood Angels for this genetic abnormality (something Emperor has done before)....This brings Horus and Sanguinius closer together.
During the Heresy, following a campaign against the Orks, Horus contacts Sanguinuis, talks with him face to face using a psyker and asks him about the Emperor and the Great Crusade. One question later and Horus sends him off to walk into a trap that will destroy the Blood Angels. He claims the Nephelim have returned and the entire Blood Angel legion are required to deal with them.To sweeten the deal, he tells Sanguinius the Nephelim have a machine that can cure the Blood Angels of their affliction.
The Word Bearers and Space Wolves are along for the ride and have secret agendas they plan on completing. The Blood Angels head to the Cignus cluster and find a giant burning eight pointed star and everyone dead. Just being in the vicinity causes a wave of suicides among the mortal crew of their ships. A veil descends around the system, preventing any contact outside the system. The Blood Angels are alone.
A squad is sent to investigate a planet and the mission goes wrong (the pilot goes mad on the way down, they get attacked by the city itself).
Horus summons the Bloodthirster, Ka’Bandha, and tells him to murder Sanguinius, rather than corrupt him, which is Erebus’ plan.
A few survivors are eventually found and tell the Blood Angels about what happened and are attacked by Daemonettes. A Keeper of Secrets emerges on the flagship and tells Sanguinius it is the mastemistress of the planet. Sanguinuis vows to murder it. Sanguinius is told that it seems likely that Horus put them in this trap and almost kills the marine that suggests it. The Space Wolves tell Sanguinius that they are there to deal with the threat of rebellion, in the form of the use of psychic powers by the Librarius. Sanguinius acknowledges the possibility of rebellion and goes to kill the enemy….
Sanguinius fights the Bloodthirster and the fight goes badly. The final blow kills 500 marines at once, knocks out Sanguinius and puts all of the Blood Angels deep into the Red Thirst. The Sanguinary Guard transport Sanguinius back to the flagship and call a full retreat, but the bloodlust is too strong. The legion succumbs to the other Legion genetic defect, The Black Rage, and the dive headfirst into a full on BLOOD ORGY attacking everything.
The Librarians realise they are hamstringing themselves and take part in a psychic process to wake Sanguinuis. He is not happy and destroys the Bloodthirster with perhaps the coolest one liner we have had. But the bloodlust in the legion is too strong and a Blood Angel sacrifices himself to become the Red Angel and save the legion. The veil is removed and the Blood Angels are able to shake themselves off and leave the system (trying not to look at each other or mention why there seems to be a lot less mortal legion serfs on their ships or wiping blood off their mouths). They received word of the Isstvan V massacre and run into an Ultramarine fleet.
In possibly the most satisfying epilogue, Erebus decides to berate Horus for his failure and gets his face cut off. Horus does not care about the will of the Gods, only his own plans.
Review:
This is a brilliant book and brings a lot of ideas into the Heresy that are vital parts of 40k, especially for the Blood Angels. The Red Thirst, The Black Rage, the Sanginor ability to fuse with warp entities, pariahs and the daemons of the Gods are all here and in full display. Slaanesh and Khorne are working together to bring down and corrupt Sanguinius, although you get the feeling that Slaanesh was never going to have him, with the Bloodthirster somehow managing to output the Keeper of Secrets running things in the system. The Blood Angels as a legion are fascinating. The Blood Angels are not perfect but they are trying hard to be good. They display strong genetic defects that should render them removed from conflict by the Emperor. But their noble cause, and angelic primarch ensure they never fall too far into a parody, and instead are haunted knights trying to fight themselves and the enemy for the good of the universe.
We get an interesting look at Chaos in this book. A Slaaneshi psychic is openly working for the Word Bearers, but no one recognises what she truly is and what her power entails. A world is turned into a living weapon and a symbol of the power of chaos. An entire star system is trapped from the rest of the galaxy. The whole population is turned into a fortress of bones.
Whilst it lacks the constant creeping dread of Know No Fear, this is a spectacular book and I can fully understand why the Blood Angels are so many people’s favourites after reading this one. They are the noble angels (and also murderous, barely kept in check butchers ready to go mad at a moment's notice.) The Blood Angels face horrors that drive men mad and manage to survive and carry on.
The ending fully wants you to know what is happening next in the series, so unsurprisingly we are going to have a bunch of short stories next that are completely unrelated to this book…
Score: 9.5/10 - a wonderful look at this mostly ignored legion so far that hits hard and shows how horrific Chaos can be. Full on cosmic horror versus a literal angel and his army of angels. It is glorious stuff. It just lacks the focus and creeping dread that “Know No Fear” had.
Cover: It's a warrior angel fighting a devil as the sky explodes around them. If this was an Iron Maiden album cover, it could not be any more metal.
Heresy Watch:
How close were the Blood Angels to falling? If not for the World Eaters they may have been something for Khorne to pursue. Erebus is no longer the favoured of the Gods, having accomplished his purpose, Horus no longer needs to listen to him and demonstrates it in quite a clear way. Horus is concerned that Sanginius would be a better leader than he is, if he falls to Chaos.
Legion Watch/Number of Book(s):
Dark Angels: 5
: 2
Emperor’s Children: 8
Iron Warriors: 5
White Scars: 3
Space Wolves: 5
Imperial Fists: 8
Night Lords: 4
Blood Angels: 2
Iron Hands: 4
: 2
World Eaters: 9
Ultramarines: 7
Death Guard: 4
Thousand Sons: 5
Sons of Horus: 9
Word Bearers: 11
Salamanders: 2
Raven Guard: 4
Alpha Legion: 6
The Emperor: 7
We finally have Blood Angels! They were worth the wait. They are now on a par with the Salamanders.
Tropes Watch:
Are we the baddies?: 36 The Flesh Tearer. That is not a nickname a “good guy” gets. By the end of the story, he (along with his men) murdered the Space Wolf observers and the legion response seems to just be to sweep it under the carpet. The whole “drinking the blood of my enemies” feels a bit ‘not very good guys’. Sanguinius talks to Horus through a naked Slaaneshi psyker, learns this is not the Emperor’s technology and basically shrugs and is fine with it.
It's definitely not gay: 20 “The ornate doors of the primarch’s quarters opened and Raldoron stepped through, his eyes falling on Sanguinius before anything else. His liege lord wore his duty armour, gold and white platinum with a bronze mail cloak that lay draped over his folded wings. It was not as ornate as the high artificer armour he would wear into combat, but still it seemed barely able to contain the full radiance of the primarch. Raldoron had once heard one of the remembrancers say that Sanguinius shone like a star carved into the shape of a man, and he could not fault that description.” The Blood Angels really love their father. Everyone who sees him seems quite overcome by his magnificence.
How not to parent 101: 25 Sanguinius prepares to attack one of his sons for daring to claim Horus lied to them, whilst they are stuck in a trap that Horus sent them into.
Erebus!!!: 19 Oh we get a proper appearance for Erebus and some actual pleasure as he decides he can berate the Warmaster following the failure of his plan. The slimy little scumbag decides he doesn't need to be nice anymore, shouts at a Chaos powered Horus and gets his face ripped off for it. Couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy. There is a scene where Erebus goes and sees Fabius Bile and you legitimately feel bad that Space Megele has to deal with him…. Berus the High Warden earns an honorary Erebus award, being an absolute git throughout the story until his noble sacrifice (read: falling off a Land Raider to kill daemonettes).
Does this remind you of anything?: 37 Chaos corruption led to the creation of concentration camps. Possibly the most grim dark thing so far. I cannot help but feel that a lot of Khorne apologists will blame it on Slaanesh and “Khorne only wants honourable kills” but also the Blood Father “cares not from where the blood flows”. Comment below which chaos god you blame for the camps. When Sanguinius kicks the Bloodthirster over the edge does he is either channelling Gandalf or Leonedius and we are not sure which….
Idiot Ball: 24 Horus just happened to come across a planet with technology to cure a super specific legion genetic defect. How exactly did the xeno’s manage to cure this? And the planet is really far away from everyone? A likely story. Only fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

As Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are back with their latest Bad Boys installment - saving Hollywood's disaster Summer Box Office. They tried to cancel Will Smith but he's one of the biggest movie stars on the planet. Hollywood had to revert back to him someday and they have. So let's turn back the clock and look at why Will Smith is.. Well, Will Smith today.
Coming fresh off his success with Fresh Prince, Will Smith got his first major leading role in 1993's Six Degrees of Separation. In spite of stars at the time warning him of the circumstances of playing a Gay character - Big Willie actually ended up playing it, earning early critical acclaim.
But two years later, we would see the birth of a Superstar. Bad Boys released in 1995. And this Michael Bay debut launched Will Smith to super stardom. Bad Boys grossed 142 Million off a 30 Million budget and Will Smith already had a huge success on his hands.
But then came 1996's Independence Day which made Will Smith a worldwide phenomenon. Having grossed 817 Million worldwide, Will Smith officially became the biggest star on the planet.
If that was not enough, Will Smith appeared in another 587 Million grossing Blockbuster with Men in Black that further solidified his star status. Then came 1998's Enemy of the State that further proved how much of a star he was, as the non commercial thriller earned a huge 250 Million.
In 1999, Will Smith was offered the lead role in a weird Sci-fi flick called Matrix. Will Smith like a true kid friendly star declined it and choose to star in the infamous Western - Wild Wild West. The intentions may have been right but the movie absolutely bombed at the box office grossing a sad 221 Million worldwide off a massive 200 Million budget.
That set off a disappointing box office run for Will Smith for almost half a decade. 2000 saw Will Smith star in 1 film - The Legend of Bagger Vance which was a second consecutive bomb for Will grossing just 39 Million off a 60 Million budget. Then released the critically acclaimed Michael Mann directorial Ali which earned Will his first Oscar Nomination but flopped at the Box Office earning just 87 Million off a 110 Million budget.
Will Smith desperately needed a hit. And he eventually chose the easier and safer path by doing two sequels, back to back. First one was Men in Black 2 which grossed a huge 440 Million off a 140 Million budget. Much needed success for Will even though it wasn't as loved as the first one. Same year came out Bad Boys 2 which was somewhat of a disappointing 273 Million of a huge 130 Million Budget. But the movie itself is a huge cult among the fanbase now.
Will Smith was back after a slight setback. His next outing was a sci-fi flick - I robot. The 2004 movie grossed a solid 348 Million off a 105 Million budget. Same year, came out Will's first try at animation. Shark Tale opened to very mixed reviews, nevertheless grossed an excellent 370 Million off a 75 Million budget.
2005 saw Will Smith doing a rom-com, for the first time. Hitch earned a massive 366 Million off a 55 Million budget. Will Smith was the biggest star on the planet.
Then released I am Legend. Which continued Will Smith's unparalleled Star status as it grossed a colossal 585 Million off a 150 Million budget. Next year, the superhero flick Hancock did even better grossing a massive 625 Million.
2008's Seven Pounds was Will Smith's final movie before a 4 year long break. Another success to Willie's catalogue, earning a 166 Million worldwide.
The next part will see Will Smith's slight downfall as a star, controversies all around - but still putting out a lot of hits at the box office, thereby maintaining his superstar status - Till Date.

Yeah yeah, an old saying, reproduction isn't the purpose of life and doesn't determine value, but let me explain...
So, I am a 16 Year Old, who was introduced to ""feminism"" somewhere in 2022 (I think), thanks to a friend of mine. It turns out, this was actually Mysandry, in the sense that he shared how some of these "feminists" were trying to get rid of men in reproduction, one example being the "fact" that their vaginas will evolve into penises and clone themselves, except that would probably make them hermaphrodites and should happen with men too...
Nonetheless, I was "invested", since this gave me an idea about the two sexes (which would be used for a fictional piece in the end, just with a bit of spiece from our Universe, lol), since I am quite the brain stormer, not bragging or narcissism, I just come up with a lot ideas in general. But as time went on, I started to suffer from overthoughts and the amount of information I've found, including myths like "We were all Female", "Females came before Males", "Women have stronger legs", "You're Genetically Superior and Flawless due to XX", "Men are the weaker sex", "You were inside your Mother who was inside your Grandmother", "Inteligence is Mother Only", among other things, although that last one wasn't as common though). There are still fools, especially on Quora, who believe that all embryos start out as females, and just look at some individuals on that site like Anonymous04, horrors! I also tried to ask ChatGPT, but it's pretty much declining and INFURIATING! SO MANY WRONG ANSWERS! SOMETIMES IT'S OUTRIGHT LAZY!
These moments got soooo BAD, that I: -concerned my parents -made my dad think I was... drugged (since I acted blank when I was working with him once) -wasted my school-off week by overthinking -replied to many answers that ANNOYED me (arguably still do, and embarrassed myself, perhaps) -kept talking to my online friends-couldn't change the topic and basically made it my entire personality or routine for like the past few weeks (maybe even months!) -had an existencial crisis, outbursts, screaming, $u!c!d@l thoughts, etc. -and evenbecame skeptical and "mad" at God (yes, and screw off with the atheism)
Needless to say... It's quite complicated with me and I could go in-depth a lot more, but I managed to recover from most issues. However, before I settle things up, I need to settle one more thing, and that is reproduction. As far as we know, both Males & Females exist to reproduce genetically diverse offsprings, the only difference is their investments, Females for Offspring Support & Males for Competition or Attraction.
While I've noted and saved many things to read later on (like Seminal Fluids doing much more than just transfering Sperm Cells), I am still a bit concerned, stressed and annoyed, cause it just feels like females are the more favored sex in like existence (oversimplication to say it like that, really), and so, I'd like to ask some few things... Although I am definitely gonna give a lot due to overthinking and concerns:
1.Nucleous: So, as far as we know, both Ovum & Sperm Nuclei fuse to form a Zygote, a new life. Both parents guide the development of the child's characteristics and functions, however, APPERANTLY Ovum Cells have been illustrated to have a 'Nucleous' in their 'Nucleus', and turns out this is some sh!t that Zygotes "apperantly need". It's from this jackshit article from 2008: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2265587/#:\~:text=Sperm%20have%20no%20nucleoli%2C%20so,oocyte%20for%20its%20nucleolar%20beginnings. But allas, does this really make sense? No other information has been found or mentioned anywhere else. There's the "Germinal Vesicle" (Nucleus) and the "Germinal Spot" (Nuclelous), but apperantly when the Ovum goes through M II or however it was, the Germinal Vesicle breaks down and dissolves/mixes with the Cytoplasm or so. So is the Germinal Spot the actual Nucleus, and the "Germinal Vesicle" is just one of the ""expensive ingredients"" of the Ovum? Sperm Cells apperantly have Nuclear Vascoles, are those influencal?
2.Cytoplasm: Upon researching more and talking to some Chat Bots (for thes sake of sanity... or INsanity), does the Cytoplasm actually create and give rise to our cells and tissues or is that an outdaded misunderstanding, and it's main & actual function is to SUPPORT the development of the cells created by both parents? ChatGPT has also said that it also gives Building Blocks, Energy, Cell Growth & Differentiation or some confusing crap, but are those words actually referring to the processes of the Zygote's more stable and rapid growth? Is it true that this Cytoplasm is the Cytoplasm in our cells, or since it decreases, is it easily replaced by the production of our cells (combination of mom and dad, as we know)?
3.Organelles: Cytoplasmic components that are apart of the Cytoplasm' support, but again, are those organelles still the same as those in our cells? Shouldn't they decrease like the Cytoplasm and be created by our cells again since (and I am using Google Searches, cuz yes): ---Ribosomes apperantly originate from our Nucleo-lus? ---Lysosomes are formed by the fusion of transport vesciles budded from the trans Golgi network with endosomes ---Endosomes form by the inagination of the plasma membrance and are trigger by the activation of cell surface receptors ---Golgi Bodies originate from the endoplasmic reticulum ---The endoplasmic reticulum originates from the outer membrance of the nuclear envelop during cell division and among other things, but is Mitochondria the only organelle that manages to stay in by it's high number and self reproduction? Is Mitochondria like 90% of the Ovum's organelles hopefully thinking and the other organelles are a small amount compared to the Mitochondria?
4.Cytoskeleton: Apperantly, that is also a thing and it's not an organelle, but apperantly it also has evolved from prokaryotic cytomotive filaments. Even then, Sperm Cells apperantly have a highly specialized cytoskeletal organization or cytoskeletal proteins (like actin, tubulin and spectrin), so?...
5.RNA: Do we inherit more RNA from mom due to the freaking egg, or is it irrelevant because it is transient as the embryo starts to produce it's own RNA and proteins? But ChatGPT has also said this crap: "This maternal RNA helps to jump-start the developmental processes until the Zygote's own genome can take over". It has been said that Sperm has "vanishingly small" amount of RNA compared to the Ovum, but then there have been studies that Non-Coding RNA or so can influence Embryo Development or that Sperm delivers a complex population of RNAs to the Oocyte. Based on a Google Research, I've found this: "6871 proteins have been identified and reported in Sperm, 1376 in the Oocyte and 1300 in the Blastocyst. With a deeper analysis of the sperm proteome, 103 proteins with known roles in the processes of fertilization and 93 with roles in early embryo development have been identified." Can the RNA in seminal fluids/plasma be influential or inherited too? Isn't RNA small?

1. Is most of our makeup matrilineal and are we therefore more related, connected or like our mothers???!!
   
2. Epi-Genetics: Is it true that epi-genetics tend to favor mothers more? ChatFuckingGPT has said that RNA can influence certain aspects of cellular function and gene expression, and that pregnancy and even nursing can cause genes to be expressed or some sh!t, but aren't there studies that say that Mammals are more like their fathers (even if outdaded) and that the sex determination & even seminal fluids can cause gene expression too? Do mothers give us more gene expressions? Are we more like our mothers because of the gene expressions? Or are these outdaded myths?!
   

8.Paternal Genetic Speciality: If we happen to inherit the mtDNA from Mom, is there anything genetically special about fathers? I know that children inherit more mutations from their Fathers, which would be variable and probably lead to gene expression & epigenetics, but what else can this bring? Even if these mutations can be harmful or neutral, could they be repurposed and changed for future generations? Is there anything unique about inheriting more mutations from Dad? I have heard that male reproductive genes (including expression or specific function) also evolve faster than any other type of gene, including female reproductive genes. How does this help? However, if the Mitochondria Genome is said to evolve faster than the Nuclear Genome or something among those lines, does this abandon the special features of fathers and most mutations don't come from dad, OR as I decided to copy from a helper of mine: The percentage of mitochondrial DNA in the cells is2.5% of total cellular DNA1% of total cellular DNA10% of total cellular DNANone of the above (toppr.com). There's also this, but I think it's quite the manipulation since every mitochondria is still a copy of each other, right? https://www.quora.com/Do-you-get-more-of-your-mothers-genes-or-fathers-genes/answeTim-Eck-3?ch=15&oid=327935038&share=dea75d62&srid=uk6F9W&target_type=answer
9.Paternal Contributions: It has been depicted and said that only the head of the Sperm gets delivered, but apperantly there are articles that say that this is also a misconception that the entire sperm enters the egg, with the assumptions being that the Paternal MtDNA not being transmitted, but apperantly, the Sperm Mitochondria actually enters the egg but needs to be destroyed to prevent issues like the Mitochondrial diseases. With this in mind though, what else does the Sperm contribute to the embryo? Centrioles, Centrosomes & the Microtubule System & Microspindle-... Apperatus needed for mitosis? are done by the Sperm too, and it also brings the Chemical Signal for the Egg to activate it's metabolism and complete meiosis? Does this chemical also do anything like give calcuim to the Egg or anything else too? If the entire sperm enters the egg, what else could it bring to the embryonic development? Can there be any paternal contributions to milk like the Y chromosome presence in women bodyparts due to boy pregnancy and the high estrogen, prolactin & a bit of progestertone in seminal fluids? Are there more Sperm components and organelles that we can't easily observe? Is it possible that the absorbtion of all Sperm Cells can benefit the cells of females if the tail has more than 1000 proteins? Does the Journey, Agility, Adapatations, Variability, Motility & Penentration of the Sperm influence the Nucleus (therefore Embryo) in any way? What about the penentrations of multiple sperms (even if they won't enter or mege with the egg)? Or am I just fantasing, and reality is cruel? What about the chromatin condensation sperm? Are sperm cells, and therefore males, just doomed to be not helpful and more limted?...
10.Male Investment: We know that Males invest time into various behaviors, but how exactly does this help the species? Do they optimize & improve their genes? Do they evolve new traits? Do they mutate more? Are males a great investment for evolution or adaptability? Anything else unique? If more females than males have reproduced, does that mean that males are inferior or not helpful and that nature prefers females more? If males and sperm cells are simpler, does that mean they are inferior, disadvantaged or not special? Do non-reproducing males still help with something (assuming they haven't died)? Do you need to almost always (excluding species like Orange Cats and Calico Cats) have a 50/50 amount of both sexes so you don't cause genetic problems even if fewer males will pass on their genes?
That's all I really have to say, I probably sound like I am being dramatic, impulsive and immature, but I really have been overthinking and so, I'd like if some help could be given. This sure was long, but I think I might have given something interesting and such. I thought this could be used as a last resort to settle this before I grow up more. I hope I didn't seem bad or anything like that. I am just in a "scared and confused" situation from the amount of stuff I've seen. ChatGPT really isn't good when it comes to mental health, lol

Welcome to AskIndianBros!
Hey everyone,
We're excited to introduce AskIndianBros, a new subreddit designed to be the Indian version of AskMen. This is where men, women, and everyone else can ask questions, share insights, and have meaningful discussions.
AskIndianBros is a space designed to facilitate open and respectful dialogue on topics related to relationships, gender dynamics, and more, with a focus on the Indian context. We aim to create a welcoming environment where individuals of all genders can ask questions, share experiences, and gain insights from one another.
What we're about:

1. Healthy Dialogue: We've seen many forums where conversations turn toxic quickly. We aim to create an environment like PurplePillDebate, where respectful and civil discussions are the norm.
   
2. Understanding Each Other: We hope to help everyone understand each other better by having open and honest conversations. Your perspectives, experiences, and questions are all important here.
   

Our Beliefs:

• Freedom of Speech: We believe in free expression. No post or comment will be removed unless it breaks the subreddit rules. We welcome different opinions and robust debates, as long as they stay respectful.

Community Rules:
To keep this a great place for everyone, please follow these rules:

1. Be Respectful: No personal attacks, hate speech or harassment.
   
2. Stay On-Topic: Keep discussions relevant to the questions and themes of the subreddit.
   
3. No Spam or Self-Promotion: Don't post irrelevant content or advertisements.
   
4. Report Problems: Help us keep the quality of discussions high by reporting posts or comments that break the rules.
   

Join Our Team:
We're also looking for mods to help us manage the community. If you're interested, let us know!
We’re excited to see this community grow and evolve. Your participation and contributions will make AskIndianBros a valuable place for everyone.
Join the conversation, ask your questions, and share your insights. Let’s build a better understanding together.
Welcome aboard!

• The AskIndianBros Team

They can’t seem to handle that there’s some women out there that don’t prefer them. “You want a 6’2” man” no…I don’t, never have. If I did…I would have accepted the first 6’4 guy that tried to date me..not my type.

• following his first ever loss to Wardlow, Malakai disappears off TV. The announcers say how nobody has seen or talked to Black, his whereabouts are completely unknown. However, after a couple of weeks, vignettes start happening; they show Black in an undisclosed location, training in martial arts, reading old textbooks, getting healed with herbal medicine, all of it happening while multiple hooded figures are present, helping him. Black's vignettes speak of concepts of a House, and how an individual is stronger with a family around him. The vignettes go on for 6 weeks.
  
• at Revolution 2023, The Elite lose the Trios Titles to Blackpool Combat Club in the semi-main event. As The Club is celebrating, the lights go out, and then ominous music plays. Malakai Black is back, and he has 4 mysterious masked figures with him - The House of Black has arrived!! The House goes after both Elite and BCC, proceeding to destroy everyone. Bryan Danielson, BCC's unofficial leader, runs down to help his boys, but gets his head kicked off by Black. Danielson has an Iron Man Match next, and he's laid out. Black's group poses with the gold, before unmasking to reveal who they are and what they are to The House:
  

"House's Creator" Malakai Black
"House's King" Antoine Crowler (formerly known as Brody King)
"House's Gem" Ruby Waite (formerly known as Ruby Soho)
"House's Fallen Angel" Kahun (formerly known as Bishop Kaun)
"House's Predator" Laevey (formerly known as Toa Liona)

• The House starts terrorizing the Trios division, even managing to defeat Elite in a contendership match (after Black himself interferes), to get a shot at BCC. All the while, Black makes proclamations about how BCC will fall, and how they targeted them because BCC present themselves as a real family bound by the blood of others, when in reality they're a incohesive unit bound by individual loneliness. Crowler, Kahun and Laevey actually win the Trios Titles off of BCC, with Crowler pinning Moxley, after Black interferes once again. Tired of playing games, BCC challenge House of Black to a 4 vs 4 Blood and Guts match. After a brutal contest, House manage to win due to Ruby Waite's interference.
  
• with The House using their numbers game to the advantage constantly, BCC realize they need someone to even the odds a little bit. Therefore, the AEW Women's Champ Jamie Hayter joins the fight in order to combat, pun intended, Ruby. The big faction warfare rematch goes down at Double Or Nothing, in Anarchy in the Arena. BCC win after ganging up on Kahun, pinning him with a Ricola Bomb/Diving Knee Strike Combination. Following the loss, Black says that this war is far from over, so now he'll personally get involved. Black's mind games continue, with him anointing Danielson as BCC's leader during promos in order to alienate him from the group. Black then challenges Danielson to a Creator's Rules match - three part match where you need to pin your opponent, make him bleed, then either tap or knock him out. In the main event of Dynamite in early July, Black gets the first two wins easily. Danielson makes a comeback, rolling up Black for the pin (becoming only the second person ever to do so), and then busting him up with elbow strikes. Finally, Black makes Danielson pass out with a Black Lotus Lock, Dragon never submitting though. Afterwards, Black grabs a steel chair, attempting to use it on Danielson, but Moxley runs him off.
  
• Moxley then shifts his focus to Black, challenging him to All In, in their first match ever. Moxley surprisingly wins clean, becoming the third man to defeat Black one on one. Moxley hits a Butterfly Superplex, beautifully transitioned into a pair of Death Riders for the win. The loss intensifies Black's studying, training and healing, before he challenges Moxley to a rematch at All Out. During the final moments of the match, Black hits a Black Mass, but Moxley bounces off the ropes Nigel-style... INTO ANOTHER BLACK MASS!! Black wins the second match, we're tied. Due to both men needing to hit their finisher twice, a stipulation is added to the final match at WrestleDream, where Moxley can't use Death Rider and Black can't use Black Mass. By the way, the match is also a Seattle Street Fight!! Naturally, both men steal each other's finishers in an attempt to win, mixing it with weaponry and brutality in the middle. Black finally manages to win after a Blood Moon Stomp through a thumbtack-filled table, immediately followed with a Black Lotus Lock for the submission knockout win.
  
• after a win over Danielson and two wins over Moxley, Black says it's finally time to complete his destiny, to do what he couldn't do last year - win the World Title. Black disappears off TV to do his hardest and most strenuous training yet, but he sends the rest of his House to keep an eye on the champion MJF. The House strikes a deal with Bullet Club Gold - House will help Jay win the World Title, and BCG will help The House win the ROH Tag Titles off of MJF. Then, Black and Jay can have a "gentlemanly" match for the World Title. The plan works partially; Gates of Agony do manage to snatch the ROH Tag Belts off MJF in the opening match of Full Gear due to Gunns interfering, but Jay loses to MJF after Adam Cole, Roderick Strong and Kingdom fend the heels off. Malakai reappears at the end of the show, applauding MJF from the stands.
  
• MJF vs Black is set for World's End, big title defense. Black plays his mind games with Max, saying how he used to be someone who didn't trust anyone, and now he trusts everyone who gets even a bit close. The House retain their Trios Titles over Roddy and Kingdom in the buildup, but lose an 8 Man Tag Match to Max and his friends. During the title match, Max becomes the first person in 2.5 years to kick out of Black Mass, which gets a big pop and bewilders Black. MJF makes a comeback, then asks Cole to give him the Dynamite Diamond Ring to finish Malakai off. Cole does, but since he was taking so long, Malakai regroups and clocks Max with a devastating Black Mass. One Black Lotus Lock submission later and it's over - Malakai Black is your new AEW World Champion!! Post match, the whole Devil turn happens, proving that Malakai's mind games remain undefeated again. AEW has just been ushered in to an era of evil and darkness...
  

Welcome to our first discussion of David Copperfield! This week, we will discuss Chapters 1-5. The Marginalia post is here. You can find the Schedule here. The discussion questions are below.
One reminder - although this is a classic novel that has been adapted many times over, please keep in mind that not everyone has read or watched already, so be mindful not to include anything that could be a hint or a spoiler for the rest of the book or for other media related to this novel! Please mark all spoilers not related to this section of the book using the format > ! Spoiler text here !< (without any spaces between the characters themselves or between the characters and the first and last words).
Links of Note:

• Goodreads page
• Storygraph page
• Rockingham Castle and Mr. & Mrs. Richard Watson: Dickens dedicated this novel to the Watsons (link has minor spoilers for Bleak House)
• A David Copperfield Map (zoom in to click on individual locations - beware of potential spoilers, though)
• Get your own Dickens character name! Use this automatic generator or go by your birthday.

Chapter Summaries:
Chapter 1 - I Am Born: David Copperfield launches into the retelling of his life story with that famous line that questions whether he or someone else will turn out to be the hero of his life…but we’ll just have to read the whole thing to find out! Immediately we are let in on the unusual circumstances of David’s birth, which is suffused with superstition, causing the town gossips to speculate wildly. He was born on a Friday night near midnight, which of course means that he’ll have an unlucky life and be visited by ghosts and spirits. (I mean, would this even be a Victorian novel without some ghosts? David assures us that he’s yet to be haunted, though.) He was also born with a caul (inside the amniotic sac) which means he’ll be safe from drowning. This is apparently such great news that they advertise the caul for sale after his birth, but only get one hit on Victorian Craigslist, so they hang onto it until they can put it up for a raffle several years later. David says he remembers that raffle and found it super weird to watch a piece of himself get sold off, which, fair! He does note that the old lady who won the caul died in bed and not by drowning, so I suppose it was worth it?
Anyway, back to David’s birth! His father had been dead for six months on the night of his birth, and his mother was a terrified teenager living alone with Peggoty, her servant-girl, so called because they share the same first name. One Friday afternoon in March, his mother was hanging out by the fire and pondering the likelihood of dying in childbirth, when a formidable woman named Betsey Trotwood showed up at her door. Miss Betsey was his father’s aunt and she loved Mr. Copperfield, but hated her abusive husband, who she paid off to go to India and leave her alone. It worked - he died there! On the night in question, Miss Betsey literally pokes her nose into Mrs. Copperfield’s window and then demands that the pregnant lady get up to let her in. Being a force of nature, she takes charge of the room right away, criticizing the Copperfields’ choice of home (a rookery with no birds?) and making somewhat disparaging remarks about Mrs. Copperfield’s history as an orphan and a nanny. She also declares that the baby will be a girl and demands to be the godmother and namesake so the new Betsey Trotwood (Copperfield) can undo all the mistakes of Great Aunt Betsey’s life. Mrs. Copperfield goes into labor and Miss Betsey stays by the fire, plugging up her ears with cotton. She spends some time mildly abusing Ham Peggoty (the servant’s nephew who was hanging around the house to carry emergency messages) and generally ignoring the doctor. Said doctor, Mr. Chillip, is a gentle man but speaks so slowly that Miss Betsey almost throttles him. When he congratulates her on the birth of a BOY, she smacks him upside the head with her bonnet and leaves immediately, never to darken the Copperfields’ door again! Welcome to the world, David!
Chapter 2 - I Observe: David Copperfield relates some of his early impressions of life: his memories of creepy pantries, stuffy parlors, boring church services, and a loving home. His mother is young and beautiful in these memories, and Peggoty is beautiful to him in her own way (though she insists she is not). One day, Davy's mom shows up with a stranger who walks her home and - gasp! - touches her hand! Davy immediately dislikes this black-bearded, dead-eyed interloper and Peggoty seems to like him even less. He falls asleep while his mother is swooning over her new admirer, but when he wakes up his mom and Peggoty are having a big fight. Peggoty says the new man is bad news and Mr. Copperfield would never approve, while Davy's mom says Peggoty is being unfair and heartless. When all she does is sacrifice for Davy, doesn't she deserve some attention and excitement?! All three of them end up crying, and things are never quite the same between the trio again.
Davy's mom continues to see this man, Mr. Murdstone, who rides up one day and invites Davy to take a little trip with him to see a yacht. Peggoty gets him ready in a huff, and you can just tell this is the Victorian era version of riding on the irresponsible boyfriend's motorcycle without a helmet. Davy gets to meet some friends of Mr. Murdstone and watch them do a bunch of paperwork on the yacht. They also make fun of him, comment on how hot his mom is, and make him drink brandy. Since Davy is a little kid, he thinks they're having a grand time. When he later tells his mom they complimented her looks, she is quite thrilled. And then a few months later, Peggoty invites Davy to go with her to visit her brother for a fortnight. She talks up the trip so Davy will be excited, but it's clear she's worried. Davy wonders how his mom will fare all alone, but Peggoty assures him she will stay with a neighbor. (Lies!) Mr. Murdstone is there to see them off and he has … opinions … about how emotional Davy's mom is during the goodbyes. I'm with Davy when he wonders why it's any of this guy's business in the first place. In retrospect, Davy reflects that he wishes he had known he was leaving something behind forever and he is glad that he and his mom had a touching moment full of love as his carriage pulled away.
Chapter 3 - I Have a Change: Davy endures a very boring journey across flat countryside towards the sea to get to Peggoty’s family in Yarmouth. When Davy complains, Peggoty defends her hometown, as a proud Yarmouth Bloater. (Here's some bonus reading: a Victorian-era article about bloaters.) Davy is won over when they reach the busy fishing town and he gets to see the Peggoty home: it is a boat that has been converted for living, and he thinks it is pretty perfect. It turns out to be a full house due to the generous nature of Mr. Peggoty (original Peggoty's brother). Just don't mention said generosity because it makes him super mad. Mr. Peggoty has taken in the orphaned children - Ham and Em'ly - of his drowned brothers, as well as Mrs. Gummidge, the widow of his fishing partner. Davy's fortnight with the Peggotys is full of happiness. He explores the seashore with Em'ly and falls in love with her. They bond over never knowing their dads, although Em'ly wishes she were a lady in the same class as Davy. Davy reflects that given what he knows of her future life, it might've been better if Em'ly drowned that day by the sea. Dark! Mrs. Gummidge often has melancholy moods where she cries all day and declares she has it worse than everyone else, but the family kindly chalks it up to mourning for her husband and assures her they don't want her to go off to the poorhouse and die.
As the visit draws to a close, Davy realizes he has quite forgotten to miss his home and becomes eager to see his mother and Blunderstone Rookery. Yet when they arrive, Peggoty pulls him into the kitchen nervously. She really botches the delivery of her big news because Davy first thinks his mother may have died and then, when she tells him he has a dad, imagines Mr. Copperfield may have risen from the dead. But she brings him to the parlor to greet his new step-dad: it's Mr. Murdstone, of course. Mr. Murdstone proves himself to be a real downer, kicking things off by correcting Davy's mom (who we discover is named Clara) for jumping up too enthusiastically at her son’s arrival. Davy sneaks away to find that his house has completely changed and the yard has acquired a mean, black dog that snaps at him.
Chapter 4 - I Fall Into Disgrace: Davy has fallen asleep crying after the discovery of his mother’s marriage, and when Clara and Peggoty wake him, his mom blames both Peggoty and Davy for his despair. Mr. Murdstone comes up and dismisses them both so he can be alone with Davy. He explains that if he had a stubborn animal, he’d beat it until it obeyed, strongly implying that Davy had better change his attitude or else. Things get pretty grim for Davy after this. He is kept isolated from both his family and neighborhood children. Mr. Murdstone’s sister, Jane, comes to live with them and immediately takes over Blunderstone. Clara is given no say in household matters: even the keys are kept by Miss Murdstone and, when Clara protests and weeps at being pushed aside, the Murdstones manipulate her into apologies and submission. When the family goes to church, Peggoty is no longer invited and the Murdstones keep Davy and his mother apart; Davy also notices that the family seems to be the subject of much whispering and staring from the community.
Davy’s days are miserable. He is often locked up alone in his room, where he loses himself in his father’s old stash of novels and uses this escape as a survival mechanism. (This collection of novels was taken straight from Dickens’ own childhood, according to his biographer John Forster.) When allowed out of his room, Davy endures lengthy, difficult lessons in the parlor. He suspects the lessons are meant as much to teach his mom the Murdstone tradition of firmness tyranny as they are to educate him. No matter how hard Davy tries, he cannot seem to remember the lessons under such severe supervision. Davy is belittled as stupid for his mistakes and boxed on the ears with his books by Mr. Murdstone. When Clara tries to help Davy at one point, Miss Murdstone catches her, and both Clara and Davy are in a good deal of trouble. Clara is chastised, Davy is removed from the room, and the next day’s lessons are overseen by Mr. Murdstone with a cane and switches. This goes about as well as you would imagine: in his terror, Davy makes more mistakes than ever and is dragged from the room by Mr. Murdstone. To her credit, Clara does protest and try to run after them (unsuccessfully). Mr. Murdstone wields his cane and switches, but Davy bites his hand in an attempt to wriggle away. He then beats Davy severely and leaves him locked in his room for five days. During his imprisonment, Davy sees only Miss Murdstone who brings him meager meals and allows him short walks in the garden each morning and family prayers in the evening, before locking him away again. At the end of this punishment, which feels like years to Davy, Peggoty sneaks to his room to whisper through the keyhole that he will be sent to boarding school in the morning. She tells him his mother isn’t very angry with him, only disappointed, and begs him to remember her and her love for him. She promises to look after Clara and they both vow to write to each other. Davy asks to be remembered to Em’ly and the other Peggotys.
The next morning, his mother expresses her disappointment in his behavior and her hope that boarding school will reform him; Davy seems to realize she has been coached to believe the worst of him. He chokes down a little breakfast before his coach arrives, and Clara steals one unsupervised moment with him to say goodbye affectionately. Then, they are parted, and Davy is on his way to boarding school. It’ll surely be a harmonious and supportive learning environment. Right? Right?!?
Chapter Five - I Am Sent Away From Home: Mr. Barkis, the carrier driving Davy on the first leg of his journey to school, pulls over not too far away from the house. Who should appear out of the bushes but Peggoty! She silently hugs Davy until she pops some buttons of her dress (one of which Davy keeps), hands him some cakes, and slips him a note from his mother that includes two half-crowns. Davy shares a pastry with Mr. Barkis, who asks a lot of questions about Peggoty’s relationship status and cooking skills. He asks Davy to write Mr. Barkis is willin’ in one of his letters to Peggoty, which Davy does at the next stop. As he waits in Yarmouth for the stagecoach to London, Davy eats lunch at a hotel restaurant where he is grifted by the waiter. This unscrupulous man tricks Davy into giving him his ale, most of his food, and some of his money. The rumor goes around that Davy has the appetite of a boa constrictor, making him too nervous to eat at the next stop for supper. Wedged between two men and with a woman’s luggage stuffed underneath him, Davy spends an uncomfortable night in the stagecoach as it approaches London. He finds it strange the next morning, after all the snoring and moaning he witnessed, that the adults insist they were unable to sleep a wink!
Upon arriving at the station in London, there is no one to collect him. Waiting in the office, Davy begins to worry that he will be turned out of the station at night, run out of money and starve, get lost walking home, or have to offer himself as a soldier or sailor (though he knows he is too small for that). Finally, a rather scrawny man - who Davy assumes is the Master of Salem House School - arrives and takes Davy the rest of the way. Weak from lack of food and sleep, Davy begs to stop so he can buy breakfast, and the man takes him to the home of a poor woman (presumably his mother) to cook the provisions they purchase. The man plays the flute very badly as Davy begins to eat, but soon Davy has fallen asleep. He wakes to hear comments of “delicious” which he assumes refers to the man’s music, but I bet indicates they were eating Davy’s breakfast. They continue on to Salem House, where a man with a wooden leg lets them in and throws old boots at Davy’s escort, who turns out to be Mr. Mell, an employee of Mr. Creakle, the school proprietor. Salem House is dilapidated, dirty, and deserted. Davy wonders where everyone is and Mr. Mell informs him that Davy has been sent to school during the holidays as punishment. Another punishment: Davy must wear a sign on his back identifying him as a biter, which makes him increasingly paranoid that someone is always behind him reading it. (Probably not.) He also worries that the students, whose names he can read carved in the doorpost, will all make fun of him for it when they return. (Probably true!) Mr. Mell, an odd man with various ticks, doesn’t pay much attention to Davy, but neither is he mean. We get another ominous reference to the future in that Davy says he dreads the return of boys like J. Steerforth and the presence of “the awful Mr. Creakle”.

I'm gonna be real: I hated this. There were interesting concepts, and had they been utilized differently and written by literally anyone else, it could've been an actual good book.
writing. The writing in The Deer and the Dragon is miles better than in The Night and its Moon. It's still not good, but it's better if that tells you anything. The first-person POV mixed with modern-day speak works so much better for Piper's capabilities. It was much easier to get through, but it was still a huge slog for me. Honestly, what are the editors at Bloom even doing? There were still way too many typos and sentences with missing words. Piper still misuses the word dredges after using it in THREE(+?) BOOKS. HOW DO YOU STILL NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DREDGES AND DREGS? Dregs are the sediment of a liquid, so what's at the bottom of your coffee cup. Dredge is when they scoop up mud from the bottom of a river. TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS. The word broach is also misused in this book TWELVE times, and it's PART OF THE CENTRAL PLOT OF THE BOOK. You mean to use BROOCH, PIPER. They're pronounced the same, but they mean two different things. Again, what the hell are the editors at Bloom doing?
characters Really, the only character I can talk about is Marlow because this book is just about Marlow and how amazing, special, perfect, and genius Marlow is. I fucking hate Marlow. If I ever met Marlow in real life, I would beat her up. Marlow is the most unlikable person ever. The story opens up with her on a date with a guy she's not interested in and can't remember his name; when she gets it wrong, and he corrects her, she continues to call him the wrong name all the way to the end of the book. She mentally berates him for mixing wasabi and soy sauce and cannot let it go. She’s also an AWFUL friend. It seems like her friend's only real purpose is to support her and tell her how amazing she is. She never bothers to make plans with them or inform them about anything that’s happening in her life. When she goes missing for a good chunk of the book, and they're blowing up her phone worried about her, she doesn't even bother to call them to calm them down. She doesn't think about them at all. She's far more concerned with herself and finding her imaginary boyfriend, who she only just decided was real. Her editor tells her she's at risk of losing her job if Marlow doesn't deliver her work or update her on what's happening, and Marlow just...doesn't care. She's like, 'No excuse I can give will be enough, so I'm just not going to say anything at all because I'm afraid of confrontation'. Grow the fuck up?? Her friend Nia only became her friend because she obsessively messaged her on social media until Marlow 'gave in', and now they're family? Somehow? Yet Marlow doesn't think about Nia once or bothers to comfort her when Nia has to call Marlow's abusive mom to ensure Marlow isn't dead. Kirby has allegedly been Marlow's friend since childhood, but does Kirby know anything about Caliban at all? Does Nia? Does Marlow tell her friends anything? If they know about the abuse her mom put her through, do they know how that abuse started? When Fauna shows up and freaks out over liking Kirby’s name so much, Marlow takes it upon herself to tell Fauna the story of Kirby’s name, scornfully informing Fauna that Kirby isn’t their real name the second Fauna expresses interest in it. (Like what, are you jealous that Fauna likes Kirby’s name, you fucking insecure freak??) The story revolves solely around something traumatic that happened to Marlow and how she and Kirby sat and played Super Smash Bros. Kirby liked their character so much that they adopted the name. Which…okay, choosing the name because you liked a video game character, okay, fine. But the whole story preceding this was so unnecessary and just made Marlow come off as suuuuch a whiny baby. “Oh, you want to know about my friend’s name? Well, first, let me preface it with this long woe-is-me story all about ME before I tell you how they chose their name because basically everything revolves around me.”
The way Marlow talks about rejection is so juvenile. You're in your thirties girls, get over it. Life is full of rejections. Someone telling you they didn't to play with you when you were eight years old isn't something you should form your whole life around. Like Marlow doesn't want kids because she doesn't want them to face rejection. Oh my god, Marlow. I also can't empathize with her trauma with her mom at all because I feel like I didn't really see much of it. I'm sure some of the things she says might hit with other people, but I wanted an actual flashback of a super intense fight or conversation instead of an overview of what happened.
plot. It took a while to get to the actual plot. About 100 pages in before things start really happening. I would’ve liked a little more exposition on Marlow’s relationship with Caliban at the beginning of the book. I get that some of the reveals needed to come more towards the end, but I kind of wish that maybe the fox had spoken to Marlow, too, which would’ve helped with why she’s so sure she’s insane. Foxes don’t talk! In all honesty, I wish this story had been restructured entirely. I think it would've been substantially better if we'd started out in Marlow's childhood. We can see how her day to day life was before Caliban ever appeared, how things were with her mom, who can also see through the veil. Maybe she notices some strange things about her mom that she just brushes off, which she later sees in herself and understands why her mom responded that way. Then something actually traumatic happens instead of some little kids not letting Marlow play with them, instigating her starting to see Caliban. I also would've liked to see flashbacks to Marlow's previous lives. While she's busy trying to convince herself Caliban isn't real, those flashbacks would add to her thinking she's losing her grip on reality. Maybe she'll be doing something innocent, like washing the dishes, and then suddenly, she sees herself standing in the middle of a raging battle, wearing long, elaborate robes. Do you see what I'm saying? This could've been cool! Instead, I had to read about Marlow jerking off about herself for 600 pages.
At some point, Caliban shows up to Marlow looking like a human. She's a teenager at this point, but they eventually start sleeping together, and like...idk something about that feels icky to me. It feels like grooming. Because he's clearly thousands of years old, he probably stays the same age while she's a teenager. What age did he wait for her to turn before their relationship turned sexual? Also, she doesn't even think he's real, and he does nothing to convince her that he is. Yeah....just no thanks. I'm good. Marlow tells Caliban when she's 21, she doesn’t want to see him anymore, so she literally physically cannot see him, but she can hear and feel him, and he still shows up, and like they keep having sex. So she’s just having sex with her imaginary demon friend for like five years before she’s finally like, all right, this is weird; maybe we should stop. And then she immediately regrets that when he stops showing up and then the rest of the book finally happens.
We also get flashbacks to when Marlow first starts escorting, and tbh, I hated this depiction of sex work. I keep hoping since Piper claims to be an advocate for sex work and is a former SWer that, we might get some actual depth to this plot. Maybe learn how Marlow was able to mold herself into the person she needed to be for each client, how she’s able to play people, etc. But no. She meets some random girl in a foreign country where she’s teaching English to children, and the girl is like, OMG, you’re too pretty to BE A TEACHER. COME HANG OUT ON MY YACHT. Now, I’m going to be so real. I feel like any woman with a speck of intelligence in their brain would have red flags going off right about now. If a random woman I met in a foreign country invited me to her yacht five minutes after meeting me, I’d immediately assume this woman was about to try and murder me or kidnap me or traffick me or something. But not Marlow. She is like fuck it, why not. She flies on over to wherever this yacht is(literally, she has to get on a plane and fly there) and makes some new besties who introduce her to the wonderfully glamorous non-dangerous life of escorting, where they hand her clients and set up the appointments for her and blah blah blah(also, wanna point out that Marlow even tries to say that she built this sex work empire herself. bitch no you didn't. it was all handed to you). I don’t feel like I really need to go further about why this is a really poor, dangerous rose-colored glasses-type depiction of sex work. It’s just not the reality.
Flash forward five years later, and Marlow is now a top-selling author writing about South African folklore as a white woman, trying to date other men, still having sex with her imaginary friend, calling her nonbinary friend a horse girl, the usual. Her escort pals are nowhere to be seen, and we have no clue what happened to them. We never hear from them again; they just vanish once Marlow gets what she wants from them, just like Nia and Kirby vanish once Marlow finds Fauna and Azrames. One day, Marlow’s at a book signing and sees the ONE bad client she had(because in all the years/months fucking strange men you meet in a foreign country, only one time does it go bad. okay, sure) He somehow finds where she lives, breaks into her home, and tries to murder her. An angel shows up and murders him instead, and then Caliban finally reveals his face and explains to Marlow that he has marked everyone who’s ever wronged her. (Wronged her in what way, tho. Like if someone accidentally shoulder-checked her on the street, are they now marked for death?) I thought it was kind of weird that she’s not like…focused on the fact that her hallucinations have extended to two people and another person dying. She’s still convinced Caliban is a figment of her imagination even after she sees this happen, and Caliban explains to her that he couldn’t save her because there’s some type of contract with her that forbids him from doing anything under her roof without her permission. But she still gets mad and banishes him, and now he can’t come back, and now she’s like, but wait, no, I didn’t mean it. Thus begins the search for Caliban.
Now, I could sit here and outline the rest of the book, but I won't because it's so boring, and nothing of substance really happens. So, to summarize. Marlow searches for Caliban fruitlessly for months and finally makes some progress when she decides to go to the house of the guy who tried to kill her and finds a parasitic entity that she continuously calls a Cheshire Cat. then Silas, the angel, shows up to save her again. Silas maybe wants to fuck Marlow, I can't tell. He waffles between abandoning Marlow to die and stalking her and her mom to force Marlow to bond with him for no seeming reason at all. Everyone and their mom wants Marlow to join their religion, and I don't know what the fuck makes her so special. Marlow is such a popular author that everyone recognizes her name, reveres her, fawns over her, and has multiple copies of her two books in their offices. She's so good that she inspired millions to switch religions. This book was so exhausting to read because it was just about how amazing Marlow is LMFAO. I'm pretty sure they even try to say she's the reincarnation of Helen of Troy, the most beautiful woman in the world. Like....wow.
Marlow goes to Hell with Fauna to escape bonding with Silas, where they meet a literal stolen character design. this guy
(my original review has these images but I am an idiot and don't know how to post them so instead I'll share the links)
https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1717860981i/35597445._SY540_.jpg
Don't believe me? here's the commissioned character art.
https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1717860929i/35597423._SY540_.jpg
Anyway, his name is Azrames and he and Fauna are long time lovers and they go and bone while Marlow is in the next room and Marlow fucking masturbates to the sounds of them boning. So...I was forced to read about that, and I hated it. And then, at the end of the book, five chapters before it's over, we learn the bad guy who's been holding Caliban captive the entire time is a fertility goddess. Just out of nowhere. No mention of it previously. So, no one tells Marlow the actual plan, and instead, they send her into this fertility clinic the goddess is working out of and have her pretend to want to get pregnant. So the goddess drugs her without her consent and puts her in a room full of half-naked men, hot stereotypes from every ethnicity, while she's SUPER horny. One of the doctors tells her that 'mixed babies are all the rage right now'. The men all tell her how hot and amazing she is and how lucky they are for the chance to get to fuck her. Then after she chooses one of them, she grinds all over him while he just stands there, then they take him out and bring Caliban in and decide he'll fuck her instead. I just wanna point out that this, all of this, would be rape. Marlow didn't consent to being drugged, and if she didn't know who Caliban was, they basically just took the guy she "agreed" to have sex with away and brought in one she didn't agree to for no reason whatsoever. It doesn't matter that she's saying yes to it; she is drugged. She can't consent. Anyway, Caliban sticks his dick in Marlow and just leaves it there, unmoving, and then makes out with the fertility goddess before stabbing her in the heart and cutting off her head, even though five chapters earlier, they said it's super hard to kill a god. I'm just...wow.
Marlow gets taken back to Fauna's apartment by Silas while Caliban and Azrames are stuck fighting more Cheshire Cat demon children that I imagine look like the spider baby from Toy Story. Marlow is still high, so she's putting the moves on Fauna. She's kissing her throat, rubbing her thigh, trying to suck on her fingers. Let me tell you rn, if one of my friends showed up at my place high af doing this shit to me, I'd be livid. Because I guarantee you, Marlow will not apologize for doing any of this to Fauna.
Fauna tells Marlow that they can be sunflowers. The book ends.
I will read the next one because I like to suffer, but...I hated this. I give it 2 stars because the writing is better than TNAIM, but it was not a hit for me at all.

Since 2016, i search and colected many unproduced Marvel movie Screenplays, especialy a Marvel movie ones. some of them should be filmed, some of them deserved to be shredded. here are my collection. (Check my comment or check my profile)
Amazing Spiderman (2002) by David Koepp
Ant Man (1988) by Neal Ruttenberg
Black Widow (2005) by David Hayter
Captain America (1985) by Michael Winner
Daredevil (1995) by Chris Columbus
Daredevil: Blind Justice (1998) by Terrence J Brady
Dr. strange (1990) by Alex Cox
Dr Strange (2010) by Donelly and Joshua Oppenheimer
Dr. strange (1986) by Bob Gale
Dr. Strange (1997) by Jeff Welsch
Fantastic Four (1992) by Greg Jevius
Gambit (2015) by Joshua Zetumer
Ghost Rider (2001) by David S. Goyer
Hulk (1994) by John Turman
Hulk (1997) by Jonathan Hensleigh
Hulk (2000) by David Hayter
Iron Fist (2001) John Turman
Iron Man (1997) by Jeff Vintar
Iron Man (2004) by David Hayter
Luke Cage (2003) by Ben Ramsey
Magneto Origins (2004) by Michael Turner
Namor The Submariner (2004) by David Self
Nick Fury - Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (1980s) G.J. Pruss
Punisher 2 (2005) by Jonathan Hensleigh
Silver and Black (2017) by Christopher Yost
Silver Surfer (1995) by John Turman
Silver Surfer (2000) by Andrew Kevin Walker
Spider-Man - The First Adventure (1989] by Scott Leva & Steve Webb
Spider-man (1999) by David Koepp (based on James Cameron treatment)
Spiderman (1993) by Barry Cohen, Ted Newson and James Cameron
Spiderman (1987) by Goldman and Puyn
The Wolverine (2009) by Christopher McQuarrie
Thor (2007) Mark Protosevich
Venom (1997) by David S Goyer
Wolverine and the X-Men (1991) by Gary Goldman
Wolverine and the X-Men (1995) by Laeta Kalogridis
X-men (1994) by Andrew Kevin Walker
X-men (1995) by Andrew Kevin Walker
X-men Fear The Beast (2016) by Byron Burton

Hi fellow Space Men and Women and Things,
I was wondering, in the Description of the Gilroy Gimbal it states "allows movement for S4 Weapons" however Erkul and cstone list it only compatible for S3 Weapons. I attached S3s without even the thought of using S4.
At least Erkul also states the Varipuck S4s would fit, which they really don't in Game.
So... is it possible to attach S4s to the Gilroy Gimbal? Will that ever be possible?
And bonus: Would you go for 1 S4s oder rather 2 S2s
I'm trying to build a cheap little Fighter with decent Cargo Space to at least pack a few Things. Is the Reliant Kore the right Choice for that?

Hi all. I’m of average height (5 feet 8) and wife is 5 feet 1. Both South Asian so this is considered normal in our community. We got some ultrasound in wife’s third trimester and it shows that all long bones are short and it’s quite possible the child will have some form of skeletal dysplasia, but likely a mild one. We are awaiting genetic test results but I’m preparing for the worst.
While all humans deserve love and respect, I do understand that those who are disadvantaged with dwarfism have life tough. I have some questions to ask, respectfully: 1. What have you seen to be average heights of men and women who have hypochondroplasia ?

1. Do growth harmones work?
   
2. Anyone here who has had limb lengthening surgeries ? Would you do it if you had the chance ? We will have the budget for it but don’t know the nuances.
   
3. What are some recurring health issues, does this condition make the child have special needs or it’s just a limited physical growth. Are there some parents who can’t handle it ?
   

We are first time parents, I was due to leave my job and start a business. And I wanted my wife and child to be tension free. Im wondering if this even possible now. I mean no disrespect to the community, just trying to be objective, so please say it as it is in your message.

Hey y'all. I did some back of the napkin math and the result was a bit jarring. I was hoping you good people could help me figure out the flaw in my math, if any. I came to the conclusion that on average, every breath each one of us takes has 3,500,000,000 more CO2 molecules than the breath before it. Not all humans put together. One human, taking a breath every 5 seconds.

• There are 6.023 * 10^23 molecules of gas / 22.4 liters of volume at STP
• The average volume of gas per breath is .45 liters
• Therefore, each breath contains on average 1.21 * 10^22 molecules of gas
• Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1980 = 339 ppm
• Therefore, CO2 per 1980 breath = 4.10 * 10^18 molecules CO2 / 1980 breath
• Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2023 = 419 ppm
• Therefore, CO2 per 2023 breath = 5.07 * 10^18 molecules CO2 / 2023 breath
• Difference in CO2 of a 2023 breath and a 1980 breath = 9.68 * 10^17 molecules CO2 / breath
• Therefore, annual change in CO2 in 1 breath over 43 years = 2.25 * 10^16 molecules CO2 / year
• We breathe 12 times per minute, or 6.3 million times per year
• Thus, the average difference of CO2 molecules per breath is 3.57 * 10^9 molecules CO2 / breath

This comes out to about 3.5 billion additional molecules of CO2 occupying every single new breath we take on average. Not 3.5 billion accumulated as an entire species over a year or a day. 3.5 billion more CO2 molecules in the breath in your lungs right now than the one you took 5 seconds ago. If you took 12 minutes to check my math, there are on average a quarter of a trillion more CO2 molecules in your lungs right now than there were when you started reading.
I understand that the actual change would vary wildly from individual breath to breath depending on local circumstances. But on average, any given half liter of the atmosphere is gaining about 3.5 billion CO2 molecules per 5 seconds right? Again, this seems to me as jarring as my last paragraph would suggest, which makes me skeptical that I didn't make a calculation error somewhere. I understand that we're adding this shit to the atmosphere at an astonishing rate, but can the rate of change be this significant when measured on the scale of an average person's single breath? Smart people, can you set me straight here?

Hey y'all. I did some back of the napkin math and the result was a bit jarring. I was hoping you good people could help me figure out the flaw in my math, if any. I came to the conclusion that on average, every breath each one of us takes has 3,500,000,000 more CO2 molecules than the breath before it. Not all humans put together. One human, taking a breath every 5 seconds.

• There are 6.023 * 10^23 molecules of gas / 22.4 liters of volume at STP
• The average volume of gas per breath is .45 liters
• Therefore, each breath contains on average 1.21 * 10^22 molecules of gas
  
• Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1980 = 339 ppm
  
• Therefore, CO2 per 1980 breath = 4.10 * 10^18 molecules CO2 / 1980 breath
  
• Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2023 = 419 ppm
  
• Therefore, CO2 per 2023 breath = 5.07 * 10^18 molecules CO2 / 2023 breath
  
• Difference in CO2 of a 2023 breath and a 1980 breath = 9.68 * 10^17 molecules CO2 / breath
  
• Therefore, annual change in CO2 in 1 breath over 43 years = 2.25 * 10^16 molecules CO2 / year
  
• We breathe 12 times per minute, or 6.3 million times per year
  
• Thus, the average difference of CO2 molecules per breath is 3.57 * 10^9 molecules CO2 / breath
  

This comes out to about 3.5 billion additional molecules of CO2 occupying every single new breath we take on average. Not 3.5 billion accumulated as an entire species over a year or a day. 3.5 billion more CO2 molecules in the breath in your lungs right now than the one you took 5 seconds ago. If you took 12 minutes to check my math, there are on average a quarter of a trillion more CO2 molecules in your lungs right now than there were when you started reading.
I understand that the actual change would vary wildly from individual breath to breath depending on local circumstances. But on average, any given half liter of the atmosphere is gaining about 3.5 billion CO2 molecules per 5 seconds right? Again, this seems to me as jarring as my last paragraph would suggest, which makes me skeptical that I didn't make a calculation error somewhere. I understand that we're adding this shit to the atmosphere at an astonishing rate, but can the rate of change be this significant when measured on the scale of an average person's single breath? Smart people, can you set me straight here?

Hey y'all. I did some back of the napkin math and the result was a bit jarring. I was hoping you good people could help me figure out the flaw in my math, if any. I came to the conclusion that on average, every breath each one of us takes has 3,500,000,000 more CO2 molecules than the breath before it. Not all humans put together. One human, taking a breath every 5 seconds.

• There are 6.023 * 10^23 molecules of gas / 22.4 liters of volume at STP
• The average volume of gas per breath is .45 liters
• Therefore, each breath contains on average 1.21 * 10^22 molecules of gas
  
• Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 1980 = 339 ppm
  
• Therefore, CO2 per 1980 breath = 4.10 * 10^18 molecules CO2 / 1980 breath
  
• Atmospheric CO2 concentration in 2023 = 419 ppm
  
• Therefore, CO2 per 2023 breath = 5.07 * 10^18 molecules CO2 / 2023 breath
  
• Difference in CO2 of a 2023 breath and a 1980 breath = 9.68 * 10^17 molecules CO2 / breath
  
• Therefore, annual change in CO2 in 1 breath over 43 years = 2.25 * 10^16 molecules CO2 / year
  
• We breathe 12 times per minute, or 6.3 million times per year
  
• Thus, the average difference of CO2 molecules per breath is 3.57 * 10^9 molecules CO2 / breath
  

This comes out to about 3.5 billion additional molecules of CO2 occupying every single new breath we take on average. Not 3.5 billion accumulated as an entire species over a year or a day. 3.5 billion more CO2 molecules in the breath in your lungs right now than the one you took 5 seconds ago. If you took 12 minutes to check my math, there are on average a quarter of a trillion more CO2 molecules in your lungs right now than there were when you started reading.
I understand that the actual change would vary wildly from individual breath to breath depending on local circumstances. But on average, any given half liter of the atmosphere is gaining about 3.5 billion CO2 molecules per 5 seconds right? Again, this seems to me as jarring as my last paragraph would suggest, which makes me skeptical that I didn't make a calculation error somewhere. I understand that we're adding this shit to the atmosphere at an astonishing rate, but can the rate of change be this significant when measured on the scale of an average person's single breath? Smart people, can you set me straight here?

Half a year ago me(M20) and my ex(F20) broke up after a 3 year relationship on good terms. We are in the same friend group and have been seeing each other very often since then, there hasn't been more then 2 weeks in a row where I haven't seen her. Our friend group has a lot of exes so it isn't weird for anyone.
The thing is, I'm having a really hard time with jealousy and with feelings of distraught by the idea of her acting in certain ways and being with other men in general, which is a feeling I almost never had during the relationship. For example there was one party where she and another guy were hanging together throughout it, even the two of them going downstairs alone a few times. I felt awful and just couldn't enjoy myself, and am still not sure if she did that on purpose or not, she still acts like nothing weird happened and like we're completely cool but even since then and hearing she had some dates I've been having a really hard time just being around her.
I'm in this really annoying situation where most social events I go to there is a very good chance she'll be there, and then it's not just that I don't want to talk to any girls out of basic decency, I also am scared of her being with someone there as I know how bad I'm gonna feel.
It's a weird thing, because I know she is or was or will be with other men anyways, and I actually want her to go on and have a good life without me, but when I practically think about it, it drives me nuts.
Anything she says that remotely hints at her liking someone or thinking someone is hot or anything that doesn't keep me in the equation is really hard for me to deal with, and I've been constantly looking for things to help me deal with it.
I've been working out a lot, waking up early to play basketball, trying to find new friend groups, I was also with a different lady a few times but it wasn't really there and although I was very excited for a bit, after a few times I just knew it really wasn't there and I really wasn't there. No matter what I do I can't seem to just be able to hang out with her without getting annoyed, honestly I have a hard time just being in general because these scenarios of her with other men keep appearing in my head and all this snip bits of little things she says drives my imagination wild, and then I think how she probably knows what it does to me because we did talk about it once and we agreed to make an effort to not hint at anything sexual/relationshipwise but she didn't stop.
I'm sure it has something to do with my self esteem and I'm really trying to find some solution but I've been feeling very empty inside lately even though I'm the healthiest physically I've ever been.
Spiritually I really do believe in openess to sexuality and before this experience I was sure I would've been completely fine with an open relationship/ whatever unframed idea about relationships I would have liked, but with that experience, and probably because I haven't been as successfull with women as I thought I would be, I feel very weak against these built in perceptions about sexuality and relationships which I don't really agree with anyways.
I can keep going but I think I have detailed enough, what in your opinion would be the best course of action? Should I stop seeing my friends to not see her? Should I keep going as I have, improving myself and waiting for it to pass? Should I keep being nice to her even through the feelings I have?